The real question is not whether machines think, but whether men do.
B .F. SKINNER
Watching an analysis module like Fritz or Hiarcs wade through chess variations, it is striking just how much value they seem to place on material in their evaluative functions. More to the point, when we play these programs, we are invariably crushed viciously if we give away material. Computers take pawns we would barely think of taking and show us time and time again that there are far fewer limits to ma
terialistic thinking than we had thought. Thus we come to the conclusion that chess computer programs are more materialistic than humans.
Indeed, there are those who delight in 'tricking' the computer by giving them positions that we know they will misevaluate because they will give a disproportionate value to material.
Recently I was fortunate to have the chance to speak with GM Joel Benjamin about his time working with Deep(er) Blue for six months prior to its. victory against Kasparov in May 1997. Benjamin was keen to stress that there are fewer limitations on chess computer pro
grams than we might imagine and he also dis
pelled a lot of disinformation wielded out as propaganda against the IBM team. In the fol
lowing I will use Deep( er) Blue as the paradigm chess computer, even though it is in fact rather exceptional. Some commercial PC software makers think their evaluative functions are better than Deep(er) Blue's and that the main strength of the computer that beat Kasparov was that it was excellent at meeting anti
computer chess, largely because Joel Benjamin worked on it for so long, and he may be the best anti-computer player on the planet! In any case, different chess programs don't always ' think' alike, but the basic process of using an eval
uative function to select moves is, I think, com
mon to them all.
The key insight is that the way a computer thinks tends to be much more 'holistic' than we might imagine. So there is no notion of 'priori
ties' that would make a computer 'decide' to re
treat a bishop attacked on g4 after h3 instead of capturing the knight that it was pinning. It's not a single question for the computer at all. When it makes that decision, the computer looks at every aspect of the given position, 'sees' mil
lions of variations and then 'goes with the num
bers' in that it will select the move which leads to positions with a relatively high point score.
So it is not that computers are taught to favour bishops over knights or anything of the sort (al
though some programs give it a slightly higher static score, maybe by 0. 1 ). The computer will consider the decision, not on priorities but on prospective numerical outcomes.
The relevance to this chapter is that in 'going with the numbers' , the computer doesn't just go with material . Unlike humans, computers have numerical values for non-material con
siderations too. There is no 'preference' for material over other factors and the computer, of course, doesn't even consider 'material' in ab
stract at all. What is true is that in most evaluative functions the programmers give high numbers for material and relatively low num
bers for factors like pawn-structure, mobility, king safety, etc. Furthermore, in most programs the pieces will have fixed values. Say a knight is worth 300. This will be part of a total score of maybe 1 500 in which positional considerations are also assigned values and included in this to
tal. Now if this knight were badly placed, the computer doesn't give fewer points to the knight itself, but will give a 'penalty' to the side which might bring the total down to 1 450 or a 'bonus' if it's well placed, in which case the to
tal may be 1 530.
The value in considering this is that it seems computers are, in one sense, quite 'blessed' not to see chess from a materialistic perspective. In having only numbers to compare, they are not blinkered by material judgements. Unlike our
selves they don't look at material 'first' and then look at other factors when they evaluate, rather they consider all the different aspects in a position, such as material, mobility of material, king safety, pawn-structure, two bishops, queen
ing potential, etc., simultaneously.
This is one of the reasons why they seem to 'see' tactics so much faster than us; they don't have to 'pause' to count the material as the vast majority of human players do and then get their bearings about the other aspects of the position.
Thus it is not only fairly meaningless to call computers 'materialistic' , it is also somewhat hypocritical. So at the risk of being provoca
tive, I would say that human players are more prone to Materialism than computers, be
cause computers 'think' exclusively with numbers, while humans artificially divide
their thoughts into numerical and non
numerical aspects.
A few days before sending off the manu
script, Dave Gomboc, from Edmonton, Can
ada, an expert on chess computer evaluative functions, whom I had asked to check over this section, advised: "This isn' t strictly true - often a program will look at material, and maybe one or two of the biggest positional terms, and de
cide 'is it at all likely that even if everything else is my way, that this position will be better than what I've already found I can achieve?' And sometimes the answer is no. It's just like if you calculate from a position that is dynami
cally balanced, and you look at a line where you end up a queen down ... you go 'Is it realistic that I could have compensation for that?' and if the answer is no, you reject that continuation and look elsewhere. The main difference with computers is that they look at terrible lines all the time, because they look at so many in total, so it is actually effective to have this test pres
ent." This is an important caveat that slightly undermines my argument. Even so, the main point, that computers 'go with the numbers' and that these numbers do not exclusively con
cern material, still stands.
I will point out, as far as I understand it, how computers differ from humans in their evalua
tion of material in the last few games of this chapter but first of all I present a game which reveals some of the many original ways in which Garry Kasparov looks at material and I will compare this to a computer's perspective where the comparison seems useful. Notes are based on Kasparov's in New In Chess magazine no. 3, 1997 and his notes in lnformntor 69.
Shirov - Kaspa rov Linares 1997
1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 tLlf6 5 tLlc3 a6 6 i.e3 tLlg4 7 i.g5 h6 8 i.h4 g5 9 i.g3 i.g7 10 i.e2 h5 1 1 i.xg4 i.xg4 12 f3 i.d7 13 0-0
�6 14 i.f2 e6! 15 tLlce2
"I immediately felt this move was not very good, as it creates a certain disharmony among the white pieces. I found a nice way to prove my assessment." - GK. 15 tLlxc6 i.xc6 16 i.d4 i.e5 ! =.
15 ... tLle5 16 b3 g41 17 f4 h4! 18 i.e3
1 8 c4 g3 1 9 hxg3 tLlg4 gives Black a strong attack against an unprepared king.
18 .. . h3 19 g3 tLlc6 (D)
w
"The future imponance of the long diagonal (a8-h l ) is not yet clear, but from my experience I can guarantee that the white king is poten
tially in a much worse position than his black colleague. Any further opening of the long di
agonal or the appearance of the queen on the second rank will create a deadly threat on g2. In fact, the pawn on h3 can be seen as a material advantage for Black, because it is so impor·
tant that you could value it as a whole piece.
It not only helps the queen to create mating threats, but in most endgames, this pawn will also guarantee Black a winning edge because of the threats that Black can create against the h2-pawn, when the black h-pawn is very close to the promotion square." - GK.
This is a remarkably instructive comment from a very human perspective (though of course he's exaggerating a bit). GM Joel Ben
jamin tells me that Deep(er) Blue did have a 'pattern' to recognize this type of far-advanced rook's pawn, but I'm quite sure that its numeri
cal value would not have been anywhere near the equivalent of a piece ! Moreover, Dave Gomboc funher advises me that, while he can't speak from first-hand knowledge of Deep Blue's evaluation function, strong programs would indeed assess this kingside structure as favourable for Black. However, it wouldn't be in the form of pattern-recognition that humans are familiar with. Instead, "The computer would deduct points for White's poor king safety and the colour complex weakness: White's pawns
are far from the 'f2-g2-h2 in front of a king on g l ' idea [ 'the box ' ! - see page 175 ] ; worse Black has a solid grip on g2 and f3, and g2 is adjacent to White's king. To compound the problem further, White doesn' t even have a light-squared bishop to try to limit the damage with. Still, depending on the program, the pen
alty terms may only kick into high gear when the program can see Black beginning to exploit these factors within its search horizon, by which time it may well be too late for the pro
gram to do anything about it."
I suspect Kasparov 's understanding of the value of this structure is largely based on mem
ory, which of course computers also have, but their memories have no emotional content. It is quite likely that Kasparov has seen or played many games in which this type of structure left a favourable or unfavourable impression, in
ducing feelings of confidence or fear. More
over, a human feels uncomfortable with the feeling that this pawn (on h3) will always be an issue, while a computer sees the pawn in the same way in every position. Kasparov also knows how psychologically unpleasant this is for White in general, as is revealed by the emo
tive term 'alien', which he later uses to describe the pawn on h3.
20 'iid3 0-0 21 lladl fS! (D)
w
22 c4
22 llJxc6 i.xc6 23 exf5 (23 'iixd6 'iixd6 24 llxd6 i.xe4 25 c4 e5 "immediately, to avoid the exchange of dark-squared bishops" is slightly better for Black according to Kasparov; note the value Kasparov places on the two bishops) 23 ... exf5 24 i.d4 i.e4 25 'iid2 d5 was given by
Kasparov as slightly better for Black. Many players would see the IQP, the 'bad bishop' on e4, and the 'weaknesses' around Black' s king, but it' s important to get these things in perspec
tive. The main feature of the position is still the long-term weakness of the white king and Black's 'material advantage' in the kingside structure. It is conceivable that White's queen
side may become weak too (queen coming to a3, advance of a-pawn, half-open c-file). It will be extremely hard to attack or win d5 because of the monster bishop on e4 and so there is really nothing 'weak' about this pawn, Indeed, the structure is basically good news for Black due to the extra space and the half-open c-file.
22 .. .'ii'a5 (D)
Commenting on the position after 22 c4, Kasparov gives an excellent insight into his re
sistance to Perfectionism: "After the text Black has to make some further choices. I felt that I had to play quickly and went 22 ... 'iia5." This move makes a lot of sense: it attacks a2 and connects the rooks if nothing else. However, his notes in lnformator 69 mention 22 ... 'iie8 !? with
out comment, which is also a very tempting move, heading for f7 or g6, where the queen will secure the kingside and operate on light squares - White's more vulnerable complex.
This would also have avoided Shirov's equaliz
ing opportunity that he didn't play in the game (23 'iid2). What I find instructive is that it seems Kasparov felt thinking was not appropriate here.
He just made a choice on intuitive grounds and put the ball back in his opponent's court. Read
ing between the lines, it seems that the fact that Shirov had no time to compose himself for what might happen next was more important than being completely accurate on the chess
board.
23 liJc3?
Kasparov calls this a very bad mistake, partly because the knight is "indirectly hang
ing" (due to the aS-queen and g7-bishop) and also because it fails to take the opponunity to exchange queens. The black queen has more prospects to cause White problems than vice versa and this, according to Kasparov, is be
cause " ... the white king has a strong alien in his camp, i.e. the h3-pawn. White has to be very careful as the first check to his king may very well be the last one." This last line is rather
poetic, but many players might be surprised that Kasparov seems so unconcerned with his own king. The fact is, however, that it is per
fectly safe, as White cannot create any serious threats around it. So the 'rule' that you shouldn't move pawns in front of your king needn' t dom
inate your thoughts. The key is not to think of the rule, but to shake yourself out of your pre
conceptions and just look at the position.
White should have played 23 "ii"d2 ! . "Sur
prisingly, Shirov did not even look at this move.
He probably did not want to exchange queens;
but this exchange would have given him a nor
mal game." Remember what I said about at
tachment to the queen? It seems that even the great Shirov is not immune. 23 ... "ii"xd2 24 ll.xd2 l:f7 and now:
a) After 25 llfd l i.f8 26 lLlc3 lle8 27 exf5 cxf5 28 lLld5 i.g7 I prefer Black, and Kasparov points out that the two bishops and advanced kingside structure make up for the weaknesses on the d-file.
b) 25 lLlxc6 i.xc6 26 ll.xd6 i.xe4. ''The pawn on e6 is hardly hanging, because after 27 l:xe6 Ad8 Black occupies the d-file and can face the future with great optimism." - Kaspa
rov. 27 i.d4 is met by 27 . . . i.f8 ! , as avoiding the loss of the two bishops is more important than keeping the e6-pawn. This again shows a profound understanding of material. 28 llxe6 l:d8 gives Black at least 'good compensation' for the material, and it would certainly be easier lo play Black. It's also worth mentioning that Deeper Blue didn't assign any higher value to bishop than knight, but it did give bonus points for the two bishops. We will consider this in more detail when we look at the bishop.
23 ... llae8
The rest of the game is rather thematic, though not without a few errors from both sides.
In any case it has been annotated elsewhere and there's just space for the moves now because this game has been milked for more than enough material.
24 llfe1? eS! 25 ll:lxc6 i.xc6 26 b4 'iia3?!
27 bS exf4 28 i.xf4 axbS 29 cxbS "VieS+ 30 i.e3? "ii"xc3 31 bxc6 "ii"xc6 32 "ii"xd6 'iixe4 33 'iidS+ 'iixdS 34 l:xdS i.c3 35 l:e2 ll.e4 36 �f2 ll.fe8 37 ll.d3 �f6 38 ll.ed2 ll.xe3 0-1
'Angst'
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail.
ABRAHAM MASLOW
It seems that Materialism is so deeply imbed
ded in our chess minds that we are inclined to feel uneasy when we are material down, almost regardless of other features of the position. In fact a major aspect of this sin is the failure to make good use of promising sacrifices because we 'cash in' much too quickly. In this respect GM Efim Geller makes an instructive insight while commenting on the reasons for his oppo
nent's loss in game 1 9 of The Application of Chess Theory: "Black was let down by the purely subconscious desire to restore material equality at the first opportunity. It so often hap
pens that, after sacrificing a pawn, a player aims not to obtain the initiative for it, but to re
gain the sacrificed material. This is a typical mistake, but it is instinctively committed by strong and experienced masters."
It is 'instinctive' because we are so prone to Materialism. It seems that our early experience of chess has created certain psychological dis
positions that we find hard to shake. I'm not sure about you, but back then a material disad
vantage was associated with defeat, regret and hope that you will soon win the material back.
When I was playing for my school it was even associated with guilt, because at times my team-mates would look at the side of the board, see that I was material down, and then look at me with concern.
Whether it's because of these early experi
ences or just because of the tangibility of
material, it seems that many players do experi
ence a certain amount of 'angst' when they are material down. This feeling in turn leads to an
other - the desire to remove the angst by restor
ing material equality. This attitude places huge restrictions on the variety of problems you can cause for an opponent. Moreover, it' s not so easy to be material up either! Indeed in those cases we tend to feel some angst too. In particu
lar we start to think in terms of 'technique' in a way we don't when we have an advantage in time or quality, and also we fear that we will lose our material advantage, and never find anything to replace it.
Ukrainian GM Romanishin has spent much of his chess career being a pawn down in sharp lines of the Catalan. He claims that his oppo
nents tend to feel very uncomfortable when they have extra material, because the unbal
anced material makes it difficult for them to play 'normally'
Again it comes back to the fact that there is much more in a position than just the material situation. So if we take an example like the Benko Gambit Accepted ( 1 d4 l0f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 bxa6 g6 6 �c3 Jlxa6), the white-player seems to be a safe pawn up for a long time but unless you are a strong player who has studied this line carefully it is ex
tremely difficult to avoid drifting planlessly with the vague aim of 'converting your extra pawn' . Partly because of this type of difficulty, many strong players are quick to give back the material they win in favour of other types of ad
vantage which are easier to play with and more immediately unpleasant for the opponent. Be
ing able to make these types of transformations, whereby you may win material but give it back and then sacrifice, win material again but this time in the ending, etc., is a crucial aspect of a chess-player's arsenal. This relates to some
thing a little beyond the scope of this chapter, namely the importance of the initiative, but the basic idea is that we would do well to relin
quish our emotional attachment to material, and move towards thinking of chess in a plural
istic way.
The following game shows your author quite willing to trade material for other advantages, but then handicapped by a feeling of angst at a crucial moment.
Rowson - Yuneev Wijk aan Zee 2000
Rowson - Yuneev Wijk aan Zee 2000