How to Beat your Chess Computer

By Boris Alterman

As we know, the main problem of all chess programs is the very large number of
continuations involved. The number of all potential positions is in the order of 10128
(10 to the power of 128), which is vastly larger than the number of atoms in the known
universe (a pitiful 1080). It is clear that no computer or any other machine can solve the
game by looking at all possible continuations. But we beings are also imperfect players.
For the computer, it is only a question of what depth of search is required to match
human strategic skill. The machine Deep Blue, which Kasparov played in Philadelphia
and New York, consisted of an IBM SP/2 server equipped with a large number of
special-purpose chips, which do the fast calculations. Each chip is capable of processing
two to three million positions per second. By using more than 200 of these chips, the
overall speed of the program could be raised to 200 million positions per second. In this
connection we should remember that it was the chess chips that were generating the
speed, not the host SP/2 machine, although IBM liked to suggest otherwise The
conclusion of the experts: you need to build a computer that runs at one billion nodes
per second (and searches 14 ply deep) if you wish to challenge the human World
Champion for his title. Deep Blue comes close, but isn't there quite yet. The quality of
programming also plays an important role. Today's top PC programs such as Deep Fritz
and Deep Junior run at up to 1,000,000 positions per second on the fastest available
hardware, and realistically have a playing strength in classical chess of over 2600. They
are a match for all but the top 100 players in the world; in rapid forms of chess only the
top dozen or so humans can compete. The extensive opening books that are used play an
important role in the strength of computers. The collective knowledge and experience of
many generations of human masters can easily be stored on a hard disk and accessed
during the opening phase of the game. Even the micros know tens of millions of
opening positions, and have access to full statistics for each of them (which moves were
played, with what success, by what caliber of player, etc.). Very often a program will
play fifteen or more moves of a game before it starts calculating moves for the first
time. Without the benefit of this human knowledge in the openings, the programs would
be considerably weaker. While computers are gaining a substantial advantage from the
vast amount of opening knowledge that has accumulated in the history of chess, they
also profit from research at the other end of the game. Once again it was the ubiquitous
Ken Thompson who pioneered this development. In the 1980s he began to generate and
store all legal endgame positions with four and five pieces on the board. A typical five-
piece ending, such as king and two bishops vs. king and knight, contains 121 million
possible positions. With a pawn, which is asymmetric in its movements, the number
rises to 335 million. Thompson wrote programs that generated the positions and worked
out all forcing lines that are possible in each endgame. He also compressed the resulting
data in a way that allowed one to store about 20 endgames on a standard CD-ROM.
Using these endgame databases a computer will play them absolutely perfectly ("like a
god"). In any position with the given material on the board it knows instantly whether it
is a win, draw or loss and how many moves it will take to reach that result. Often it will
announce a win or mate in more than fifty moves. On the losing side it will defend
optimally. Deep Blue was using Thompson's endgame databases in its search, but today
the main PC chess programs have incorporated them into its search tree. When you have
a match between such different opponents as humans and computers, you have to look
at the different strengths and weaknesses of both sides during the competition. Playing
against a chess computer means facing something that doesn't have any nerves - similar
to sitting across the table from an IRS agent during a tax audit. It's quite clear what the
weaknesses of a human being are - primarily our vulnerability to outside interference.
We could catch a cold, be easily distracted, and so on. Obviously, we are not in the
position to calculate as deeply as the machine, but we can compensate for that. It's less
clear what the weaknesses of the machine are, but a computer specialist or a chess
specialist can point them out. >At the top of any evaluation by a computer, we always
see the material. It always tries to translate quality and time factors into numbers that
represent the mathematical balance of material. As for the opening strategy, this is quite
a dangerous part of the game now, since there is a huge amount of theory on specific
openings and many lines that can be exploited further by the GM-team supporting the
machine. My first principles in games against computers to avoid the main lines and to
accept an inferior position after the opening, hoping that outside of the theoretical routes
the machine will lose its horizons and will start making positional mistakes. The
negative side of such a setup is that such a strategy dramatically limits your active
opportunities; nonetheless, this decision has worked perfectly well many times.
Computers often overestimate their chances and make positional mistakes, giving me a
serious positional advantage. For example, Fritz may weaken its king without much
hesitation, simply destroying the pawn protection of the king and not paying much
attention to the king's safety before it becomes too late. Now we will see some examples
of how to beat your computer:

Alterman,B Computer Junior

Follow the moves with your own board

1.c4 I would like to start with a very illustrative game to demonstrate my first
experience against the Computer Junior. It was played in the Nir Ganim tournament
with a time control of 15 minutes +10 seconds per move. 1...Nf6 2.Nf3 c6 3.b3 d5
4.Bb2 First of all, it is quite good to escape from known opening theory. Computers
have big problems when they leave the book immediately, after the first 3-4 moves.
Computers have more problems making a decision when there are many pieces on the
board. When a game leaves known theory, some of the pieces are often exchanged,
giving the computer a much easier time.4...Bg4 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Be2 e6 7.h3 Bxf3?

Of course, this is a mistake. Junior doesnt like to lose a tempo and therefore exchanged
his bishop. Now White has a pair of bishops, and therefore has a slight advantage.
Better is 7.Bh5. 8.Bxf3 Bd6 9.Be2 dxc4?

Another positional mistake. White dreams about opening up the position for the
bishops, but the computer did so voluntarily!10.bxc4 00 11.00 Qc7 12.Nc3 Rfd8
13.Qc2 a6 14.Rac1 e5 15.Rfd1 White already has a quite clear positional advantage,
but still not a winning position. I continue to play without taking risks or allowing
tactical complications, and the computer eventually started to lose control.15...Nc5
16.d3 Ne6 17.Bf1 h5?

It works! My prophylactic quiet moves finally give the computer the feeling that he may
activate his position on the kingside.18.Ne2 h4 19.d4 Finally after good preparation I
start an action in the center. The computer created a clear target the weak pawn on h4.
I should launch an attack on the kingside.19...e4 20.d5 Nc5 Junior doesn't sense danger
and allows me to destroy his kingside. Better was [20...cxd5 21.Bxf6 gxf6 22.Rxd5with
a clear advantage for White.] 21.Bxf6 Bh2+ 22.Kh1 gxf6 23.Nd4 Rac8 24.dxc6 bxc6
25.Qe2

Finally, the white queen found her way to the kingside. Whites attack becomes
unstoppable. 25...Be5 26.Qg4+ Kf8 27.Nf5 Ne6 28.Qxh4 Kg8 29.Qxe4 Kf8 30.Qh4
Kg8 31.c5 a5 32.Bc4 Another piece joins the game.32...Rb8 33.f4 Bb2 34.Rxd8+
Rxd8 35.Rf1 Rd2 36.Rf3 Rd1+ 37.Kh2 Rd5
And Black resigned due to the mate after Rg3 and Qh8 10