The Chess Mind

While I'm as happy as anyone to see humanity continue the battle with chess software, I have for some time now grown weary of pronouncements that computers can't or won't find this or that move.

Sometimes, of course, it's true: to take one standard case, computers do have a tough time recognizing that certain blockades are airtight. But I think that if I had a quarter for every time I've heard a false claim about what chess software can't do, I'd be able to afford a trip to Europe this summer.

Enter tonight's issue of Chess Today (#1638). Junior Tay writes about the role and increasing strength of chess computers vis-a-vis correspondence chess, but then presents a game under the header "Exclusion Clause" (that is, this game is an [alleged] exception to the encroachment of chess software on correspondence chess), introducing the game as follows:

This is not to say that the human element in normal CC [DM: Correspondence Chess] has been quashed. I once wrote an article called "Umansky - the wave of the future" to pay tribute to the 13th [DM: correspondence] World Champion's enterprising style. It's almost incredible to believe that Shirovian-type chess can be played in CC today when computer engines have more or less mastered tactical calculations. Don't believe me? Watch this game:

Umansky,Mikhail (2524) - Weber,Daniel (2176) [E04]
AC-2003-S-00002 Chessfriend.com (1), 01.12.2004

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 dxc4 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.0-0 Rb8 7.Nc3 a6 8.e4 b5 9.d5 Nb4 10.b3 cxb3 11.Qxb3 c5 12.dxc6 Nxc6 13.Bf4 Rb7 14.Rad1 Nd7 15.Qc2 Na5



Tay writes the following: "Now Umansky comes up with a remarkable (intuitive!?) idea which I doubt computer programs can spit out."

It is a beautiful move, well-calculated and though reminiscent of other Nd5 sacs (as in the Sicilian, for instance), the position is sufficiently different that one cannot unthinkingly make the sacrifice based on the Sicilian analogy.

Despite its many virtues, however, inaccessibility to computer programs is not one of them. Shredder 9, running on my above average but not state of the art system, ranked the move in the middle of the pack through depth 15, by depth 16 (around 10-15 minutes in) put it into a tie for the second-best move, and by the 20-minute mark if not sooner, had it as a clear #1 choice at depth 17. At that point, once I let it go forward, it found all but two of Umansky's next 10 moves instantly, and those other two moves required 5-10 seconds to reach the top of the chart.

This doesn't diminish Umansky's achievement, but it does underscore Tay's worry elsewhere in the article, that correspondence chess is under severe pressure from computer users (sometimes cheaters, sometimes not - different correspondence events have different rules). To my mind, it's a shame that such a noble form of the game is being undermined in this way - I don't mind if the players all agree to use computers, but if player X wants a mano-a-mano battle but player Y surreptitiously "consults" with Mr. Chips, then that seems to me unfair.

Readers, thoughts?

16.Nd5!! exd5 17.exd5 Be7 18.Nd4! 0-0 19.Nc6 Nxc6 20.dxc6 Ra7 21.c7 Qe8 22.Rfe1 Nc5 23.Bd6 Bxd6 24.Rxe8 Rxe8 25.Bc6 Rf8 26.Rxd6




The smoke has cleared, the tactics are over, and all that's left is a technical task Umansky is more than able to solve.

Ne6 27.f4 Rxc7 28.Qd2 g6 29.g4 Ng7 30.Qa5 Ne8 31.Bxe8 Rc1+ 32.Kf2 Rxe8 33.Rd8 Rxd8 34.Qxd8+ Kg7 35.f5 Rc6 36.Qd4+ Kf8 37.Qh8+ Ke7 38.Qxh7 gxf5 39.g5 Rc2+ 40.Ke3 Rg2 41.h4 Be6 42.Qh8 a5 43.Qf6+ Kd7 44.h5 Rxa2 45.h6 Rh2 46.Qg7 Kd6 47.h7 Rh3+ 48.Kf4 Rh4+ 49.Kg3 Rxh7 50.Qxh7 b4 51.Qh8 Kd5 52.Qa8+ Kc4 53.g6 fxg6 54.Qc6+ Kd4 55.Qxe6 Kc5 56.Kf4 Kd4 57.Qd6+ Kc3 58.Ke3 1-0