Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

FWIW, I find the classical chess tournaments with the super GMs to be fairly interesting, if only because the focus of the games is more about the metagame than about the game itself.

The article linked at the bottom of the source is a WSJ piece about how Magnus beats the best players because of the "human element".

A lot about the games today are about opening preparation, where the goal is to out-prepare and surprise your opponent by studying opening lines and esoteric responses (somewhere computer play has drastically opened up new fields). Similarly, during the middle/end-games, the best players will try to force uncomfortable decisions on their opponents, knowing what positions their opponents tend to not prefer. For example, in the candidates game round 1, Fabiano took Hikari into a position that had very little in the way of aggressive counter-play, effectively taking away a big advantage that Hikaru would otherwise have had.

Watching these games feels somewhat akin to watching generals develop strategies trying to out maneuver their counterparts on the other side, taking into consideration their strengths and weaknesses as much as the tactics/deployment of troops/etc.



On the other hand, a game like Praggnanandhaa vs Vidit 2 days ago feels like Russian roulette.

https://www.chess.com/news/view/2024-fide-candidates-tournam...

Mistakes on both sides, including the side that presumably prepared this line with help from computers.


Have they considered metagaming like pirates fight in The Secret of Monkey Island (1)?

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a4HF3dIcuo




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: