background image

FIDE Surveys – Miguel Illescas 

 

Miguel Illescas: 
Working with computers: does 
the machine fool us? 

Farewell to glamour? 
 

In recent years, increasingly powerful  
computers and programs are already able to 
unravel the mysteries of most positions in just 
a few seconds. This has led to the trend of 
following the major tournaments live 
broadcasts with the engine connected, which 
judges implacable every movement made by 
the grandmasters. The fan, standing on the 
shoulders of giants, thinks he is a big shot and 
criticizes Carlsen strongly for missing a 
tactical blow, or Karjakin, for not being able to 
see it. “What a patzer! It was so easy…” He 
shouts in disbelief, almost outraged. 
For instance, let’s take the already famous 20 
... Nf2 that could have given a beautiful draw 
to Karjakin in the tenth game, which he ended 
up losing. It was tremendously criticized by all 
and sundry, even by grandmasters. Was it 
really that easy? 
 

Carlsen : Karjakin 
WCC New York (10) 2016 

XIIIIIIIIY 
9r+-+-trk+0 
9+p+-+-zp-0 
9-+pzppwqnzp0 
9zp-+-zp-+-0 
9P+-+P+-+0 
9+-zPPsN-zPn0 
9-zP-sNQzP-zP0 
9tR-+-+R+K0 
xiiiiiiiiy 

In this position, the game continued with 20 
...d5 21.Qh5 Ng5 22.h4 Nf3 23.Nf3 Qf3 24. 
Qf3 Rf3 25.Kg2
, a very natural sequence of 
moves that led to a slightly better endgame for 
white, which Carlsen went on to win in good 
fashion. 
While Karjakin was thinking about his 
twentieth move, the audience on the Internet 

held his breath at the verdict of the engine, 
which offered a dead equal evaluation of 0.00, 
a consequence of the repetition of moves that 
occurs in the curious line  

 
20...Nf2! 21.Kg2 Nh4! 

XIIIIIIIIY 
9r+-+-trk+0 
9+p+-+-zp-0 
9-+pzppwq-zp0 
9zp-+-zp-+-0 
9P+-+P+-sn0 
9+-zPPsN-zP-0 
9-zP-sNQsnKzP0 
9tR-+-+R+-0 
xiiiiiiiiy 

22.Kg1 Nh3! 23.Kh1 Nf2! 24.Kg1 Nh3 with 
equality!

 

 
But Karjakin finally played the natural 20...d5, 
and before we had recovered from the 
excitement Carlsen answered quickly with the 
incisive 21.Qh5 (instead of the prudent 21.f3), 
which still allowed the capture on f2, which 
again was correct. Social networks set on fire! 
The audience was pulling their hair out. How 
is it possible that the two finalists of the World 
Championship do not see something so 
obvious? Could be read on the net. 
I will rhetorically repeat the question. Was it 
really that obvious? How to estimate the 
difficulty of a combination? Of course, the 
machine sees the truth on the spot and the 
lines that it offers do not admit any discussion 
whatsoever. But let us review the analysis step 
by step, for a better understanding. 
20...Nf2!  
Is an ugly move, which leaves the knight 
pinned and apparently lost after the obvious  
21.Kg2  
Here, most masters stop the analysis, because 
experience tells us that the knight is lost in 
these cases, except for a miracle. And the 
miracle exists as a sacrifice: 
21...Nh4!!  
based on the fact that after 

background image

FIDE Surveys – Miguel Illescas 

 

22.gh4 Qg6 

XIIIIIIIIY 
9r+-+-trk+0 
9+p+-+-zp-0 
9-+pzpp+qzp0 
9zp-+-zp-+-0 
9P+-+P+-zP0 
9+-zPPsN-+-0 
9-zP-sNQsnKzP0 
9tR-+-+R+-0 
xiiiiiiiiy 

the white king has nowhere to hide, since the 
black knight deprives him of h1 and h3, and 
white must return the material with interest.

 

Once seen, it seems easy, but there are no 
referents in the grandmaster’s mind to imagine 
the jump to h4, which leads to a very rare 
combination. I took the trouble to search the 
Mega2017 database for a similar pattern: 
knight sacrifice on h4 to give a check on g6, 
with a knight on f2. In almost seven million 
games, do you know how many I found? 
ZERO. Not a single time in the history of 
chess competition there have been a similar 
combination. Thus, it is not surprising that 
Karjakin's mind almost automatically 
dismissed the "ugly" catch in f2. 
And what about the "missed" chance in the 
next move? Logically, if neither of the two 
contenders noticed the blow in the 20

th

, they 

wouldn’t see it in the 21st. Because it was 
harder, indeed! 
After 20 ...d5 21.Qh5  

XIIIIIIIIY 
9r+-+-trk+0 
9+p+-+-zp-0 
9-+p+pwqnzp0 
9zp-+pzp-+Q0 
9P+-+P+-+0 
9+-zPPsN-zPn0 
9-zP-sN-zP-zP0 
9tR-+-+R+K0 
xiiiiiiii

21…Nf2! 22.Kg2 
Black had to anticipate:  

22...Qf7!  
which is the only move.  And the next one is 
diabolical, since after: 
23.Kg1  

XIIIIIIIIY 
9r+-+-trk+0 
9+p+-+qzp-0 
9-+p+p+nzp0 
9zp-+pzp-+Q0 
9P+-+P+-+0 
9+-zPPsN-zP-0 
9-zP-sN-sn-zP0 
9tR-+-+RmK-0 
xiiiiiiiiy 

The only move that keeps the equality is the 
quiet: 
23...Qf6!! to answer 24.Ng4 (or 24.Nd1) with 
24...Qg5!!  
Since it turns out that after 25.Qg5 Nh3 the 
knight is saved.  
 
Hurray for the engine! But it is difficult to find 
this kind of unusual moves when there are 
reasonable alternatives like 20...d5. 
The title "Farewell to glamour" is more than 
justified. With the engine on, anyone believes 
to know the truth and presumes to have the 
authority to criticize nothing less than the 
world champion. A pity, in my opinion, which 
makes me feel a bit of nostalgia for those 
years in which fans and the press spent several 
months in order to refute a sacrifice by 
Mikhail Tal. 
Lastly, I would like to tell you briefly the 
following anecdote. Karjakin has just lost the 
tenth game and is obliged to deal with the TV 
channels, first. The journalist approaches him 
and asks in an excited tone: "What can you tell 
me about the blunder on move 20 when you 
pushed your pawn to d5?" He asks the 
question as if he asks the striker how he could 
miss an easy goal. Karjakin doesn’t 
understand anything, and he cautiously replies, 
"I’m not sure what do you mean, but I 
certainly have not lost because of a move as 
natural as 20 ... d5." The journalist didn’t 
know what to answer. 
 

background image

FIDE Surveys – Miguel Illescas 

 

MATHEMATICAL EVALUATION vs 
PRACTICAL EVALUATION  
 
To play chess well, and of course to analyze, 
you need to be able to evaluate a position well. 
To do this we must consider several factors, 
the most obvious being the king’s safety and 
the material balance. Almost from the 
beginning, engines also computed the concept 
of piece activity, which is essential, and 
nowadays modern programs also take into 
account countless factors, structural and 
dynamic.  
However, despite all the improvements, 
engines are still much more reliable in the 
move they come up with than in the evaluation 
they offer.  
It often happens that, when developing a line, 
the engine corrects its initial evaluation by 
clearing the calculation horizon. 
 
How does the engine evaluate a position? 
 
For each position the engine adds and 
subtracts all good and bad from each side, 
besides the material: if your king is not safe, 
the evaluation drops, even if there is no 
immediate attack. If your knight could be 
installed in a weak enemy square, the 
evaluation raises. With doubled pawns, it goes 
down, again. And so, hundreds and hundreds 
of factors. After narrowing down the 
calculation to the limits allowed by the engine 
and mixing all the factors into the shaker, the 
program gives a score to each branch of the 
line’s tree, giving a value in pawn units, with 
their decimals. 

 

Finally, the engine offers a numerical and 
strictly mathematical evaluation of the 
position
. But this is not always enough for the 
human player. What does an equality 
assessment mean in a situation of tactical 
madness, if we need to find several only and 
strange moves, obvious to the engine but 
almost impossible for a human made of flesh 
and blood? Let’s remember again the great 
Mikhail Tal, when he admitted that perhaps 
his combination was not perfect, but it caused 
insolvable problems to his opponent. 

The idea then arises: the chess player needs a 
practical assessment of the position.  
Not just the acknowledgment that the position 
is winning, but whether it is easy or not to 
play, taking into account the probability of 
either side to make a mistake. 
Take as an example the position that occurred 
in the most decisive game of the last World 
Chess Championship, the third of the 
tiebreaker. A critical moment was reached 
after the 36th move by black. Carlsen had 
sacrificed a pawn for great compensation. 

 
Karjakin : Carlsen 
WCC New York (play-off, 3) 2016 

XIIIIIIIIY 
9r+-+-+-mk0 
9+-zp-+-zp-0 
9-+-zp-+-zp0 
9+P+P+-+-0 
9-+LwqPzp-+0 
9+-+-snP+P0 
9-+-+Q+PmK0 
9+-tR-+-+-0 
xiiiiiiiiy 

Here the engine evaluates the position as 
equal, which may be strictly true from an 
absolute point of view, but it is obvious that it 
is much easier to play for black. White must 
keep a stubborn defense, and even in the best 
case scenario, exchanging the active enemy’s 
major pieces, with that awful bishop they 
could only dream of getting a draw.  
As we know, Karjakin blundered and lost in 
just three moves. 
36.Qe1? 
According to the engine, white resists with 
passive moves such as 36.Bd3 or 36.Ba2. 
36...Qb2 37.Bf1 Ra2 38.Rc7 Ra1 0:1. 
 
Let's see another example of incorrect 
evaluation from the human point of view, also 
from the same match. 

 

background image

FIDE Surveys – Miguel Illescas 

 

Carlsen : Karjakin 
WCC New York (8) 2016 

XIIIIIIIIY 
9-+-+-+-+0 
9+-+-+-mk-0 
9Q+-+-+-zp0 
9+-wq-sn-+-0 
9-+-+P+-+0 
9zp-+-+-zPP0 
9-+-+-+LmK0 
9+-+-+-+-0 
xiiiiiiiiy 

According to the engines working at great 
depth, the position is more or less equal after 
51.Qb7 or 51.h4. The truth is that defending 
this position with white is a nightmare, and it 
is clear that with that colossal knight and the 
mighty pawn on a3 Black has no risk of 
losing. The most likely outcome is for white to 
end up winning, for instance, bringing the 
white king to support his pawn after a series of 
countless checks, a journey far beyond the 
horizon of calculation of the engine. 
As we know, the game ended quickly after the 
blunder 51.Qe6? h5! 52.h4 a2!  
And Carlsen resigned, because even after 
capturing the pawn he remains in a mating net 
53.Qa2 Ng4 54.Kh3 Qg1 55.Qb2Kg6! 

 

We find the same evaluation problem in 
endings like those with Q+P : Q. Many of 
them are draws, but the strong side usually 
ends up winning, because the defense needs an 
extreme precision. 

XIIIIIIIIY 
9-+-+-wq-+0 
9+-+-+-+-0 
9-+-+-+-+0 
9+-+-wQP+-0 
9-+-+-+-+0 
9+K+-+-+-0 
9-+-+-mk-+0 
9+-+-+-+-0 
xiiiiiiiiy 

Black to play.

 

Evaluation, according to the engine: 0.00 total 
equality. But the vast majority of players 
would be unable to save this ending!  
It is a sequence of six only moves in order for 
Black not to lose: 
1...Kf3! 2.f6 Qg8!  
2...Kg4 3.Qe7! Qb8 4.Qb4;  
2...Qf7 3.Kb4 Kg4 4.Qe7 Qa2 5.f7 Qb2 6.Ka5 
Qa2 7.Kb6 Qb3 8.Kc7 Qc4 9.Kd8 winning. 
3.Kc3 Kg4! 4.Qe7 Kh5! 5.f7 Qg3 6.Kc4 Qf4! 
And black follows the narrow path that leads 
to the draw. 
 
Would it be feasible for the programs to offer 
a practical assessment? 
 
The player that is oriented by the engine 
would do better to look not only at the 
evaluation of the best move, but also at the 
next two or three best, and deepen the forced 
lines to check if one of the sides is "on the 
brink of the abyss”.  In that case, even if the 
engine announces equality, it is advisable to be 
suspicious of the line. 
 

background image

FIDE Surveys – Miguel Illescas 

 

10 TIPS ON HOW TO ANALYZE WITH THE ENGINE 

 
1. Always look first at the position objectively, thinking for yourself, without being 
influenced by the module. 

 

2. Enter the move that you would play, even if it is not among the suggested ones, to see the 
answers offered; develop the different lines in order to understand the real value of your 
move. 

 

3. Ask the program to show you the best three or four moves, to get a quick overview of the 
position. 

 

4. Do not take the engine evaluation for granted, for it is only a guidance. It is more important 
to guess the practical assessment and whether the position is easy to play or not. Small 
differences in the evaluation should be dismissed as a real advantage. 

 

5. In general, do not let the engine think for more than two or three minutes per move. It is 
necessary to go on by making the main move, especially if its evaluation is significantly 
superior to the one that follows, and to develop the different lines. 

 

6. Stop the analysis when both sides start to have a lot of moves of equivalent value. It doesn’t 
make sense to spend a lot of time with the program in quiet positions. 

 

7. In tactical situations, the evaluation is not reliable until the position stabilizes. We will 
know that an evaluation is stable when several of the best moves offer a similar value, and so 
does the opponent's response. 

 

8. When the engine takes a long time to step up to the next level of depth, it is a good time to 
move forward or stop the analysis and come up with a conclusion. 

 

9. It is a good idea to write the lines, reviewing them slowly, trying to understand the meaning 
of each move, until we are able to write down our evaluation into words or symbols, 
discarding the rest of the moves. 

 

10. Do not do anything else while analyzing, because the concentration is interrupted and we 
could forget what we have learned in the process. It doesn’t work to leave the engine 
analyzing to spend time on Facebook!