I was thinking to take a line from Carlsen or other leading players and try to find the reason why they choose to play it. And furthermore, if such lines are played with a high frequency and proven success rate why are their opponents willing to allow it since they most certainly will use engines for their game preparations. We as a team could try to find the correct solutions if they exist and use these data or move discovery for our opening choice. I think in terms of reaching familiar middlegame positions or even as far ahead to the endgame which are easy for us to resolve because we studied them.>

This corresponds to the main characteristics of modern chess preparation. "Chess preparation has become a systematic process: winning starts with planning before the game...The most important aim of modern preparation, both for proffessionals and for ambitious amateurs, is to get a playable position that you understand better than your opponent…The level of the computers involved in the players' preparation is rapidly increasing. The art of interaction between the player and the computer has come to the fore. At the very top, players reached a new, higher level of interaction, although this is an area where huge hidden resources remain." (GM Vladimir Tukmakov).

When I was playing the advanced variation against the French I was aware of the technique used by GM Grischuk to aim for a "Good Knight vs bad Bishop" ending. Such set-ups guided my strategy.

Then I switched to Nc3 variations. I won a game against a strong opponent, Carmelo Risquet. He was the guy who used to work for IBM playing chess against their programmes to strengthen them. He was doing this just before Deep Blue.

In that game against Carmelo I had no particular pre-existing strategy, apart from grabbing space and improving pieces. I won it but it seemed less satisfying, somehow, than executing a plan of action.

Cheers,

Now this is a tall order indeed. But most if not all chess players would be great full to get their hands on it.

Yes I did suggest that it would take a team such as ours having the already displayed ability to perform such a task.

As to your specific question what study plan should we use, I suggest the same consultation process for generating moves by the team just like in our previous games.

Only the emphases has to be as Ceri just pointed out, on the reason why we should aim for a certain direction or reach for a desired goal.

Our engines would then be used as a tool for sliding back and forth between the points of where we are to where we need to be and thus in total control of the game.

Such a method would work against any opponent if we first try to identify their main objectives and then find the ways to counter it.

It would require a willingness from the team to run their engines over a game or replaying a particular opening line to see why a certain move order has been chosen for that encounter.

Then study or replay any historical relevant material of this opening line with the help of our engine but in disregard of the reported game outcome.

If we share our findings we will increase our ability and capacity to reveal the true facts about the evolution of an opening line and the possible reasons for the other variations deviating from the main line.

A guidance for finding various references of any perceived degree of importance would then become our starting point.

If we were to study his demonstrated methods we could identify how to counter it. Admittedly this only applies for engine assistant games.

It definitely will not work in an OTB encounter where his human talent to calculate very deep will be trump unless ways are found to limit or make it less influential because of being in possession of value proven lines.

As Tukmakov pointed out, at the higher level winning starts with planning before the game. We can begin the planning process for the next game as soon as we know who our opponent is.

But I would like to start some preliminary work centered on the suggested method (look at currently preferred opening lines from the most successful players, review the theoretical developments of these choices, etc). Do you have any suggestion about the opening line(s) to start with. In the next GM challenge we are supposed to have the white pieces.

Starting with Carlsen, I find these general characteristics of his play, highlighted by GM Rowson, interesting:

- navigate towards positions where there are no obvious moves,

- see complexity where others assume simplicity,

I agree it is doubtful making jokes about a regime that routinely murders people. Ernst Lubitsch pulled it off in 1942 in the film "To Be Or Not To Be", but that was before information about the death camps was widely known.>

What these people do isn't funny but that isn't the point is it. It's a play on words that is funny whether it's a dictator or a celebrity.

I am convinced that this team could generate such lines affecting the rate of change to present opening theory and provide great value for ever chess player.>

Interesting definitions from GM Rowson re the characteristics of Carlson's playing strategy.

In my view it appears that his studies or preparations leading him into positions which are seemingly unsolvable when first encountered.

Even his fast engines are getting stuck at those positions which he was guiding them into it. He then would attempt to prove the correctness of his lead and while attempting to solve it in his favor he is becoming aware of the complexity for humans to find the correct move order.

Even so most positions when arrived via theoretical correct move order do lead to equalization, he has the confidence to walk the tight rope with lines hoping to tip the balance of power into his favor.

This hold true for most gifted chess players. It is the human perception usually acquired from visual observations over time and practicing positions familiarization together with a fast memory recall ability for the ways to get there and solve them.

Oops,I should have said (twice) in the above, 10.Nc3 (not Nf3).

RandomVisitor: I hate to say this, but "Kim Pawn Ill" is really a poor choice for a nickname for a game that we really worked hard at. It pokes fun at someone and is in poor taste.

"Ginger Snapped" is probably the best choice and avoids controversy. You guys just made a wrong call on that one.

Puns are hardly the highest of the satirical arts. So, gruesome puns are almost the best kind, in a weird way. Anyhow, Americans, of the US variety, are not expected to have a clue about any form of irony, are they (we)?

Ironically if this game was played in North Korea the current pun would probably land you in jail. But a lame milquetoast try like Ginger Snapped would be instantly accepted.

Notwithstanding the obvious and already quoted point that Ginger Snapped is offensive directly to our opponent.

Or for your (mis) guided missle (US-army speak for "missile").

Are we having fun yet? <Stunningmove> will scorn such entries in the <permanent record of this game>.

1. M. Carlsen

2. L. Aronian

3. H. Nakamura

4. F. Caruana

5. B. Gelfand

6. V. Anand

Round Robin @ 5 rounds (Jan.30-Feb.3), Classical Chess (40/120, 20/60, 15+30/rest) plus 3 Rapid games (Feb.4), where those GMs who played 3 games with black pieces will play with white pieces.