Aim higher, reach further.

Chess-Championship Results Show Powerful Role of Computers

The digital revolution has pushed human abilities to new heights

Norway's Magnus Carlsen, right, plays India's Viswanathan Anand Friday in  the world chess championship. ENLARGE
Norway's Magnus Carlsen, right, plays India's Viswanathan Anand Friday in the world chess championship. Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

In the world chess championship match that ended Friday in India, Norway's Magnus Carlsen, the cool, charismatic 22-year-old challenger and the highest-rated player in chess history, defeated local hero Viswanathan Anand, the 43-year-old champion. Mr. Carlsen's winning score of three wins and seven draws will cement his place among the game's all-time greats. But his success also illustrates a paradoxical development: Chess-playing computers, far from revealing the limits of human ability, have actually pushed it to new heights.

Anand and Carlsen Battle

The last chess match to get as much publicity as Mr. Carlsen's triumph was the 1997 contest between then-champion Garry Kasparov and International Business Machines Corp.'s Deep Blue computer in New York City. Some observers saw that battle as a historic test for human intelligence. The outcome could be seen as an "early indication of how well our species might maintain its identity, let alone its superiority, in the years and centuries to come," wrote Steven Levy in a Newsweek cover story titled "The Brain's Last Stand."

But after Mr. Kasparov lost to Deep Blue in dramatic fashion, a funny thing happened: nothing. Amateurs didn't throw away their sets, and professionals didn't switch careers. In fact, just about the only people who quit chess after the match were the IBM IBM 0.33 % computer scientists, who moved on to other challenges. Chess went back to the way it was before—with one big difference.

Before the Deep Blue match, top players were using databases of games to prepare for tournaments. Computers could display games at high speed while the players searched for the patterns and weaknesses of their opponents. The programs could spot blunders, but they didn't understand chess well enough to offer much more than that.

Once laptops could routinely dispatch grandmasters, however, it became possible to integrate their analysis fully into other aspects of the game. Commentators at major tournaments now consult computers to check their judgment. Online, fans get excited when their own "engines" discover moves the players miss. And elite grandmasters use computers to test their opening plans and generate new ideas.

This wouldn't be very interesting if computers, with their ability to calculate millions of moves per second, were just correcting human blunders. But they are doing much more than that. When engines suggest surprising moves, or arrangements of pieces that look "ugly" to human sensibilities, they are often seeing more deeply into the game than their users. They are not perfect; sometimes long-term strategy still eludes them. But players have learned from computers that some kinds of chess positions are playable, or even advantageous, even though they might violate general principles. Having seen how machines go about attacking and especially defending, humans have become emboldened to try the same ideas.

Computers have gone so far that the top human players are now those who most often play the moves that would be chosen by the best engines (which sport names like Houdini, HIARCS and Rybka). Magnus Carlsen's biographers dub him the "hero of the computer era." Indeed, a study published on earlier this year showed that in the tournament Mr. Carlsen won to qualify for the world championship match, he played more like a computer than any of his opponents.

The net effect of the gain in computer skill is thus, ironically, a gain in human skill. Humans—at least the best ones—are getting better at playing chess. And there are far more top players than ever before. Today there are about 1,500 grandmasters, more than twice as many as in 1997, and they come from over 80 countries. Twenty-two of them earned the title before reaching the age of 15.

When the first international rating list was published in 1971, the only player rated over 2,700 was Bobby Fischer. (In chess ratings, a 100-point advantage corresponds to an almost two-thirds chance of winning a match.) Fischer went on to beat Boris Spassky in their celebrated 1972 world championship match. In 1974 there were two players with 2,700 ratings: Fischer and his successor Anatoly Karpov. Even by 1997 there were just eight.

Enthusiasts watched world chess champion Garry Kasparov on a TV monitor in 1997 as he struggles at the start of the final match against IBM's Deep Blue computer in New York. Mr. Kasparov lost. ENLARGE
Enthusiasts watched world chess champion Garry Kasparov on a TV monitor in 1997 as he struggles at the start of the final match against IBM's Deep Blue computer in New York. Mr. Kasparov lost. Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Nowadays an entire website is dedicated to tracking the 50 or so players who on any given day are rated 2,700 or higher. On the eve of the current match, Mr. Carlsen was No. 1 with a rating of 2,870, the highest of all time. (Garry Kasparov, who retired in 2006, is the second-highest-rated ever; he was No. 1 in the world for nearly 20 straight years.)

Many chess fans and experts believe that ratings are higher today because of "inflation"—a generally higher drift caused by statistical quirks. Fischer is only No. 13 on the all-time ranking list, but he dominated his opposition more than Messrs. Kasparov or Carlsen. During his own qualifying matches, Fischer destroyed two of the world's top players by unheard of 6–0 scores. But the moves Fischer played may not have been any better than those of Messrs. Carlsen or Kasparov. Indeed, according to computer analysis, his moves were probably a bit worse. This doesn't diminish his achievements in any way; perhaps if Fischer had continued to play after 1972, or had the help of today's computers, his play would have become even stronger.

There is another reason today's elite chess players are probably better than their predecessors: Hardly a week goes by now without a top-level tournament. There is a World Cup of 128 players, a Grand Prix series of six tournaments and a number of independent events in traditional chess meccas like London, Moscow and the Netherlands, and in new ones like Beijing and St. Louis. More top-level experience means that there are more opportunities to learn from one's mistakes.

Chess is also more popular than ever before among children. The extravaganza known as the SuperNationals, which combines the kindergarten through high school championships of the U.S. into one quadrennial event held in Nashville, features over 5,300 competitors. The variety of chess apps for computers and mobile devices is tremendous, and schools increasingly include chess in the curriculum or as an enrichment program.

After Mr. Kasparov lost to Deep Blue, the Boston Herald's front page screamed "You Lose, Man!" But the game of chess didn't lose a thing. As in other fields, human chess skill has been complemented and augmented, not replaced, by machines. The result has been new levels of understanding and popularity for one of the oldest human pastimes. The championship reign of Magnus Carlsen will bring to fruition this new era in chess.


The article is misleading.

The new champion's playing style minimizes the ability to gain advantage from the "at home" use of computers to devise one's opening sequences.

His style is to avoid "theoretical" opening lines and simply to achieve a position that is clearly definable as part of the "middlegame."

It is there that he begins to outplay his opponents, and it is there where preparation with computers ahead of time cannot be of assistance.

The new Champion's style is to recent trends in chess what Seven-up is to colas. It is the the chess-based "un-cola."

Dana Anderson
Dana Anderson

you can bring $15000 of income every month... All you need is a computer and a internet connection and you are ready to start... ­a­p­p­2­0­0­.­c­o­M­

James Joyce
James Joyce user

You might want to read about the most recent chess engines. Originally they tried to use logic and it failed miserably. You simply can not harness all of the branches of the tree via logic.
Modern chess engines use different techniques altogether.

Chris Abdnour
Chris Abdnour subscriberprofilePrivate

After the Kasparov / IBM match a game called Arimaa was created. Arimaa was designed to prevent brute force computers from becoming proficient players. Arimaa can be played on a chess board with chess pieces but the rules are simpler. The best humans have remained better than the best computer engines despite $$$ awards offered for the first computer engine that can beat the best human.

Bob Redman
Bob Redman

On many fronts we are busy rendering ourselves obsolete. That's part of the plan, so there is no point in getting upset about it.


To the degree that human effort becomes obsolete, leisure time expands exponentially


Life is not about leisure time, it is about having a purpose.

Those societies (and those individuals) who devote themselves to leisure generally self destruct.

Whether Chess is a worthy purpose or not it a different discussion.

John Jones
John Jones user

This would be a fine idea, but not under our current economic system. Under our current system, humans have to work to pay bills. But it is ironic that our species has been finding new ways to automate work -- but without deciding what to do with the people who have been idled! The benefits of technology seem to accrue to the wealthy, not to anyone else.

Carlos de Souza
Carlos de Souza profilePrivateuser

The average computer chess programme can beat Carlsen easily. The best computer chess programme will ROUT Carlsen 12-0 in a series of 12 matches.

Peter Tablan
Peter Tablan subscriber

Sadly, I agree with you 100%. The "dehumanization" of chess through the use of computers.

James Joyce
James Joyce user

This simply shows how little you know about chess - no computer could beat the world champion 12 straight times - to suggest it could is basic ignorance.

Peter Tablan
Peter Tablan subscriber

So much for the "golden romantic era" of chess...when a final coup de grâce Queen sacrifice (preceded by a series of lesser but equally unexpected giveaways), forced the opposing King to surrender. Those exact same "romantic brilliancies" nowadays would be rendered senseless and totally unsound by the cool, emotionless analysis of a computer. So tell me...where's the fun, beauty and "art" and all of this?

The "de-humanization" of chess. Already yesterday's news.

roger baker
roger baker subscriber

Mr. Tablan, That analysis seems a little facile. Man invented chess. Now he can design computers that play the game better than he does. How does that diminish man? In what real sense does it dehumanize the game? The game still requires two men.

Only humans are involved. The software designers are human and do what they do very well, but they wouldn't strand a chance against a master.

We will have robots that beat men at tennis. And think of football. Talk about speed at wide receiver and power at running back. But who would care for very long?

Peter Tablan
Peter Tablan subscriber

Your point is well taken; and in the not-too-distant future we will also have cars that completely drive themselves as well. However, I don't believe that necessarily negates what I said about the game of chess, per se. I don't know if you're a chess player (tournaments, chess clubs, etc.), but I've personally seen the game of chess evolve over the decades... from the early Fischer years to what it is now.

Even Bobby Fischer himself expressed disillusionment over the game for becoming far too dependent on book memorization and "prepared variations" to the point where there was little room left for true "inventiveness" (or "art", if you will). This trend has been exacerbated by the proliferation of computers in chess.

Tournament players today rely almost exclusively on computer analysis in preparing for tournaments. In other words, every phase of the game is programed, booked and "memorized" well in advance. It never used to be that way. This is a far cry from when the Grandmasters of yesteryear faced each other over the board, pulling one rabbit after another out of the proverbial magic hat. SADLY, those days are over; computer analysis has thrown cold water on most if not all of those chess "masterpieces" that we once marveled over. In a purely HUMAN sense, those chess masterpiece of yesteryear remain immortal gems. But in today's competitive chess world none of that matters anymore. In terms of objective, arm's-length analysis many of those old games were seriously flawed. Maybe that's why so few young chess players nowadays read the old classic books of "Chess Masterpieces"... books that once inspired so much awe, wonderment and fascination for the game.


When we have cars that drive themselves, we will be able to play chess on our laptops on teh way to work. Leisure will have expanded more exponentially

John Jones
John Jones user

Good points both. But Peter not all human masterpieces have been "trashed" by supercomputers. I tested your notion against the software Fritz on my laptop, using Bobby Fischer's Game of the Century (Byrne versus Fischer). The software did not find Bobby's first brilliant move 11...Na4 and assessed the postion just prior to Na4 as equal, e.g., the computer "missed" Bobby's brilliancy. However once you 'force' 11...Na4, the program then agrees that the position is much better for Black. The software does later recommend the queen sacrifice with Be6 as the #1 move (takes it about 1 second to choose this move) . So... the conclusion is that not all "human" chess ideas are fundamentally flawed.

Peter Tablan
Peter Tablan subscriber

Isn't that amazing! I'm curious, what version of Fritz are you using? You're right that not ALL human masterpieces have been trashed by post-mortem computer analysis. The bottom line regarding "human imagination" vs. brute-force computer analysis is that sometimes we need to "point the computer in a certain direction" in order for it to uncover everything else that follows. LIke pointing a bloodhound tracking dog in a certain direction for it to find its target prey. The bloodhound may have a sense of smell that is 3000 times better than ours, but it doesn't always run in the right direction to start off with.

Nonetheless, when you review many of those so-called "imimortal gems" from the 19th century played by Morphy, Anderssen, et al, the house of cards seems to tumble after the first few moves. Thanks for the response!

Michael Rover
Michael Rover

From what I understand by following the chess websites, the title of this article is misleading. Carlsen is special because (among many other things) he actually plays with less of the computer prep that other top modern players use. Anand, his opponent, was a master of seizing the advantage of computer analysis to develop his strategy, and his innovations in that regard (particularly in opening games) helped him dominate for years. But Carlsen's greatest strength is his monstrous end game technique. He may play like a computer in the sense that he chooses the same moves as a computer engine, but he doesn't get that ability from looking at computer analysis. Rather he gets it from an unprecedented grasp of end game strategy.

It's true this is the computer era, but the defeated Anand was a much better example of the powerful role of computers in modern chess -- less so Carlsen, who may play like a machine, but not because he learned that from a machine. If anything, Anand was doomed by his overreliance on computers. When he couldn't get ahead in the openings, he just got smashed in the end games.

Peter Svider
Peter Svider

Match Kasparov against IBM still remain to be a mystery.Great promotion for IBM could happened if a computer beat Kasparov.No news if opposite situation would occurred. Man bite the dog story.So was it real outcome or "free" advertisement of premature might of IBM software hardware complex may never be known.

Leonard Lovallo
Leonard Lovallo subscriber

Well, to my simple mind computers are programmed by humans, yes? Perhaps in a discipline such as chess programming computers to play it leads chess players to discover what they did not know they knew but had yet to pull together, no?

John Jones
John Jones user

Programmers have been trying to come up with algorithms for chess since the 1970s (at least that far back). But what they found out gradually is that it is extremely difficult. All through the 20th century, the goal of algorithms that could play good chess eluded the best minds. Eventually programmers turned to the "brute force" method -- simple algorithm but just examine positions as many moves ahead as possible, and this proved to be a more effective method. But that is why computer software does not think like humans.

Bill Kennedy
Bill Kennedy subscriber

Backgammon programs are also top players now, and evaluation is done by a 'neural network,' which more closely resembles a brain. Rather than the programmer instructing the computer on every point of the game, the neural network plays millions of games against itself, learning by experience, and strengthening or weakening the connections between the 'nodes' in its network. The first one was done by Gerald Tesauro, also at IBM.

Ultimately in any game the computer's strength is its 'inhuman' ability to calculate millions of variations in seconds.

Congratulations to Magnus the great!

Alex Wisinger
Alex Wisinger

I'm glad they covered this chess match on here! It's great to see some perspective on the chess scene with the advancement of computers!

Gary Kennedy
Gary Kennedy user

An interesting sidelight is the intimidation factor. The mighty Kasparov, no stranger to intimidating off board tactics, was apparently intimidated by a computer:

"Deep Blue won the second game when Kasparov resigned after 45 moves. However, later analysis showed that Kasparov had resigned in a drawn position; Kasparov could have forced a perpetual check due to a mistake by Deep Blue on the 44th move. It seems as though Kasparov assumed a computer would see such a clearly tactical error, and thus spent little time searching for a saving sequences of checks."

Leonard Lovallo
Leonard Lovallo subscriber

Interesting observation -in chess, as in any competitive one on one, one keeps the sharp eye out for an opponent's mistakes to exploit -so perhaps Kasparov did not fully understand computing, bought into the fiction that computers are infallible and did not consider the possibility of a computer mistake. Don't know about intimidation here but if one is playing an opponent that one believes will not make a mistake it creates an enormous amount of pressure to think one has to consistently play absolutely flawless chess -if so perhaps Kasparov could not handle that, really, who could?
Perhaps that was the computer program's advantage -the aura of infallibility; would explain why the IBM engineers walked away afterwards as they knew that the detailed analysis that would follow would find that the computer was not infallible

Gary Kennedy
Gary Kennedy user

Yes, agreed that assuming your opponent will play flawlessly leads to despair. I think I had "intimidation" on my mind because of Kasparov's reported use of it on human opponents - banging down pieces, staring at them with sneering looks, etc. (I never saw it, just recall reports I read, and also that Kasparov himself said he was misunderstood). I even vaguely remember a (perhaps apocryphal) story where he tried those tactics on a computer, scowling at its monitor. The computer reportedly kept its counsel.

I do remember reading that the computer is inexorable. I.e. even after a mistake, it doesn't get bothered like a human player might (including Kasparov, see video below). It just keeps looking for the best move. Sort of a berserker that nothing slows except death. That sounds intimidating ...

Gautam De
Gautam De subscriber

Good one - did not know about this. I think in sports, not just computer, science itself - through different medicines, devices, techniques - have pushed the limit of human ability a lot.

Jeffrey Sonheim
Jeffrey Sonheim subscriber

Here is yet another difference between liberals and conservatives, though I hope the groans do not drown out the rest of this note; conservatives love competition and see this as an improving force for mankind, while liberals such as those commanding the headlines of the Boston paper are always willing to trumpet out losses and bemoan the fate of men from machines. On any given day the negativity of the NYT's headlines can leave one depressed. This tiny nugget from the WSJ pretty much displays the difference in outlook.

Samuel Weir
Samuel Weir user

I think that it's a bit sad that you're suffering from some sort of monomania which causes you to inject your "liberal versus conservative" political views even into a comment about an article which has absolutely NOTHING to do with politics. Please get some professional help. You'll enjoy life more if you do.

Ray Tang
Ray Tang subscriber

Huh? Are you saying so called "conservatives" believe in computer simulations, and that so called "liberals" don't? How did you get that from chess simulations? Would you reach the same conclusion from climate models? Just asking.

Jeffrey Sonheim
Jeffrey Sonheim subscriber

To Mr Tang and the others above:

I was merely commenting on the positive upbeat style of this article. Apparently computers are not taking away people's jobs or harming the economy in some unforeseen manner, but making things BETTER! Chess players are getting better, and using and perhaps loving the benefits of computer chess playing programs. Even though I tempered my comment, there is a truth to what I say; to wit, that the articles of the WSJ are upbeat and believe in the betterment of humanity, while those of the NYT more times than not take the opposite tack; namely that individuals do not have any control over a deteriorating environment, things are getting worse, and that we should somehow feel bad about almost everything...

Lets just take the NYT web site headlines for right this second to illustrate this point. I am arguing that the NYT makes one feel helpless over events, and that things are always disintegrating and somehow getting worse, and thus we should all be depressed - always. So here are the the headlines in quotes, with my own remarks after the quotes:

1. "Urbanites flee China's cities". Yep, All of China is in a state of mass migration because the cities are so filthy that normal people can not live in the stench.
2. "Tension and Flaws before Healthcare Website Crash". What should have been a wonderful website was doomed. We can't even fall in line to reap the benefits of this wonderful new law! Never is the question asked of whether or not the idea of the website - or the stinking law - is good for people.
3. "Iran Nuclear Talks Remain Difficult" and in the same vein "Talks with Iran on Nuclear Deal Hang in the Balance". I'm not supposed to think that Iran wants to build a bomb, just that talks are good, and I should feel tense, or sad, even though the Iranian government is determined to undermine any talks for their own nefarious reasons, even though they have enough energy to supply their needs for centuries without any need for nuclear energy, unless of course, they want to build a bomb and nuke someone whom they've been clamoring against for a generation.
4. "Bodies found weeks after Typhoon". Here again, a horrible event has happened, and is undetected for weeks. I should have been feeling bad, but didn't, so I'm guilty!
5. "Nothing Gold Can Stay". Even in a FASHION article good things do not last and will leave us no matter what we do. Of course, in this instance, gold, normally an evil harbinger of greed, is good...
6. "Political Doubt poses Risk to Honduras". The Honduras are at risk! Politicians here are helpless. If I'm not wringing my hands, I'm bad...
7. "Big Games in the Great Unforgiving Outdoors" Nothing good about the outdoors; it's UNFORGIVING.
8. "Police unsure if Random Attacks Rising Threat or Urban Myth". No help from the police here; they have no handle on all this mayhem...

My only argument is that these headlines - part and parcel of the NYT agenda - are meant to make one feel helpless, out of control, and generally depressed for the lot of all mankind. I KNOW; the article here was about CHESS, a GAME! But these types of upbeat articles - to my mind - are far more numerous in the WSJ than in the NYT. Am I sick, as Mr Weir implies? Would every thinking person somehow benefit from "Professional help"? Sorry, I'm quite happy with my thoughts as they are, thank you...

James Couture
James Couture subscriber

Mr. Martin,

your confusion arises from the fact that "Jeffry Sonheim" is simply a pseudonym for Deep Blue.

The supercomputer is now being put to use writing the most up-vote-able comments on any given discussion thread. You can see the algorithm in the non-sequiturs of "Jeffry Sonheim." It hits the appealing ideas of Lib/Con bashing, mentioning New York, etc.

Clearly, the program of "Jeffry Sonheim" still has work to do before it can produce flame bait as effectively as the standard WSJ commentor.

Samuel Weir
Samuel Weir user

"When the first international rating list was published in 1971, the only player rated over 2,700 was Bobby Fischer......Nowadays an entire website is dedicated to tracking the 50 or so players who on any given day are rated 2,700 or higher..."

I'm a bit puzzled by this use of the international chess rating system. As I understand it, the rating system is all relative: The ratings system is arranged so that if a fixed group of players constantly plays against each other, then they rating scores will eventually reach some sort of "equilibrium" state with the better players having higher scores than the poorer players.

If now a second fixed group of players entirely different from the first group plays against each other, then the ratings scores of this second group of players will also reach some "equilibrium" state with the better players of this second group having higher scores than the poorer players of this second group.

So far, so good. But now what about comparisons of the scores between these two groups? It would appear to me that no meaningful cross-comparisons of scores can be made until some players of the first group play against some players of the second group. Similarly, I don't see how a ratings score of 2700 by Bobby Fisher can be compared against the 2700 ratings scores of players of the current generation of chess players. Bobby Fisher earned his score playing against members of his generation, and the current players holding 2700 ratings earned their scores playing against other members of the current generation. With the exception of perhaps a few people from Fisher's era who are still playing, I would think that these two groups are largely distinct from one another with virtually no overlap. Therefore, Fisher's rating of 2700 cannot be compared to a current player's rating of 2700.

Matilda Anders
Matilda Anders user

Mr Weir...

I agree.

It's like comparing Babe Ruth and Ted Williams to drug cheat Barry Bonds.

Waltzin Matilda

Mamie Singleton
Mamie Singleton useraccountSuspended

I loved this article. This has been my favorite game since I was in first grade. It's still a family tradition for us to pull out a chess board during the holidays and duel with family members to test each others' wits. There is a lot more available to the present generation in regard to technology, programs, tools, etc. This young Carlsen is becoming quite the celebrity for the game. This is great for the game and also great exercise for young people's minds.

If I have any fellow WSJ enthusiasts who love the game, feel free to message me or connect and we can try to put together a match online. Because of my busy life, I like to play online matches allowing each player about 3 days per move.

One concern is that while playing people online, you can't really tell if they're running moves through a computer before making their moves or collaborating with others before submitting their move. There is still nothing better than a head to head match, perhaps with a timer so there is some immediacy to making the move.

mike williams
mike williams subscriber

I'm confused -- so can the best computer chess program beat Mr. Carlsen?

Peter Tablan
Peter Tablan subscriber

Yes, absolutely. Even the former World Champion Gary Kasparov lost to IBM's "Deep Blue" in his historic re-match with the computer back in 1997.

Show More Archives

Popular on WSJ

Editors’ Picks