GM Alex Yermolinsky on Go

[apetresc]

I'm watching round 6 of the World Chess Championship between Topalov and Anand, and a grandmaster named Alex Yermolinsky is giving live commentary on it. During a slow period, they were discussing what the computers saw in the position, and GM Yermolinsky said something almost exactly like the following:

There are some games where computers are not yet... useful. People are always bringing up Go, and saying -- you know, humans are still better. But that's because Go is a poor game, there are no tactics, that's why.

This was on Saturday May 1st, around 11:00 AM EST, if anyone else is watching. It made me laugh We should send some "friendly" e-mails to him explaining to him that, indeed, Go does have tactics

[kirkmc]

LOL. What a noob...

[judicata]

Sounds like someone is a little sour about getting beaten in go.

Besides, that comment makes zero sense, even if you have no idea what go is. If a game is poor, it should easy to write a program to beat anyone. See tic tac toe.

[Solomon]

Well, this is also the same gentleman who's also quoted for:

Generally speaking, most chess players are boring, self-centered, money-oriented, poorly educated overgrown adolescents I couldn't care less about. With some exceptions, that includes the Linares crowd and all of the world's top twenty.

So I won't care so much for what he says.

[Bartleby]

GM Yermolinsky (also known as "the Yerminator") is a former top U.S. Player (by way of the USSR) and a respected chess writer.

At the same time, he is a bit of a character and seems prone to controversial statements; he has made many in the past. You might even call him a curmudgeon.

I would take any strong statement by Yermolinsky (even about chess) with a grain of salt, as he seems to delight in playing the provocateur. I also wouldn't be at all surprised to learn he knows very little about Go (maybe not even the rules).

[shapenaji]

I have a good friend who probably knows A-Yerm

Maybe I can send a Hatsuyron problem his way

[Tengen]

Back when I played chess, I used to like Yermo because he was a colorful figure, not afraid to speak his mind.

But to say Go has no tactics is just... ignorant.

[karaklis]

But to say Go has no tactics is just... ignorant.

Yes, that's ignorant indeed. It seems that he is envious that he can be beaten by computers in chess whereas top go players can beat easily the computers.

[gowan]

I'd say that chess is more like 9x9 go, almost all tactics. So what could be said is that chess has no strategy. An exaggeration, of course, but closer to the truth than it is to say go has no tactics.

[Violence]

I actually interviewed Alex Yermolinsky for a school project. He's a late start GM, pretty rare, and yeah, he is pretty quirky. One of the quotes he gave me was, "Do not worry if you can't find what you want to do in life. If things don't work out, there is always chess, after all. Study hard, and if you don't make it, you can always become a GM."

[flOvermind]

I'd say that chess is more like 9x9 go, almost all tactics. So what could be said is that chess has no strategy. An exaggeration, of course, but closer to the truth than it is to say go has no tactics.

If you think about it that way...

Chess has, let's say, 90% tactics, 10% strategy? In 19x19 go, I would say it's more like 40/60...

So in comparison, go has almost no tactics, right?

[Magicwand]

i know too many formal chess players who learned how to play go who quit playing chess.
everytime i ask them why did you quit? they all answer same "because it is boring"

[entropi]

Chess does have a strategical element, namely the end-game. In the opening and middle game, tactics are more relevant than strategy.
In that sense it is exactly the opposite of go, where the end-game is more about tactics than the middlegame.

It might be true that overall chess is 90% tactics whereas go is 40% tactics. But this still does not mean that this 40% of go is simpler than the 90% of chess

[topazg]

Chess does have a strategical element, namely the end-game. In the opening and middle game, tactics are more relevant than strategy.
In that sense it is exactly the opposite of go, where the end-game is more about tactics than the middlegame.

It might be true that overall chess is 90% tactics whereas go is 40% tactics. But this still does not mean that this 40% of go is simpler than the 90% of chess

Interesting, my experience is very different. Much of the opening and early midgame chess is about control of territory and vital squares on the board, which is very much more strategic than tactical. It's only when the fists fly that it turns into a 95% tactical game. I agree, end-games have a strategic element too, but I find the biggest difference between fairly strong chess players and self-learned hobby amateurs is a much more comprehensive of the strategic side - kind of the equivalent of understanding how to use thickness and influence properly.

[entropi]

Interesting, my experience is very different. Much of the opening and early midgame chess is about control of territory and vital squares on the board, which is very much more strategic than tactical. It's only when the fists fly that it turns into a 95% tactical game. I agree, end-games have a strategic element too, but I find the biggest difference between fairly strong chess players and self-learned hobby amateurs is a much more comprehensive of the strategic side - kind of the equivalent of understanding how to use thickness and influence properly.

At the end-game of chess you need to take decisions like whether to build a fortress and go for a draw, or which side to proceed with pawns, whether or not to exchange a knight for a bishop, etc... These are strategic decisions rather than tactical. They don't involve much move reading (chess players call it calculation) but experience and/or knowledge.

In the opening, the obvious strategy is to develop your pieces, and occupy the center. Another obvious strategy is for example, if you gain an advantage in terms of pieces, try to force your opponent to exchange pieces so that your advantage gets more emphasized.
But all these are well known strategies even by beginners and are not much debated.

Other than those you don't have to take so many strategical decisions in chess opening and mid-game.

On the other hand, in opening and mid-game of go you need to decide whether to go for territory or influence at that corner, whether to exploit the aji right now or to wait, whether to invade or reduce, whether to let the opponent live small and gain power or try to kill by nakade, etc. These are all strategical decisions. Once you make up your mind strategically, then the next question is tactical (e.g. where to start the invasion).

In chess, the strategical decisions of mid-game are already almost taken (by the basic knowledge).