Calculation

 Citation from an interview with Sindarov in El País

"Like Gukesh, the rival he’ll be thinking about night and day from now until the end of the year, and almost all the other chess stars born in the 21st century, Sindarov has not studied the classical masters. He has not read the My Great Predecessors series, where Garry Kasparov, the world champion from 1985 to 2005, meticulously analyzes the best games of the great champions since the 19th century. That book was considered the “Bible of chess,” at the very least essential reading, even for the Norwegian player Magnus Carlsen, the current undisputed number one at 35.  

But not for geniuses in their twenties or younger: “It’s very rare that I read books. My coach insists on it, but I prefer that he teach me things at the board. For example, I’ve never looked up games of great champions of the past on my own, like [Cuban player José Raúl] Capablanca [who was champion a hundred years ago] or [Soviet player Mikhail] Botvinnik [champion in the mid-20th century], although I have seen some when my coach shows them to me.”  

The logical deduction from that fact is that deep strategy, medium- or long-term thinking in a game, positional considerations… are now secondary, because computers have taught them to play in a different way. And Sindarov fully confirms this: “I agree that chess has changed a lot. I don’t want to explain my thought process in a game in detail, for obvious reasons. But I can summarize it like this: I’m always calculating, and when I have to make a decision without time to calculate everything I’d like, I rely on my intuition. Very concrete calculation is the basic element of modern chess.”  

So is calculation what separates a star from a good player? “Today, anyone can be very good at openings [the first 10 or 15 moves of a game] because of training with very powerful computers. It’s not like before, when Kasparov stood out so much from the rest because he had the resources to have a team of very good coaches. Therefore, what makes the difference are other abilities, such as calculation, speed of reflexes, time management, technique, etc. It’s also important to plan what kind of positions you want to achieve against each specific opponent, or against whom you’re going to take more risks in pursuit of a win.”"

Compare this with my post on April 13th

I argue there that the difference between an average grandmaster and a master is mainly based on a difference in calculation skills. I consciously limited myself to average grandmasters, since that was what I observed during the commentary sessions. But this interview indicates that the difference between a super grandmaster and an average one is based on the same "trick". I suspected that already, of course, but I couldn't observe it because it is way out of my league.

I have always been disappointed that nobody picked up the gauntlet of Nimzowitsch and Vukovic to build a chess strategy on the foundations they have laid. John Watson openly declared that concrete calculation superseded any rules he could think of.

It is clearly proven that John Watson is right. For the only reason that you can get away with it. A chess engine can get away with a mediocre evaluation function, and a world champion can get away with it by just calculating better. The people that can build new chess theory have not good enough calculation skills. So nobody beliefs them, and probably they don't belief themselves for that very reason.

The only part of the game where some theory building is done, is in the opening. And now people are trying to ban this element too by advocating Freestyle Chess.

I expect that there will come a moment in the future where mankind reaches the boundaries of what you can reach by just calculation. I hope that then a chess theoretician will stand up.