chess

Weekend Diversion: Chess is Almost Solved!

esiegel — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:58:30 +0000

Weekend Diversion: Chess is Almost Solved!

"There are some things we do much better than computers, but since most of chess is tactically based they do many things better than humans. And this imbalance remains. I no longer have any issues. It’s a bit like asking an astronomer, does he mind that a telescope does all the work?" -Vishy Anand

It used to be no contest. Even if a computer could perform million, billions, or trillions of calculations per second, a game like chess surely got too complicated too quickly for a computer to compete with humans. At least, that's what we used to think, but some things just don't stay the same, as Willy Mason would sing you with his song,

When The River Moves On.

Even after all the time that's passed, it's hard to believe that computers have caught up to human intuition. After all, the number of possibilities for both sides, given a game of chess, is astonishing.

Image credit: Screenshot from Gameknot.com, correspondence chess site.

From a starting point on a chessboard, the white player has a choice of 20 different moves, to which black can respond with any of 20 moves of her own. For a computer to look even a few moves ahead, it must consider hundreds of millions of chess positions, a daunting task for any machine and its programmer.

Image credit: Profimedia.com, Corbis.

The first big human vs. computer match that I remember came in 1989, when then-World Chess Champion Gary Kasparov took on the best computer ever built in a chess match. The computer -- Deep Thought -- came in as the reigning World Computer Chess champion, and had once found a forced mate 37 moves ahead, a truly amazing feat for a game of chess!

While human improvement in chess has been incremental, however, computers have continued to get far faster, and algorithms for evaluating chess positions continued to improve as well. The tipping point came eight years later.

Image credit: Adam Nadel/Associated Press.

In a six game match in 1996, Deep Blue -- the successor to Deep Thought -- became the first computer to ever win a game against the reigning World Chess Champion under tournament conditions and time controls. It was the only game won by the computer in the match, which Kasparov won, 4-2.

But in the rematch in 1997, Deep Blue not only defeated Kasparov in a game, but the entire match, by a score of 3½-2½. Since then, computers have gotten progressively stronger. No computer has lost a championship-caliber match against a human since then, and no human has won even a game against a sufficiently strong computer under tournament conditions since 2005!

Image credit: Colin Frayn and Carlos Justiniano, The ChessBrain Project.

I'm not so strong as a chess player; I enjoy playing, but anyone even approaching expert or master level will beat me pretty much 99% of the time. If you make a few small mistakes or give away a little bit of material, you can still win if you're playing against me. But a top chess computer will crush you.

Disclaimer: The news story I link to below was apparently an April Fool's joke that I fell for. It seems I'm not the only one. (You'll notice the story was posted April 2nd, 2012 with no disclaimer.) I'm happy to leave this up as proof that even I get fooled sometimes, but you can safely ignore everything past this point.

Amazingly, this now extends as far back as move 3!

Image credit: Me, using gameknot's interface.

The three moves above are the King's Gambit opening, one of the oldest and most storied openings in all of chess. Black typically takes white's pawn, and then white either plays out his knight or bishop, trying to checkmate black.

Amazingly, chess computers are now strong enough to have determined that, with optimal play, black can force a win 100% of the time based on this opening!

Image credit: Vasik Rajlich / Chessbase.com.

This setup of three computers -- with software written by Vasik Rajlich -- is used to control a cluster of about 300 cores, which can also tap in to IBM's POWER 7 cluster, with 2,880 cores. (The same system that IBM's Watson used when it played Jeopardy!)

Image credit: Vasik Rajlich / Lukas Cimiotti, via Chessbase. About 50 of the 300 cores on the Cimiotti cluster are shown here.

And after a deep, detailed analysis, all of those massively parallel lines, all of the different combinations of moves -- if black plays correctly at every stage -- means that white will lose.

In other words, by choosing to play 2. f4 in just the second move of the game, white has made a mistake. In fact, only by playing the following weird bishop move -- 3. Be2 -- can white even have a chance at a draw in a mistake-free game by black; in all other lines, black can force victory.

Image credit: Me, screenshot from gameknot.com.

That's right: chess computers are powerful enough that -- given just those first few opening moves -- they can solve whether a position is a victory or not for one side. And surprisingly enough, even this early on, a tiny choice like playing the King's Gambit in the traditional fashion -- the way it's been played for hundreds of years -- means that white is lost. You know what's the most interesting thing about this to me? The moves black must play to win, and "bust" white's opening, were correctly theorized over 50 years ago by Bobby Fischer, all the way back in 1961!

Pretty amazing when you think about it, and this is a tremendously powerful demonstration that it's just a matter of time before all of chess is completely solved. It will still be an interesting game for humans, but for computers, it will very likely become just an advanced version of tic-tac-toe (or nuclear war), where no one side can do better than a draw unless the other makes a mistake.

esiegel Sun, 02/17/2013 - 11:58

Tags

math

Random Stuff

championship

chess

it looks like you were fooled by an April Fool's joke in ChessBase News, which claimed that Rajlich had solved the King's Gambit. I was fooled too, at one point, but ChessBase News does an April Fool's joke every year, and here is where they admitted this one was a prank:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8051

There are a lot of clues in their original article which make it clear that it's a prank... if one reads it carefully!

This blog post is apparently based on the ChessBase News article http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8047 (2 April 2012)

However, that was an April Fool's joke: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8067
The King's Gambit has not yet been solved.

Sigh. Thanks for the info, everyone.

The news story I linked to was apparently an April Fool’s joke that I fell for. It seems I’m not the only one. (You’ll notice the story was posted April 2nd, 2012, with no disclaimer.) I’m happy to leave this up as proof that even I get fooled sometimes, and I'll put a message in the main text -- with links -- to reflect that.

April fools aside, the thing I find fascinating about the whole computers vs humans thing is not that computers can win most of the time, it's how much processing power they need to do it. If you look at the relative joules required for the computer vs the human brain (even ignoring how much of the brain's energy is expended on things like breathing), the human brain wins hands down.

If we limited a computer to the amount of energy that our brains use, I wonder if they could even beat you.

- february 10, 1996, first win by computer against top human

- november 21, 2005, last win by human against top computer

Had I not read this, I would have live without knowing it was an April fool's joke! I read that article last year and I thought it was real. After all, computers are not that frightening.

Let's be clear computers are winning chess; but they aren't thinking.
Starting with deep blue, it is amazing that any human ever wins.
To beat Kasparov, here is what deep blue had to to:
- have a team of programmers, program the rules of chess
- have team of chess grandmasters tell the programmers grandmaster rules of thumb to program into
- program into the computer database every move in every game that Kasporov had every played
- have the team of grand masters analyze kasporov's games for weakness
- have the grandmaster come up with rules of thumbs for play specifically against Kasporov
- have the team of grandmasters develop specific strategies of play against Kasporov

Without all of this programming, which cost IBM a small fortune, the machine didn't have a chance against Kasporov. The idea that any human can stand up against any computer program like this, is to me the great story.

Kasporov with his small team of grandmasters prepared to play with perfect strategy, because you need perfection to play against a machine. He learned that he could never win by psyching out his opponent, nor could he win by knowledge of past games. He could only win by out thinking and out learning Deep Blue.

Because whatever Deep Blue or any chess computer so far today is doing, it is not thinking.

So to me the idea that any human being, can stand up against the collective brain power of dozens of programmers, dozens of grandmasters, and the databases of 1000s of games (today millions of games) and that 1 single human can think enough and learn enough to win even one game against an opponent THAT TO ME WAS THE AMAZING STORY AT THE TIME.

But of course, the press everywhere and even this article pretty much go along with the marketing spin, that the machine has beat the man.

Finally, consider Ethan's statement that:
"and no human has won even a game against a sufficiently strong computer under tournament conditions since 2005!"

Such a statement hides the continually achievement of the world's best grandmasters.

Take the best chess computer/program for 2005 as an example.
How many years did it take for a granmaster to learn to defeat that machine in tourrnament play?

Because if you have to upgrade the computer and the software the next year; if you still want to beat the world's best grandmasters.

Well then, what we have here is a really good teaching machine.

And all of the amazement, in my opinion, still goes to the grandmaster, who as an individual can learn to outthink, out learn, out play the collective intelligence of teams of programmers and chess grandmasters and the databases of millions of chess games.

And that is the real story, few stories are so good at telling specifically how powerful a single human mind, e.g. Kasporov's , is.

The best chess computers/programs/databases are rules based machines NOT LEARNING MACHINES.
Human intelligence is still the only intelligence on planet Earth. And nothing else compares (yet).

And of course, no computer/program/database can beat a GO master yet. The game of GO.

Now that's what I'm talking about.

"And all of the amazement, in my opinion, still goes to the grandmaster,"

- you are absolutely right about that. A computer is just a hunk of metal on it's own (not counting AI's.. and that sort of thing).

What I find fascinating is that we were able to "teach" the computer how to play chess in a first place. In a relatively small amount of time (just couple of decades) we created a bunch of wires and transistors that can play chess. I mean... that's just amazing when you think about it :D

"Not thinking"?

Let me tell you what my artificial intelligence professor told us was the (snarky) definition of artificial intelligence:

Artificial intelligence is anything we haven't taught a computer to do... yet.

The goal posts are always moving. "Computers can't think; if they could think they could do X, but they can't. Perhaps, someday, if they prove they can do X, we can say they're thinking." And then we teach them to do X, and then people pick a NEW X.

"A computer will never be able to beat a strong player at Chess" they said. Done. Oh, okay, then how about:

"A computer will never be able to beat a grandmaster at Chess" they said. Done. Oh, okay, then how about:

Drive a car? Done. (In rush hour traffic and on Mars.) Win at Jeopardy? Done. Pick its own "interesting" scientific hypothesis and test them? Done. Write a song? Write a poem? Paint a picture? Done. Done. Done.

"A computer will never be able to beat a strong player at Go." Not... yet. But soon. There is now probably no intellectual feat at which a computer can't out-perform a bright 13 year old, making them clearly more-intelligent than every creature ever to find itself on the face of the Earth, except for adult humans. Including every dolphin and ever bird; if we'll say those animals are "thinking", why can't we admit that our computers are capable of thought?

(Also, in regards to the article's final sentence, my feeling (and many agree that it is likely) is that Chess isn't a draw game like tic-tac-toe, but a first-player game; i.e., that with perfect play on both sides, white wins.)

OKThen,

I'm not an expert on AI or anything, but I've taken a few philosophy dealing with the subject. The fact is that you really are begging the question of whether or not the computer is thinking.

Computers are actually nothing but rule-based symbol manipulating machines. However, to conclude from this that computers are incapable of thought is serious question begging. At least some philosophers consider human brains to be rule based symbol manipulators, and it's clear that human brains are capable of thought.

The real question is how do we define thinking? Unfortunately, that's not really a question with a truly scientific answer. We might be able to measure brain activity that corresponds to thinking, but that would only tell us what thinking consists of in organic brains. There's no reason to think that a "silicon brain" would exhibit similar measurable activity that would allow us to objectively conclude that it was engaged in thought.

Ultimately, then, it's a philosophical question as to whether a computer could think. You may be right, computers may not be capable of thought. However, it is premature to just dismiss the possibilty that a computer is truly thinking out of hand.

Dale and Sean T
Yes, yes.

Remember, when the automobile was first built; it was great entertainment to see who could go faster the human or the car.

That entertainment of humans chasing cars lasted a couple of years. Dogs are still interested.

Then human interest shifted; how fast the best humans could drive the best cars.

For several decades now, there has been great interest interest in the competition between the best chess computer engines and the best human grandmasters. The fact that humans are still challenging the best chess engines is amazing. We gave up so quickly on cars.

Here's a discussion about the world's best chess engine Houdini versus grandmasters.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/humans-v-houdini-chess-engine-e…

All that being said, one day, just as any cars can move across a flat surface faster than any human; all computers will be able to play a standard game of chess better than any human.

But if the challenge is cross country racing with a few significant obstacles; then the best race car (robotic or with a human driver) is soon in the ditch.

Likewise if we get off of the smooth chess surface (of the standard chess game) and move to rougher terrain( e.g. Fisher-random chess in which the positions of the main pieces is randomized with bishoips maintaining opposite color); in such a rough terrain chess game no computer has a chance against any grandmaster. Because the grandmaster with one glance at the board and the new arrangement of pieces adapts instantly; whereas the best chess computer in the world can not adapt. Just as a racecar cannot adapt to a ditch.

But of course, even this challenge will eventually be mastered by every computer with a chess program.

But what we have really is experts (i.e. grand masters) helping to program computers; then in term grandmasters learning from those computers. i.e. a grandmaster or anybody can now play a dozen grandmaster level games in an afternoon.

The chess computer is the granmaster's tool just as surely as the race car is the race driver's tool.

But long after, we have gotten bored with the idea of human's racing automobiles to see who wins; and long after we have gotten bored with the idea of human's playing chess against computers to see who wins; we will still be excited by humans versus humans running or playing games, in a way that we are NOT excited about robotic machines (machines without human drivers) versus robotic machines whether cross country racing or playing chess.

The importance of a google car driving safer than me is that I can read a book or my tablet or sleep or play a game with my son.

And the simple games that I play with a child have ever changing rules and even new words that a chess computer would have no idea how to invent or adapt to; but that a child can invent and adapt to instantly.

That being said, what I envision long before we have senseint machines is yes; helper and function machines (e.g. trading computers and autopilots and etc...) ; but what I really envision is teaching machines.

And we have some of those early teaching machines today. And these teaching machines (e.g. the ipad with reading, math, drawing, music, chess,, etc..programs) teach adult and children humans. But they can not teach a chess computer, especially the world's best chess computer; because such machines have a very limited repertoire of learning modes, compared to a child.

So yes, use of computers/programs/databases is every thing is pervasive, even insidious. But no computers are yet thinking.

Now when the computer virus's start evolving on their own; for their own purposes. When the chess computer programs start learning on their own even for the purpose of chess.

Let's take the world top two or three chess computer's and have them play against one another for a year. Are they significantly better after a year? Have they learned any new insight in some complex position that they can teach a grand master? Has their been an ahha?

Artificial intelligence is powerful. And I certainly want to have the best machine/program/database tool on a particular subject matter or activity in my pocket or as a tool (e.g. vehicle).

But so far, I know of no machine that has been allowed and able to develop it's own humble interest.

I mean a thinking chess computer; might learn to develop a new skill or interest on its own (e.g. a sense of humor). And maybe such a chess computer might try to force the play of a chess game against an international grandmaster into the play of an exact historic game for example as one between Bobby Fisher and Boris Spatsky and halfway through such an insightful game; the international grandmaster would get the joke and laugh. Haha ha. The machine could have beat me here and here but it's pretending it's Bobby Fisher.

I certainly would like to have such a companion. Of course, I will probably have such a computer/programmmed/database companion assistant and it will make such jokes; but not because of an computer inspired insight but because it has been programmed by a human for human humor.

Still that will be excellent.

But when will machines start making machine jokes between one another that you and I and even the GREATS don't understand. Well then...

Of course, then all discussions change. I mean a sustainable planet Earth for humans is a very different thing than a sustainable Earth for machines.

Back to basic our current non thinking machines. The model of the intelligent machine is the BOOK. Yes the book is a machine. On my book shelf these books tell me the wisdom of Socrates, the humor of Aristophanes, the brilliance of Leonardo, and all the greats.

The BOOK is an intelligent machine. But so to is the WHEEL an intelligent machine. Each captures and transmits a certain kind of human intelligence and thought.

OK Then,

I think maybe I wasn't clear. By no means do I think that the current chess-playing computers are actually thinking. I just cautioned about dismissing the idea of AI out of hand. You correctly point out that these chess programs require input from grandmasters, for instance. Perhaps therefore, they are not the best examples. Consider instead the state of the art in backgammon playing computers. They certainly aren't as advanced in their level of play as chess computers are; a top-notch backgammon player can do pretty well against the best programs. However, the manner in which they learn (yes, this word is appropriate) to play the game differs greatly from the chess computers.

Top level backgammon programs start out knowing almost nothing about backgammon (there are a few bear off databases and the like pre-programmed). These computers play games against themselves. Each legal position potentially encountered is assigned a weight, with that weight being increased each time that position leads to a win and decreased each time it leads to a loss. Given a choice of moves, the program chooses the move with the greatest weight (or chooses randomly among positions with the same weight).

To begin with, all legal positions have equal weight. The computer then plays games against itself, with the weights changing as games are completed. Initially, it makes random moves since all positions are weighted equally. However, some positions are stronger than others, and over large numbers of games, the weights of the stronger positions increase, making the computer more and more likely to reach these positions. Similarly, weaker positions tend to see their weights decrease, making the computer less likely to make moves that result in these positions. The practical upshot of this is that the program essentially teaches itself to play backgammon without any input from outside (other than a few items that are already pretty well solved, included mainly to reduce the training time of the program.)

It's much less clear to me that such a program cannot be said to be thinking, at least within the limited domain of the game of backgammon. It's also not clear to me that human learning doesn't occur in much the same way. We do learn much by trial and error. The assignment of numerical weights to situations seems to me to be just a formalization of the process of learning through trial and error. Is there really a difference in principle?

Just to add to what I posted above, it is true that top level backgammon players still beat the best programs, but some of that might well be attributed to the fact that these players have adapted their game to what has been learned from the programs. Top level players have changed how they play based on these programs. It's not a matter of adapting their games to beat the computers; the way that they played prior to the development of them was objectively wrong! They actually learned how to play a better game of backgammon from studying the computer program.

At least within this limited domain, new information was generated by a computer, therefore. This was done without prior input from experts in the field. Where did this information come from if the computer really isn't intelligent?

"Kasporov with his small team of grandmasters prepared to play with perfect strategy, because you need perfection to play against a machine."

One of the most interesting moments in the Deep Blue vs Kasparov re-match was when Kasparov deliberately played a move that was not perfect from a neutral strategic standpoint, but was rather designed to trip up the computer by falling outside its expectations. And it worked. One of Kasparov's strengths was that he understood how computers 'think'.

Unfortunately this lead to a weakness -- knowing how previous computers thought, but not one like Deep Blue. When DB played a move that seemed to require human-levels of intuition and was very unlike what a computer would normally play, Gary called shenanigans.

All around a fascinating episode in human history.

One of the first things my AI professor told us (in his introductory lecture titled "It's 2001 -- Where's HAL?" was to think of "AI" in two broad categories: "Strong" and "weak" AI. "Strong" AI is HAL. "Weak" AI is any decision-making system that takes into account environmental input. At some level, your thermostat is an AI.

The point of teaching us this distinction was to prevent us from getting hung-up on the search for HAL. What we would be learning were algorithms for producing practical, useful AIs. Algorithms that have been very successful at their tasks, and indeed much like Deep Blue often surpassing the humans who used to perform them. So, you know, if you want to try to code up HAL then feel free, but if you want to accomplish useful tasks then the question of whether "Strong" AI is possible is not necessarily relevant.

However, the thing is, it's not clear that there really is a difference except in terms of human perception. It's not clear that what the brain does and what "weak" AIs do is actually all that different. The main difference is that you can see and understand (if you're a programmer) every single step going on in the computer's "thoughts", while with a human (even if you're a neurologist) you can't.

At some point, if we make our "weak" AI algorithms and computers strong enough, put enough of them together that they can make "intuitive" leaps like Deep Blue already did at least once, and like Watson does constantly, then at some point you have to ask if whether it "really" has intuition or if its algorithm just happens to pick surprising answers sometimes has any meaning. And whether that distinction means anything. If we eventually discovered that human intuition was basically the same thing, would that mean we had ceased to "really" think?

The answer to the Chinese Room is this: No, the man inside the room doesn't know Chinese. However, I would argue that the system as a whole does.

@Sean T.

"Computers are actually nothing but rule-based symbol manipulating machines. "

And the human brain is...?

Ha! It's my point but in 5 words instead of a wall of text. Kudos to you.

James,

I believe if you read further in the post that you quoted, you will see that I also mentioned that brains might very well also be rule-based symbol manipulators.

If you level the playing field, can computers match human (chess) performance?

Neurons have a maximum firing rate of 1000 cycles per second. Very few neurons will actually operate in that range, but for simplicity I'll take that as criterium for a 'level playing field'.

As we know, today's processors operate at GigaHertz frequencies. Chess software is very much dependent on brute force. A chess computer limited to a clock frequency of 1000 Hertz would not make much of a dent.

Clearly, the way that computers process information is profoundly different from the way humans process information. In the case of chess what is produced is chess moves, but the information processing to arrive at the chess move is different for humans and computers.

About the information processing:
For the chess computers, their brute force capability is not enough. Even a computer cannot evaluate all possible positions. In many positions there are only two or three worthwhile moves. Ideally the software should be able to discard all moves that are not among the few worthwhile moves. I will refer to that as 'pruning the tree'.

Grandmaster John van der Wiel had a reputation of doing well against computers. He described that in order to do well against a computer you have to play a kind of game that you wouldn't play against a human. You must play for positions where in general the progress of play is extremely slow, and where there are all the time many, many moves that are equally worthwhile.
In positions like that the tree-pruning algorithms performed poorly, and at the same time the tree pruning was needed most. (I assume this weakness was overcome with increased brute force capability.)

Interestingly, in the game of Go the top Go computers are still not a match for the top human players.

And the reasons for that, as I understand it, are related to the type of play that was the best kind of play against chess computers.

In Go every position has many potentially worthwhile moves. Clearly, humans are efficiently pruning the tree of possible moves, otherwise they would not be able to play at the level they play. But for developers of Go playing software it has proven very hard to develop good tree pruning.

Considerations like have convinced me that the way computers process information is profoundly different from the way humans process information.

Yes, yes, yes. And yes Strong versus weak AI.

"It’s much less clear to me that such a program cannot be said to be thinking, at least within the limited domain of the game of backgammon. " Really.

Hmm, what about a robot vacuum cleaner with the chips and programming to learn the obstacles and vacuum an apartment. is such a vacuum cleaner, ipad or car thinking? For sure it is handling information.

But back to the title of this article Chess is Almost Solved!
Hmm, probably yes.

"Hmm, what about a robot vacuum cleaner with the chips and programming to learn the obstacles and vacuum an apartment. is such a vacuum cleaner, ipad or car thinking? "

Thinking about vacuuming, or showing you cat videos on youtube, or the timing of your spark plugs? Yeah, personally I'd say it is.

Just like an angler fish thinks about catching the shrimp that's been attracted to its lure.

Neither (probably, in the latter case) are consciously thinking about the fact that they are thinking about accomplishing the task. There's a certain meta-thinking you seem to be referring to, the thing we call consciousness or self-awareness. While it's obviously difficult to say for sure, we've only identified a select number of animals who display it.

So the fundamental problem is this: Between the simplest of organisms with a central nervous system to human beings, tell me where the behavior of that nervous system becomes "thinking", and where it becomes "consciousness".

Now, assuming you have denied one or both of those titles using to the simplest brain, you must then observe that using the same fundamental cellular machinery -- just much more of it and arranged with greater complexity -- you can get all the way to an obviously-thinking-and-conscious brain.

Why not so of a computer? What's different about the form of "information handling" done by a neuron that when arranged in the correct fashion in sufficient numbers it produces thinking and consciousness?

At some point our "weak" AI may become sophisticated enough and built into complex enough ensembles that it gives the semblance of conscious thought. And yet we may still understand it fully as a sequence of instructions programmed by the computer. So what? If we understood our brains at that level, would that mean we weren't thinking all this time?

Thinking of a robotic vacuum cleaner as a kind of gigantic bacteria or a gigantic human cell, then if I organize a 110 trillion of those robotic vacuum cleaners in the same way that a living human body is organized with its 10 trillion human cells and its 100 trillion bacteria symbiotic orgnisms; then that configuration of 110 trillion robotic vacuum cleaners might attain consciousness or NOT.

Well that's obviously going to depend on how you wire them up, and how each one is programmed.

And so with a pile of cells.

What's the difference? Why is the organic machinery special?

Hmm, ethan fooled yet again....its getting pretty boring

@OKThen,

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds to me like you are taking the position that organic brains have some characteristic, property, etc. that allows them to engage in mental processes, and that furthermore, non-organic "brains" (such as computers), cannot possess this faculty. If that's true, then it's your right to hold this belief. I cannot argue against this except to ask you what this special property is. It cannot be complexity of organization. In principle, it's certainly possible to arrange "artificial neurons" in arbitrarily complex fashion. Are you really arguing that an arrangement of such artificial neurons that duplicates the arrangement of organic neurons in a human brain would not be able to engage in mental activity, up to and including consciousness? If so, then I'll have to respectfully disagree with you without further argument unless you can tell me what it is about the human brain that is fundamentally different from the functionally equivalent arrangement of artificial neurons.

OKThen,

Just to be clear: I am arguing that the factor that causes organic brains to have the ability to engage in mental processes is the enormously complex arrangement of neurons. Whether it's possible in practice to arrange artificial neurons in such a complex arrangement as to produce mental states is an open question in my mind. I do believe that it's possible in principle, however.

Again, though, I think you've begged the question. I have given you an example of a computer program that requires no external input of information (other than the formal rules of the game of backgammon). No expert backgammon players assisted in programming the computer. The only inputs, which weren't even strictly necessary, were well-understood and calculated items, such as bear off data bases. These really only served to speed the learning process; the program would have been able to develop these itself. The program ran, as I described before, and taught itself to play a very strong game of backgammon. Its game was so strong that expert human players, who have studied the game for years, have changed the way that they play the game against other humans because of what the computer programs have taught them. Why does this not qualify as thinking, at least in the restricted domain of the game of backgammon?

CB
"It’s not clear that what the brain does and what “weak” AIs do is actually all that different."

Well I disagree. So let me explain my opinion.

All AI machines today, are imbedded with human intelligence.
Sometimes that intelligence is tacitly imbedded, e.g. the wheel.
Sometimes it is explicitly imbedded, e.g. a book, or a chess program.

In my opinion, all AI by definition is weak AI; because it is fundamentally very cautious and controlled.

When we are talking about HAL and computer thought, when we are talking about Artificial Consciousness; we are talking about something revolutionary, incendiary, uncontrollable.

Consciousness is not limited to the carbon based life forms. Perhaps there is consciousness of different sorts across the cosmos (we just don't know of it yet); perhaps we can facilitate the emergence of artificial consciousness in computer programs (we just haven't done it yet).

But, in my opinion, wiring together a bunch of robotic vacuum cleaners has zero chance of accomplishing the development of Artificial Consciousness; because the unit (i.e. the robotic vacuum cleaner) is missing some essential properties necessary for consciousness.

Consider the spectrum:
stone virus bacteria colony multicellular organism human

In my opinion, the virus already has some essential ingredients not only for a living organism; but for a conscious organism.

A virus not only self replicates exponentially; it also extensively mutates and those mutants replicate exponentially or die. This prolific originality is, in my opinion, essential for the emergence of thought as well as the emergence of life.

In my opinion
Before we can have conscious thought
There has to be unconscious thought
Before unconscious thought
There has to be life
Before than can be life
There has to be self

This applies to carbon based consciousness and to artificial consciousness.

So where in the state of our current information technology should we be looking for an artificial proto-self ? An artificial proto-organism? And hence an artificial proto-thought?

In my mind, the computer research that has the best chance of spawning artificail life and hence artificial thought is what I call:
the computer virus (i.e. hackers) versus computer operating system wars (i.e. information technology organizations)

Clearly the ideal virus not only replicates exponentially and effectively disrupts; it continually mutates explosively to outmaneuver computer operating system defenses and offensives.

Clearly the ideal operating system not only is actively defensive; it is preemptively offensive in order to maintain its self integrety (i.e. continual function) against known and unknown threats.

Thus both the ideal computer virus and ideal computer operating system must be capable of mutation.

How disruptive are virus programmers/hackers willing to be (e.g. in North Korea, China, Iraq, CIA, Mafia, some revolutionary movement)? In my opinion, a lot more than the designers of computer chess and vacuum cleaner programs.

In my mind, current computer viruses are misnamed; they are more aptly named proto-computer viruses; because they do not massively mutate like organic viruses.

Our current computer virus's are quite mild mannered and cautious creations, compared to a fully functioning computer virus that could not only replicate and disrupt; but also mutate and evolve in the wilds of the internet environment.

Nor are our current computer operating systems like living cells or organisms; their systems of survival (implicit values) are not self organized like a roses thorn.

It is designers' values that are imbedded in today's computer virus's and computer operating systems. It is not the computer virus's and computer operating systems themselves which are trying diligently to outwit, outmaneuver, out-mutate and out-evolve each other.

Be that as it may, in my opinion, the hackers and operating system programmers are at the forefront of artificial life and artificial intelligence research.

The progression, in my opinion, will be:
- artificial proto-self/proto thought (e.g.current computer viruses, current state)
- artificial self (e.g. a self evolving computer virus, current research)
- artificial life (e.g. a self evolving computer operating system, current research)
- artificial uncounscious thought (e.g. self interested artificial predator/prey survival struggles by millions of species of artificial bacteria, plants, jellyfish, insects, etc invading an internet type environment).
- artificial conscious thought (e.g. self interested Genghis Khan versus self interested artificial Socrates our own living operating systems.)

In think a predatory artificial computer insect capable of some kind of unconscious thought(i.e. survival instinct) is much more dangerous to human existence than an artificial biological GMO talking companion dog.

So biological cells, organisms and thought are not special.
Nor are they well understood.

The hacker versus operating system war of development of artificial life and artificial thought is well underway and likely to escalate; because cyberwar to develop artificial thought is well invested as a matter of greed and politics.

I personally hope the gap between artificial intelligence and artificial life, unconsciousness and consciousness is much wider than science fiction suggests.

replace with:
"Be that as it may, in my opinion, the hackers and operating system programmers are at the forefront of artificial life and artificial THOUGHT research."

So if I understand, your opinion is that consciousness can only occur as a consequence of evolution. And the reason the machinery of cells can be the components of a conscious mind but the machinery of a Roomba cannot is because the former were evolved.

Now, there's two ways I can take this.

One is that it isn't the structure that matters, it's how the structure came to be, that defines its ability to be conscious. A machine designed and a machine evolved could be exactly the same, but only the latter could be conscious. That's obviously nonsense, so I'll assume this was not your meaning.

The other is that you're just saying that the algorithms and patterns necessary for producing consciousness cannot be discovered or invented through traditional means, but only created as an emergent behavior of evolutionary processes.

Well first, that's fine, because Genetic Algorithms are a great way to connect up our collection of Roombas. It'd be my preferred way to do it, in fact. Computer "virus" development is not actually much like biological evolution at all. But creating populations of code, testing the result, propagating the successes with mutation and crossover and deleting the rest, is evolution, and we can do it faster than all the hackers employed by the Russian mob. So... why can't Roombanet be sentient again?

Second, let me ask the exact same question as before only instead of about the machinery it's about the algorithm implemented by that machinery: What's so special about the algorithm implemented by a conscious mind that it's impervious to discovery, reverse-engineering, or independent invention? If we rooted out the fundamental pathways that make humans "conscious", why could those not be re-created in an electronic analog? Why is evolution the *only* way to achieve this?

It's all well and good to declare that only life can lead to thought can lead to consciousness. It makes for nice poetry. Also excludes anything a computer does as being "thought" by definition. But how do you justify believing that is actually so?

"If we rooted out the fundamental pathways that make humans “conscious”, why could those not be re-created in an electronic analog? Why is evolution the *only* way to achieve this?"

Well consider http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=c-elegans-connectome

The 302 neurons of the nematode C. elegans' nervous system were mapped and published in 1986. Twenty seven years later; no one has been able to re-create c. elegans "simple" nervous system as a dynamic functioning artificial unconscious nervous system computer program.

Nor do neuroscientist know how c. elegans “unconscious” nervous system of 302 neurons works.

"So far, C. elegans is the only organism that boasts a complete connectome... (but)... critics point out that the C. elegans connectome has not provided many insights into the worm's behavior... that connectome by itself has not explained anything... a lone connectome is a snapshot of pathways through which information might flow in an incredibly dynamic organ, it cannot reveal how neurons behave in real time, nor does it account for the many mysterious ways that neurons regulate one another's behavior. Without such maps, however, scientists cannot thoroughly understand how the brain processes information at the level of the circuit."

"Re-creating" the 100 billion neurons and the 100 trillion synapses of the human brain (or even an small subset of such) "in an electronic analog"; seems unlikely since we can't re-create even 302 neurons and 7,000 synapses of c. elegans as a dynamic artificial unconscious computer nervous system.

I will be very impressed if/when c. elegans is re-created as an artificial unconscious computer program nervous system.

So since artificial unconsciousness has not been programmed; talk of re-creating human consciousness in a computer program seems premature.

On the other hand:
"Artificial life researchers have studied self-replicators since 1979 and the first autonomously mutating self-replicating computer programs were introduced by Ray in 1992... As opposed to computer malware artificial life systems are squarely aimed at the research environment... By using an evolutionary function, computer malware could.." arXiv:1111.2503

"Fourth generation viruses use simple armoring techniques such as encryption... Fifth generation viruses are self mutating. They infect other systems with other versions of themselves." But this is not autonomous self mutation yet.

Fortunately autonomous self mutation of computer programs seems very difficult if not impossible in current computer environments.

So either way, I don't expect artificial consciousness soon.

Of course chess is a game (i.e. simulation) of civilized aggression (i.e.war)

This 6 page article pretty much sums up the state of cyber warfare.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/04/stuxnet-201104
"Stuxnet is like a self-directed stealth drone: the first known virus that, released into the wild, can seek out a specific target, sabotage it, and hide both its existence and its effects until after the damage is done. This is revolutionary... Stuxnet is the Hiroshima of cyber-war. That is its true significance, and all the speculation about its target and its source should not blind us to that larger reality. We have crossed a threshold, and there is no turning back."

Not really sure what chess has to do with computer viruses.

And thanx for the article on Connectome. Didn't know about this study before.

But something is missing in order to be able to replicate an "inteligence" of the worm. Let's use the computer analogue.

What they are doing in mapping all the wires. And this is an importan 50% of the job. But like the article says, it alone is not enough. And that's perfectly logical. If you replicated all the wiring of a computer, it still wouldn't work. What's missing?... the software. The basic one. The assembler. Some code, that tells the hardware how to work. And this, IMO, comes from DNA, or RNA in case of worms I guess.

So without an artificial equivalent to DNA, wires alone won't do it.

Sinisa
Just a stream/circle of thought
chess solved - chess programs - to AI - Artifiicial thought - viruses approaching artificial life - cyberwar (hmm chess is simulated war, the ultimate simulated war programs aren't chess engines, they are cyberwar programs)

"If you replicated all the wiring of a computer, it still wouldn’t work. What’s missing?… the software. "
Thanks for hitting me over the head with the obvious.

Amazingly, this now extends as far back as move 3!

Thirty-five comments in, and I'm apparently the first to point out that at least one of those branches was solved a long time ago, without the aid of computers. After 1 g4 e5 2 f3 Black forces a win with 2 ... Qh4 mate. It's called the Fool's Mate. (If you prefer the old-fashioned descriptive notation, it's 1 P-KN4 P-K4 2 P-KB3 Q-R5.)

"Thanks for hitting me over the head with the obvious."

No.. I was just thinking aloud. Wasn't meant as anything offensive.

OKThen, the problem being difficult is not the same as it being impossible. I have not and do not intend to claim that Strong AI is imminent. I do claim that it is possible, and that there is absolutely no reason to believe that it isn't. You've claimed that it is, but that we haven't figured it out YET isn't evidence that this is so.

What is it about the operation of the worm's nervous system that you feel is utterly inscrutable and immune to human understanding?

The computer virus papers you refer to demonstrate what I'm saying: They are not much like biological life at all, and other parts of computer science, genetic algorithms in particular, are far ahead in that regard with virus makers maybe thinking about picking up some of it. But it's not just hard to have fully random self-mutation in the wild, it's generally deleterious to the purpose of the virus. Most random changes are detrimental, and particularly in a software program will cause the program to stop working entirely. If your goal is to infect the largest number of computers possible, then having successfully installed a virus on a computer only for it to randomly disable itself is counter-productive. That's why they've only had "mutations" in a very limited sense to try to fool anti-virus pattern matchers. Actually "evolving" new functionality isn't necessary and isn't worth it.

In the lab, though, you can throw away millions of generations of entirely negative mutations with no benefit just so that you find one that pushes you closer to an ideal solution.

The part that interested me is so much more boring.

I got taught in the game theory: Chess is a finite game. There's a theorem that says it must have a value, in the technical sense. This means that either white should be able to win, or black should be able to draw, but unlike tic-tac-toe, we don't know which of those holds. This was always a cute result for me.

So how much calculation would it take to figure that out? I'm kinda thinking the answer is "a ridiculous amount".

@rook,

Well, to brute force calculate it, you'd have to analyze every possible legal position that could arise during a game of chess. Each player has 20 possible legal moves for the first move. That number will change as the game progresses, but for simplicity, let's just take 20 as the number of legal moves available at any given point in a game.

Now, There are 20x20 = 400 legal positions to be analyzed as a result of each players first move. This number grows rapidly as the game goes on. For instance, after 20 moves by each player, it's on the order of 10^52 positions, so yeah, I'd say there's a ridiculous amount of calculation needed to determine whether chess is a win for white or a draw when played optimally. It's almost certainly an intractable problem for current computing technology.

Sinisa
You are never offensive.
Hitting me over the head with an idea is a compliment. Thank you for pointing out the obvious to me.

Well --- I fell for that one, too, when it was originally published... But as a Computer Scientist, I should have been deeply sceptical as to the validity of the original report, but alas, I was completely fooled... Good one, Chessbase...

Oh, and I should add: To my knowledge, the most sophisticated game solved so far by a computer, is apparently Checkers (which is an astonishing feat!): http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~jonathan/

As for chess, well... Even taking Moore's law into account, I don't believe I will see the game of chess being solved in my lifetime (I'm in my thirties). But, please: Prove me wrong :)

in second pics the board is not correct :)

Artificial Intelligence will remain principally impossible without self-reference!

German philosopher and mathematician Gotthard Günther developed the only feasible approach: polycontextural logic. It is officialy said that Günthers research was stopped due to the Vietnam war and lack of funds. Nothing could be farther from truth. Rumors say that his research was classified as top secret after it had already yieled practical success (I remember reading about some architectural software which was able to solve a complex statical problem).

http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/archive/Cyberphilosophy.pdf

Chess and Backgammon: The Lambda-T-algorithm (e.g. used by Jellyfish) has surpassed the human world champions. In fact, experts changed some of their opening moves hirarchy according to the neuronal networks' new evaluations.

However, chess and Go are lacking dice "noise", therefore Lambda-T seems not suitable for them. Otherwise, I believe, the neuronal network could be used to prune search tree in new ways to extend search depth considearbly.

Of course, a NN can't explain its decisions, that's a big drawback. However, with Gotthard Günthers approach, a true expert could be built which know the why. Polycontextural logic is infusing consciousness into matter! Think about it. As machines will challenge the human domain of reasoning, humans will be forced to take the next step in evolution, to distinguish themselves from machines, that means: discover their own true divinity and creator-likeness.

Philip

Two Puzzles

jrosenhouse — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:29:40 +0000

Two Puzzles

I am at a loss for good blog fodder today, so how about an amusing chess-themed puzzle I recently came across? It's a simple question: What is it that the queen cannot do that a king, rook, bishop, knight or pawn can all do? Good luck!

Come to think of it, here's another puzzle I've always liked. Nothing to do with chess this time. Imagine that you are in a pitch black room. No light at all. You are seated at a table. On the table is a standard deck of fifty-two cards, stacked neatly and squared away. Forty-two of the cards are face-down, while ten are face-up. Of course, since the room is completely dark you cannot see how the face-up cards are distributed within the pack. For all you know it could be the top ten cards that are face-up, with all the others face-down. Or maybe it's the last ten cards that are face-up. Or the face-up cards might be distributed in some haphazard way. Your task is to divide the cards into two piles in such a way that the number of face-up cards in each pile is exactly the same.

Again, good luck!

jrosenhouse Wed, 08/22/2012 - 18:29

Tags

chess

A queen is unable to capture a more powerful piece than itself.

A queen can't pee standing up.

Haven't played chess for about twenty years, but is a queen unable to reveal a discovered attack?

And divide the cards into a pile of ten and a pile of forty-two, then flip the first pile upside down.

When I realised that one pile needs to be turned over the answer fell out...

Cut the cards into a a 10-pile & a 42-pile
Turn the 10-pile the other way up
The number of UP cards must now be the same in each pile

Example [where U = Up & D = Down]:-
If 42-pile = 7U + 35D
Then 10-pile = 3U + 7D & turn it to get 3D + 7U
Both piles now contain 7U

The Queen cannot start on the other colour

This is for any reader of this blog who has never seen the riddle the Sphinx asked Oedipus:
What goes on four legs in the morning, on two legs at noon, and on three legs in the evening?
Answer at: http://www.jimloy.com/puzz/sphinx0.htm

Answer: A shapeshifter.

Ask them why they want the cards so even when they turned the lights out?

The "Wargames" resolution: don't play is the only winning strategy.

JimR: Ron Jeremy with a hangover.

Wow, I guess there are a lot of things the queen can't do, because Eric, Anton Mates, and Michael Fisher all appear to have given valid answers! (I had to think about the discovered attack one for a moment, but yes that is true I think...)

Many of the things I can think about the queen involve expressing a unique thing it can do as a negative it can't NOT do. E.g. a queen cannot NOT attack any opponents piece that it happens to be legally moved immediately adjacent to. (A king can't to this because it can never be legally moved immediately adjacent to the opponents king.)

Cut the deck in half with a knife.

This thread is starting to remind me of that old puzzle about finding the height of a building with a barometer. The intended answers, as others have pointed out are:

(1) A queen cannot move to give discovered check.

(2) Divide the cards into piles of 10 and 42, then flip over the pile with ten cards.

But I like most of the other answers too!

use a standard Braille deck of cards. They are certainly standard for the blind.

@Iason

Sure she can. Although it may be messier than when the king does it!

For the card puzzle:

Deal the first ten cards off the top and put them in one pile. Then turn the ten-card pile upside down. Voila.

Nitpicking alert.
Actually Anton Mates mentioned a discovered attack, which not the same as a discovered check. So the question is: does the white queen attack the rook in a position like this?
White: Qb2, Ba1
Black: Kh8, Rg7, Ne8.

White moves the queen away and discovers the attack.
[/nitpicking]

Still all honours go to AM. Despite playing chess for 30 years I would never have thought of it.

@qetzal:

No hands! (c.f. Who can pee further...boy or girl)

White moves the queen away and discovers the attack.

Ah, fair enough. I didn't realize that it's still defined as a discovered attack even if the opponent's piece was already under attack by your queen before you moved it. In that case, yeah, it would only be a discovered check that your queen can never reveal.

My answers:

1. What a queen can't do is be something other than a queen.
2. Cut the cards in half.

I'm kicking myself for not thinking of the "right" answer to 2. I must admit I was too quick to give up and start thinking of silly answers.

A queen cannot move to give discovered check.

Also can't move like a knight.

(if you're not really interested in learning, you can "win" any argument!)

Michael Fisher:

The Queen cannot start on the other colour.

I like this one, but it may not be true depending on the definition of "start". When a pawn promotes to queen, that queen "starts" on a new square, which may be either color.

darn, i didn't figure out any of the puzzles.

for puzzle #2, i thought i'd tear each card in half, and put half 1 in pile A and half 2 in pile B, and so on... =/

the do not fear the laws of man or nature but they will definitely come fear this i hold...

Anand Wins!

jrosenhouse — Thu, 31 May 2012 16:19:07 +0000

Anand Wins!

After some nervous moments, Viswanathan Anand defeated Boris Gelfand to keep the title of World Chess Champion. When the classical games resulted in a tie (one win for each with ten draws), the match was decided via a mini-match of four rapid games. All four of the games were exciting and hard-fought, with neither player making the most of his chances. The first game was a draw after Anand mishandled what was probably a winning position. Game two was a real barn-burner. First Anand seemed to be winning easily. Then Gelfand showed some impressive bishop-fu to take over the advantage. But then he pressed to hard to try to win and ended up on the weaker side of a drawish endgame. Still, at a normal time control Gelfand would have drawn easily. But with only seconds left on his clock he blundered and lost.

Gelfand might have gotten right back into it in game three. The position below will serve as today's tactical exercise. It is Gelfand, playing white, to move:

Black just moved his pawn to e5, blocking white's dark squared bishop on f4. Play continued 1. Bxe5 Nxe5, and this is where Gelfand missed his chance. He played the seemingly obvious 2. Rxb8, which squanders much of white's advantage. Instead he should have played the zwischenzug 2. Nxe4!, leading to this position:

What does black do now? If he replies with 2. ... fxe4 white plays 3. dxe5, and suddenly black's bishop on b8 is all kinds of screwed. Seriously, there is no way to protect the bishop from white's marauding rooks. Black can keep from losing further material with 3. ... Nd7, but after 4. Nd6, white has both a material advantage and an overwhelming position.

This left Gelfand in the unenviable position of having to win with black in the final game. He gave it his best shot and generated a solid initiative, but Anand's defensive skills were up to the task.

So Anand remains the world champion. There had been some speculation prior to the match that Anand would retire at its conclusion, but so far he has made no official announcement to that effect. Clcik here for post-match comments from both Anand and Gelfand.

jrosenhouse Thu, 05/31/2012 - 12:19

Tags

chess

Silly and pedantic, I know, but ...

Why is your chessboard icon turned 90 degrees?

Nakamura Wins U. S. Chess Championship

jrosenhouse — Sat, 19 May 2012 17:16:46 +0000

Nakamura Wins U. S. Chess Championship

Hikaru Nakamura has won the U. S. Chess Championship by a full point. It was a dominating performance, capped off with a stunning win with black, in the penultimate round, against the other pre-tournament favorite Gata Kamsky. This is Nakamura's third title. So, congratulations to him.

Today's tactical exercise comes from the tenth round game between Kamsky, playing white, and the struggling Yasser Seirawan. It's white to move:

The position looks a bit dicey for black, with white's rook eying his king down the half-open g-file. White's pieces seem well-placed for a king-side attack. His next move opens up a big can of whoop-ass.

White played 1. Bxh6!, and suddenly black is all kinds of screwed. The sacrifice must be accepted, since after something like 1. ... Rg8, white would simply play moves like Bf4 and h6, after which his attack will quickly crash through on the g and h files. So black played 1. ... gxh6, but this loses to the follow-up sacrifice 2. Rd7!

Now what does black do? He'd like to take the rook with 2. ... Nxd7, but this loses to the pretty 3. Qd2 (threatening mate on h6) Kh7 4. Ng4

and black is just helpless against the threat of Qxh6+. With white's pieces marauding around his position, black won't last long by moving his queen. So he played his only other option with 2. ... Qxd7 3. Nxd7 Nxd7. At first blush this may not look catastrophic, since black has a lot of material in exchange for the queen he just lost. But white is not yet finished. He now plays 4. Qd2!

The dual threats of giving mate on h6 and taking the hanging knight on d7 ensure that white will pick up another piece. Black resigned a few moves later. An impressive game for Kamsky, and sadly typical of how the tournament went for Seirawan.

jrosenhouse Sat, 05/19/2012 - 13:16

Tags

chess

More Chess!

jrosenhouse — Thu, 17 May 2012 12:43:35 +0000

More Chess!

The World Championship continues to be a snooze. Five games down, five draws. Only one game has made it past the thirtieth move. Both players seem very hesitant and completely uninclined to take any risks. Still seven games left, though, so we will see what happens.

Happily, the U. S. Championship continues to produce one nail-biter after another. Today's tactical exercise comes from the game six match-up between Gregory Kaidanov as white against Robert Hess as black. As you can see, we have a rather unusual material balance:

If you remember your basic point-counting (Pawn=1, Bishop and Knight=3, Rook=5, Queen=9), then you see that black's three minor pieces are effectively equivalent to white's queen. On paper, at any rate. In practical play the three pieces are generally better, so long as they can cooperate effectively. In the diagram, white has just moved his rook to d1 A trade of rooks would definitely be to his advantage, since it would make it more difficult for black to organize an attack on the white king. But black is not forced to trade. He has a shot in this position that clarifies things immediately.

Black played, 1. ... Bd4!, attacking the queen in the corner. If white tries 2. Qc1, then he loses to the fork 2. ... Ne2+. His best move is 2. Rxd4, but after 2. ... Ne2+ 3. Kh2 Nxd4, black's material advantage will win in the end. So white played his only other possible move, 2. Qb1, but now 2. ... Bd3! is very strong:

White resigned, since 3. Rxd3 Nxd3 4. Qxd3 Bxf2+ wins the white queen. Alas, the white queen has nowhere to go.

Gregory Kaidanov was having a good tournament prior to this game, having beaten the defending champion Gata Kamsky. Alas, after being on the wrong side of this one he committed a bad blunder in the next round. In our next position, Kaidanov is playing black against Alejandro Ramirez:

Earlier in the game, Ramirez had played an inspired attack and seemed to be crashing through. But then he ran into equally inspired defense, allowing Kaidanov to trade into a better endgame. In the diagram black would be winning easily were it not for white's passed a-pawn. Here Kaidanov played the weak move 1. ... Ke4. As one of the commentators pointed out during the game, black's spidey-sense should have been tingling at the thought of putting his king on the same diagonal as the a-pawn's queening square. White replied 2. a6. Black now has to give serious thought to how he is going to stop white's pawn. He should have played 2. ... d3, leading to the forced sequence 3. Bd5+ Kd4 4. a7 d2 5. a8Q d1Q 6. Qa4+ Kc3 7. Kxe3 Qxd5, and even though white is a pawn up the game would probably end in a draw. Sadly, Kaidanov thought he had a better way to stop the pawn.

He played 2. ... Rc3. Play continued 3. a7 Rc2+ :

It looks like black can stop the pawn now, but he missed a trick. 4. Be2 Ra2 5. a8Q Rxa8 6. Bf3+

In the chess biz that's called a skewer. Black's king must move, and then white will snap off the rook. Kaidanov played on for a few more moves, but the writing was on the wall.

So the U. S. Championship produces one exciting game after another. Hopefully Gelfand and Anand will find their balls and put on a show in the remainder of the match. Stay tuned!

jrosenhouse Thu, 05/17/2012 - 08:43

Tags

chess

Chess Update

jrosenhouse — Sat, 12 May 2012 12:32:59 +0000

Chess Update

We're two games down in the big World Chess Championship. The challenger is Boris Gelfand of Israel, squaring off against the defending champion Viswanathan Anand of India. Both games were quick draws, but things have been a little more interesting than that makes it sound. Gelfand whipped out the Grunfeld Defense in game one, which has never been part of his repertoire. Game two was a Semi-Slav. Gelfand, perhaps, had slightly the better of it in both games, but neither ever strayed far from equality. Ten more games to go, so let's see what happens after we get past the feeling-out phase.

Meanwhile, the U. S. Championship continues apace. Here's a little tactical exercise from the first round. White was Hikaru Nakamura, black was Robert Hess. This position actually arose out of ye olde Evans Gambit, one of the oldest openings in the books. It is white to move and win:

Of course, white can win prosaically with 1. Rg3 or 1. Qg6. Black's pieces are just too far away from the kingside to help with the defense. But Nakamura found the flashiest, and most convincing, win. Answer below the fold.

Mate is inevitable after 1. Rxg7 Taking the rook is forced, since it is the only way to stop mate with the queen on h7. So play continues 1. ... Kxg7 2. Rg3+ Kf8. After 2. Kh8, white would play 3. Qg6, and mate follows on the next move. Back to reality, white plays 3. Qh7, bringing about this position:

Now black is up a rook, but he is just helpless against the threat of mate on g7 or g8. A nice win for Nakamura!

jrosenhouse Sat, 05/12/2012 - 08:32

Tags

chess

A Big Month for Chess Fans

jrosenhouse — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:03:44 +0000

A Big Month for Chess Fans

For anyone who likes chess, the next few weeks are going to be very good indeed. The United States Chess Championships started today in St. Louis. The first round started a little over ninety minutes ago, but there has already been a strange occurrence. Have a look at this position:

Playing white was Alexander Stripunsky, On the black side was Alexander Onischuk. We are eleven moves in to a very unusual line of the Caro-Kann Defense, with white to move. He uncorked the interesting 12. d3?? It seems natural enough, since it prepares to develop the bishop and attacks the black queen. Alas, white simply forgot that his bishop on c1 is unprotected. He resigned before black could play 12. Qxc1+.

As an amateur player with a long history of making such moves, I always find it a bit comforting to see the grandmasters mess up so badly. I actually played Stripunsky many years ago, in the first round of the U. S. Amateur Team East. He showed up forty-five minutes late due to some problem checking in to the hotel, but still pounded on me pretty good.

But the U. S. Championship is just the opening act! The World Championship begins on Friday in Moscow. Defending champion Viswanathan Anand of India faces off against Boris Gelfand, from Israel by way of Russia. Will I be posting updates? Oh yes, there will be updates...

jrosenhouse Tue, 05/08/2012 - 10:03

Tags

chess

hah, thanks for posting this. I stared at the position for 10 minutes before I read your comments. All the while I was thinking, well d3 looks tempting, but it's f-ed. So what is white planning here? I'm a lazy and mediocre chess player, but I love chess puzzles.

It IS delicious to see a master goof, isn't it? I suppose that following ...Qxc1 with Q d1 and an exchange of Queens is, in the end, ineffective. And Black could escape entirely with ... Qxb2, getting the bishop for nothing. But still seems a little early to cave.

tbell --

It's reminiscent of when Kramnik blundered a mate in one. It happens. It was also funny watching the online commentary when it happened. The commentators, Jennifer Shahade and Ben Finegold kept saying things like, “Wait a minute? Did this really just happen? We're waiting for confirmation...”

loren --

At the grandmaster level there's just no point to continuing after blundering a piece cold like that.

What a horrible blunder by Stripunsky! Thanks for reporting on it. I hope to see Vishy hold his title.

David

Black can now force, at a minimum, the loss of a bishop, pawn, and knight plus the white king can be forced off the first rank. White is ****ed.

12. ... Qxc1+
13. Qd1 Qxb2
14. Na3 Qc3+ (or Nc3 Qxc3+)
15. Ke2 (if Qd2 then Qxa1+)
If the 14. Na3 move was taken by white then black can use the bishop to take the knight, if it was the other knight move consider ...Qc4+ which forces the King into the third rank where it can be checked by a knight.

The 11. d3 here is a really ridiculous blunder (probably the worst I've seen) for a titled player (and a grandmaster at that), it should be a shocker at all levels actually.

@5th , black can now force the loss of a bishop and a pawn , not the knight. ( After Qxb2 white can play Nd2)

I suppose that following ...Qxc1 with Q d1 and an exchange of Queens is, in the end, ineffective. And Black could escape entirely with ... Qxb2, getting the bishop for nothing.

But 12. Qd1 is exactly the move that White would play, because it's his only legal move.

After Qxb2 white can play Nd2

Black can then pin the knight with 14. ... Bb5, and continue to make White's life miserable: the remaining White bishop is not terribly effective, and the queen has to stay put to defend against ... Qxa1. I'm not sure which of these moves is best: Bg2, Bh3, or pushing the f-pawn, but none of them is good (pushing the c-pawn would be a disaster after ... dxc3 threatening either ... cxd2+ if the knight stays put or ... c2+ attacking the queen if the knight moves).

7th, white's position is obviously already horrible after 11. d3 , both materially and positionally . Anyway , after "Bb5 [sic]" , assuming you mean Bb4, white can then skewer black's queen and bishop along the b-file with Rb1 and subsequently Qxa1 is no longer a threat after the queen retreats (the black queen can be made to retreat further with the Rb3 thrust), and a few moves later white can tuck the king in the corner and unpin the knight.

8th/9th,

Black still has Bxd2+ there, when Kxd2 is necessary. Anyway, what are you guys talking about. For starters, this position is too hopeless for words, black can just win a piece in one while also exchanging Q's, there is no point in playing on. Maybe at 1600-level people still try to play on here and there Qxb2 is probably the better choice, but for 2000+'s this position is obviously a resign.

It is amazing that the 2700 would miss this.. I don't understand how it could happen too, maybe he wanted to play his Q back to d1 instead of e2 (which he played in the game) and it was at d1 in his mind or something.. Can't think of anything else.

10th, if black has Bxd2+ , then the pin on the knight (as 7th pointed out) no longer exists after Kxd2 recapture. I was simply responding to 7th who quoted a piece of text in my post.

We all know this position is useless immediately after white played d3 as it discovers an attack on the QB and loses it for absolutely no compensation, which I described above (6th) as probably the worst blunder I've seen for a titled player (and should be a shocker at all levels) . In other words actually this is not a 'blunder' but plain absent-mindness, since it doesn't even involve a tactical miscalculation or remotely resemble a complicated position. Maybe Stripunsky just didn't sleep well the night before , hmm?

Stripunsky lost to Kaidanov in the second round, despite having a very strong position for much of the game. It seems like he is pretty off form in this tournament.

Alas, my hero Yasser Seirawan is also 0-2, so it seems he's having a bad tournament also.

Actually, JJ, I have seen worse from grandmasters. An example that was quoted in a book I read about thirty years ago was a game where one of the players left his queen hanging, and his opponent failed to take advantage of that blunder. Also from that same book, a Ruy Lopez opening in which White fell for the Noah's Ark trap. Grandmasters are human, too.

Anyway, the skewer you mentioned is not as effective as you think. After 15. ... Bxd2+ 16. Kxd2 mentioned above, Black continues 16. ... Qc3+ 17. Ke2 Nc5 eliminating the threat of Rb3. Black then has plenty of time to bring up his other knight to press the attack.

@JR thanks for the update, I will check the games out

Hello again Eric, I only mentioned Rb1 against your Qxa1 threat :) . And as you post an analysis which also confirms what we agree on, material+positional damage(i.e. no compensation whatsoever), there's no point in discussing this further as the other guy pointed out. It was all over for white after d3 and he naturally promptly resigned.

Hmm, I would consider this worse than the queen hanging one , considering the absent-mindedness of the d3 push. I mean , the ones you mention must be serious oversights too, but this is just plain daydream-like in a totally uncomplicated position. I've indeed seen and played over some master-level blunders dropping pieces just like that and hundreds of games would fit the bill, but I personally would stick to this game as being 'something else' (As I mentioned in the earlier post, it's sort of strange to even call this one a 'blunder')

Btw, dwelling on a similar theme of astonishing blunders, have a look at this high profile game: Petrosian - Bronstein from the 1956 candidates tourney where Petrosian simply drops his queen (with Ng5??) failing to see it was under attack after Bronstein had played Nf5.

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nf3 c5 6. O-O Nc6 7. d4 d6 8. dxc5
dxc5 9. Be3 Nd7 10. Qc1 Nd4 11. Rd1 e5 12. Bh6 Qa5 13. Bxg7 Kxg7 14. Kh1 Rb8
15. Nd2 a6 16. e3 Ne6 17. a4 h5 18. h4 f5 19. Nd5 Kh7 20. b3 Rf7 21. Nf3 Qd8
22. Qc3 Qh8 23. e4 fxe4 24. Nd2 Qg7 25. Nxe4 Kh8 26. Rd2 Rf8 27. a5 Nd4 28. b4
cxb4 29. Qxb4 Nf5 30. Rad1 Nd4 31. Re1 Nc6 32. Qa3 Nd4 33. Rb2 Nc6 34. Reb1 Nd4
35. Qd6 Nf5 36. Ng5 Nxd6 0-1

We could also mention the shortest decisive game ever played in a U. S. Championship. The game was Shirazi-Peters, and I think it was form 1983:

1. e4 c5 2. b4 cxb4 3. a3 d5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. axb4 Qe5+, and white resigned since he is about to lose his rook on a1.

Time For Another Chess Post...

jrosenhouse — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:51:02 +0000

Time For Another Chess Post...

Me and my homeys got together last week for one more run at the US Amateur Team East:

The fellow in the Rocky Balboa hat is Ned Walthall. In the middle is Curt Kimbler, followed by Doug Proll on the end. How long have we been playing chess together? Well, let's just say that Ned used to give me rides to chess tournaments, back in the days before I was driving.

As big a chess fan as I am, I haven't been playing many tournaments over the last few years. Competing seriously means putting in some serious time and effort, and I just haven't felt too motivated in that direction lately. But the USATE is something special. Frankly, it's more of a social event than a chess tournament, at least for lower-rated teams like ours.

Let me remind you how this works. You play as part of a team of four. This means you play four individual games of chess, with no consultation among the players during the games. Your team gets one point for each win, half a point for each draw and zero points for a loss. After all four games are completed, the team with the most points wins the match. As far as the standings are concerned, all that matters are team points. It doesn't matter if your team wins 4-0 or 2.5-1.5,

We got paired down in the first round. Unluckily for me, though, it turned out to be one of those teams with a coach and three students. So while my teammates had the satisfaction of pounding on some kids (which, let me tell you, is very satisfying indeed), I got paired against an expert. Happily, he was having an off day! I had the white side of a Bishop's Opening. In the diagram, we're at move sixteen and it's black's turn.

I have just pushed my pawn to e5, in response to black's push of his pawn from d6 to d5. Had he replied with the cautious 16. ... Nd7, then white could claim a small edge but nothing more.

Instead he went for glory with 16. ... d4? After 17. exf6 dxe3

he saw that I couldn't take the bishop on e7, because then he would take my rook on f2 with check. Alas, he forgot that I could play the simple 18. Qxe3 Bxf6 19. Qxe6+ and suddenly I'm just up a pawn. Moreover, my pieces are far more active than his, since my rooks are doubled and my knight is about to become a ferocious beast on e4.

Fast-forwarding a bit, we come to this:

My queen and marauding rooks had been probing for a while now, and while I had managed to gobble up two more pawns he had so far managed to avoid either mate or catastrophic material loss. He has just blocked the check from my queen by placing his rook on e6. At this point the computer points out that 34. Rff5 would immediately make black go splat. But I couldn't resist playing 34. Re5, emphasizing the fact that black's rook is pinned. After the forced sequence 34. ... Rae8 35. Rfe1 Kf7 36. Rxe6, black resigned. All of the queens and rooks will come off the board, and white will win trivially with his three extra pawns.

Our reward for taking care of business in the first round was to get paired way up in the second. On paper we were in trouble, since we were giving up several hundred rating points on each board. But ratings aren't everything. On Board Two, Doug opened up a big can of whoop-ass on his unsuspecting opponent:

Earlier in the game, Doug's opponent had rather carelessly blundered a pawn. But he probably wasn't too worried at this point. He's just pushed his pawn to c4, and figured that after some meek bishop retreat on white's part he would be able to generate counterplay against white's weak queenside. Doug scuppered that plan with the direct 24. Bxc4! His opponent thought he was getting a free piece with 24. ... Qc5+ 25. Kh2 Qxc4, but then came 26. Bxf6 gxf6 27. Qg3+ Kh7 28. Qh4+ Kg8 29. Rf3 Rfc8:

Black's last move was intended to create luft for the king, but after 30. Qh6 black's king is going nowhere. After a few more moves black was forced to resign.

Meanwhile, Ned managed an effortless draw on board four. Curt, alas, went down on board three, meaning that everything came down to my game on board one.

This came out of a Catalan Opening. I was playing black and was about to make my 24th move. The position is interesting. White can certainly claim a clear advantage based on his extra space, but black's pieces are not so badly placed. If white is not careful about choosing the correct pawn break, black's pieces could easily spring to life.

The computer recommends that black should continue to wait with 24. ... Qf7 or 24. ... Nb6, but I got impatient with 24. ... e5. Figured I would get my pawn break in before he played one of his. Things suddenly got chaotic. Play continued: 25. fxe5 fxe5 26. d5 cxd5 27. cxd5 Nf6. Several moves later, however, the smoke had cleared somewhat and we had arrived at this complicated position:

It seems like white might be in some trouble now. His d-pawn is about to fall and his once formidable bishop on g2 has been completely blunted. White realized he needed something dramatic here, and very sensibly went for the exchange sac with 38. Rxf5 Bxf5 39. Rxf5. This is where things got interesting. I had a little over two minutes left to make my fortieth move, and my opponent had only slightly more. I had anticipated white's sac several moves earlier, and thought I had the refutation. I banged out 39. ... Re5. The main point was that the seemingly strong 40. Bf4 fails to 40. ... Qxd5.

But my move is a mistake nevertheless. Had white replied with 40. Rxe5 Qxe5 41. d6+ Kh7 42. Bc3 he would have been firmly in the driver's seat once more, since his position is suddenly very active and black's king is definitely feeling the breeze. But in time pressure of his own white instead played 40. Bh3. The point was that after something like 40. ...Rxd5 41. Rxd5 Qxd5, white has the surprising 42. Be6+. I had completely missed this resource back when I had pondered this position several moves earlier. On the outside I was careful to maintain my best poker face, but on the inside it was all profanity and self-flagellation.

Actually, though, white's move is not good. With the simple 40. ... Qxd5 41. Qxd5 Rdxd5! black should have a winning position, though there is certainly more work to do. Instead, with my last few seconds ticking away, I played 40. ... Rxf5, but after 41. Bxf5 Bg7 42. Bxe4 white once more had the upper hand.

It was well past midnight at this point. My teammates abandoned me to go to sleep, figuring they could wait until morning to find out how things turned out. Having made time control, my opponent and I both went in for big thinks. Black has to be very careful since White's bishops are active and the d-pawn is a monster, but I wasn't panicking. Black can get his queen active and trade off the dark squared bishops. Considering that white's king position is also a bit breezy I felt I had good chances to hold the draw. Play continued 42. ... Qf6 43. Bf4 Qd4 44. d6+ Kh8 bringing us to this position:

White now played the seemingly active 45. Qe6. Indeed, this would be crushing but for the fact that black how has a perpetual check with 45. ... Qd1+ 46. Kg2 Qe2+ 47. Kh3 Qh5+ 48. Kg2 Qe2+. So after all that hard work the game ended in a draw, almost exactly five hours after it started. Fun!

So the match ended in a tie, meaning we were now at 1.5/2. Our reward for overachieving in such a manner was to get paired way up in the next round. I was playing a 2300+ rated master. We plowed down one of the main lines of the Dragon Sicilian until we reached this position:

At the board I thought I was doing rather well, having won an exchange. Of course, in the Dragon it is often white's undoing to win an exchange, but in this case I thought my material gain had come under auspicious circumstances, since I had maintained my bishop pair. The computer, though, is not so impressed with white's position.

Regardless, in the above position I played 26. Bd3. This is a blunder. Better was 26. b3, but even here black would have a lot of play for the exchange, starting with 26. ... Nc3. Alas, after my move there followed: 26. ... e4 27. fxe4 Bxb2+ 28. Bxb2 Qxb2+ 29. Kd2 Qb4+ Here I was thinking that the game would end in perpetual check after 30. Kc1. Sadly, I completely missed that 30. ... Nc3 threatens the game-ending Nxa2 mate. Ouch! Cue the mental profanity. I resigned a few moves later.

As it happens, though, Ned pulled off the upset on board four and Curt held a draw on board three. Doug went down on board two. So we lost the match, but by the smallest possible margin.

But we came crashing down to Earth in the next round. Once again we were giving up a whole bunch of rating points on every board. The most interesting part of my game was the opening, since my opponent, an expert, as white, unleashed the Pseudo-Trompowsky Attack. The game opened with the somewhat outre 1. d4 d5 2. Bg5. Things settled down quickly into a fairly standard sort of double-queen pawn structure. The game ended in an uneventful draw, though the final position makes for an amusing diagram:

White has been pushing all his pawns looking for a break, but right around here it dawned on him that his b and d pawns are quite weak, and that black's pieces are actually pretty well placed. On the other hand, black can't really do much either. The computer confirms that the position is dead level, and since the team match was over at this point (my homeys got skunked), my opponent and I decided just to call it a night.

Happily, my good friend Jon Edwards was on hand, playing on a different team, to contribute some excitement. Jon is a former United States Correspondence Chess Champion and is the author of numerous chess books, all of them excellent. Here's the position, with Jon, playing black, about to make his 23rd move.

The computer now gives 23. ... Qxg2 as the cleanest kill, but Jon decided to go for glory with the delightful 23. ... Bxf2+! White must accept the sacrifice, since 24. Kf1 Be3 would be hopeless. Play continued 24. Kxf2 Ng4+ 25. Ke1 Ne3 26. Rc1 Nxg2+ 27. Kf2 Qf4+ 28. Kxg2 Rd2 29. Nc7+ Kd7 30. Rbd1, bringing about this position:

At first glance it might seem that black has overplayed his hand, since his rook on d2 is now pinned to the king. But Jon had foreseen this possibility and played 30. ... Qe4+. His opponent immediately resigned, since he is about to lose his queen. The computer, though, churlishly points out that 30. Qg4+ is even stronger, since it quickly leads to mate.

Having crapped out in the previous two rounds, we were finally paired down in round five. My opponent, who I don't think was over twelve, informed me that we had actually played in the first round of this tournament two years earlier. I didn't remember the game, but after getting home I managed to track down the old scoresheet. I won. Woo Hoo!

He was rated in the 1700s. This time I had the white side of a Najdorf Sicilian. I replied with the English Attack. He played one of those lines with an early h5 for black, which blunts white's kingside attack at the cost of weakening the kingside and delaying development. I played a quiet line where I castled on the kingside, and twelve moves in we reached this position:

Here my opponent decided to break with 12. ... d5. This is black's thematic break in many lines of the Sicilian, but it is risky to play it when black's king is still in the center. After 13. Nxd5 Nbxd5 14. exd5 Nxd5 we come to this:

I was rather proud of myself for finding 15. Bc4. With proper defense by black it should only give white a small edge, but it clearly caught my opponent by surprise. The main point is that after 15. ... Nxe3 16. Qxe3, black does not have time to take advantage of white's unprotected bishop on c4, since white's rook is now attacking black's queen. So play continued 16. ... Qc8 17. Bxe6 Qxe6

And now we see that black has problems. His e-pawn and b-pawn are weak, and his king is still stuck in the center. White's rooks have open files, his f-pawn makes an effective battering ram, and his knight will join the attack via d4 or c5. With nerves of steel and perfect defense black can probably hold the balance, but white is definitely having more fun.

Play continued 18. Qe4 Qb6+ 19. Kh1 Qc7 20. Rd5 Bd6 21. f4 f6 22. Qg6+ Kf8 23. fxe5 Bxe5 24. Nc5 Qe7:

And now 25. Rd7 would certainly get the job done, but I played the flashier 25. Rxe5. Black can't take with the pawn because it is pinned, and 25. ... Qxe5 loses to the fork 26. Nd7+. So black is just down a piece. After 25. ... Rh6, I decided the simplest kill was just to trade queens with 26. Rxe7 Rxg6 27. Rxb7 and black resigned a few moves later.

The rest of the gang took care of business also, and we got paired up again in the last round. Ned pulled off an easy win on board four. Alas, I continued my tradition of last round faceplants at the USATE. My opponent met by double queen pawn opening with the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. The grandmasterly consensus is that this opening is simply unsound, but that's not very helpful when you have to face it at the board. Suffice it to say that my approach will not be showing up in any books as the gambit's refutation. I blundered right out of the opening, and while I struggled on for a while to make it respectable, the writing was on the wall by move ten. Oh well.

So that was that. Having finished our games relatively quickly, Ned and I decided to hightail it out of there. Doug, Curt, if you're reading this, how did your last round games go? Anyway, the tournament was a blast. I'm already looking forward to doing it again next year!

jrosenhouse Sun, 02/26/2012 - 13:51

Tags

chess

Hm...looks like it might be even harder than Sudoku, though at least it's easier to spell. No wonder I never took up chess.

Wonderful read, Jason! Always fun to scope out the tactical shots.... In your Dragon game I'd've played the cringing 26 Re4 returning the exchange but I'm basing this on about 20 seconds' worth of rather rusty thought. I think White's worse anyway, but any time White can keep the Dragon bishop blocked in for a few moves it quiets the stomach quite a bit.

Looks like your teammates may've picked up a few rating points? How close to the ropes did you guys get?

Hi Bill! How nice to hear from you.

In the Dragon game, Re4 might have been a decent defensive try. But to be honest, I wasn't thinking, “I should look for a way to give back the exchange to blunt his formidable counterplay.” I was thinking, “Woo hoo! I'm up an exchange against a master!”

Since we were 1.5 out of 2 at that point, we got very close indeed to the ropes. As I said, thanks to Curt and Ned we made quite a decent showing for ourselves in that round, but it wasn't quite enough.

So what do you think? Can we lure you out of retirement next year?

Gotta love McNeal!

Jon, Derrick, Joel & I (well Derrick and I) did not fair well but had a blast! If you cann't manage to play, you should stop by and say hello. We would all love to see you. Cige made an appearance and I harrass Hersberg every year.

Bill,

What a treat to hear from you. We had a great time, but we always do at this tournament. One of my best tournaments in years, actually. I beat a couple players over 1800. We actually got as high as board 24, I think, and if Jason could have pulled out a win against his 2300 rated opponent, rather a lot to ask actually, things could have gotten a little hairy in the next round. :-)

Wonderful to hear from you. Hope you are well.

Best,

Ned

Another good summary article of USate Jason! I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the USCF rating system. With your mathematics background, I'm guessing you have some opinions.

Hi Brian. I'm glad you liked the post. To be honest, I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about the rating system. I mostly just let my rating take care of itself and don't think about it too much.

Did you have a good tournament this year?

That is the correct attitude Jason. I had a good tournament. I beat a master, drew a master, beat an expert, and a 1700 but drew two 1800s. Enough for 13 points.

Chess in Parsippany!

jrosenhouse — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:44:01 +0000

Chess in Parsippany!

Well, I'm off to sunny Parsippany, New Jersey to participate in the annual chess extravaganza known as the US Amateur Team East. It's the best tournament of the year, and, frankly, pretty much the only one I still play in. See you when I return!

jrosenhouse Fri, 02/17/2012 - 10:44

Tags

chess

Good luck at the tournament! Let us know how well you do upon your return.

I'm happy I wasn't paired again with you Jason. Looking forward to your report of the event.

Hi Brian. I thought I saw you there but never had a convenient chance to say hi. As I recall, I had to struggle mightily just to draw our game last year, so I guess I'm pretty happy I didn't get paired against you again too! Overall the tournament went very well. I finished with an even score of two wins, two losses and two draws, which I was happy with since I was paired up in every round but one. I'll try to have the full report up this weekend.

A Big Day For American Chess

jrosenhouse — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 14:11:18 +0000

A Big Day For American Chess

It occurs to me that I haven't done a chess post in a while. It's possible that I'm the only one unhappy about that, but there's actually a big chess story in the news. You see, for the first time in nearly twenty years, an American chess player has defeated a sitting World Champion. The American player is Hikaru Nakamura. The champ, from India, is Viswanathan Anand. This all went down on Tuesday at the London Chess Classic. More than that, as a chess fan let me just say this: Boy howdy! What a game!

It is sometimes said that top chess players are either perfectionists or pragmatists. Perfectionists try to find the one perfect move in each position. They play the board, not their opponent. Bobby Fischer was a famous perfectionist. Pragmatists tend to focus on the idea that chess is a sporting event. They recognize that the game doesn't end when your position is objectively worse. Your opponent still has to find the right moves, and if you can create a position that is difficult to play you might end up on top after all. Among the world champions, Emmanuel Lasker was famously pragmatic.

To judge from this game, Nakamura hails from the pragmatic camp. It takes some mighty big cojones to play chess like this, but this time it paid off. We pick up the action ten moves in. Nakamura is playing black.

This is the famed Mar Del Plata Variation of the King's Indian Defense, an exciting variation in an exciting opening. The KID in general is not for the faint of heart, but it has certainly had its share of impressive defenders over the years. Gary Kasparov was a big fan, as was Bobby Fischer. For example, click here to see Fischer pummeling no less a player than Victor Korchnoi.

The battle lines are clearly drawn. White is going to storm the queenside while black will seek counterplay on the kingside. Considering the imbalance of force on the queenside, it is inevitable that white will come crashing through. But his king is on the kingside. Black can afford to make concessions on the queenside if in return he checkmates white's king.

Skipping ahead five moves we see both players sticking with their plans:

By this time the commentators were mostly writing black's epitaph. In these sorts of openings, where both sides go all out for an attack, time becomes a critical concern. White has his standard attacking moves, black has his, and whoever gets there first is likely to win. But Nakamura has played the opening rather slowly. White's onslaught on the queenside just looks overwhelming. He has tons of space and his pieces are easily finding active positions. But black seems to need several more moves before he can generate a threat. The feeling was that black's g and h pawns, crucial to his attack, should be farther advanced than they are by this phase of the game.

A few moves farther and it really looks like black is getting routed:

Even if you don't play chess, I think just optically you can see that white has complete control of the queenside (that would be the left side of the board). The computers were going crazy, believing white was just totally winning here. But Nakamura made an interesting observation during the post-game discussion. He said, “Probably objectively it's much worse [for black] but we're human. I don't really have to find any difficult moves here. I attack and if it works, it works, if it doesn't I lose horribly and look like an idiot. The onus is on Vishy to find all the right moves.” Indeed. Black has just one plan. Use his g and h pawns to pry open the kingside, transfer as many pieces as possible to that part of the board, and try to give checkmate. His moves come very naturally. They might not be sufficient, but it is still an easy position to play. But Anand, with the added burdens of knowing that he's winning and seeing numerous promising lines of play, still has to bring home the point. And with time pressure looming, even the great ones frequently get lost in the complications.

A few moves further and white is still very much in control. He retains his bind on the queenside, his passed d-pawn is scary, black is cramped and has weaknesses, and his kingside attack still doesn't look very scary. The computer makes a strong case that either 29. Bh3 or 29. Kxh2 are easy wins. Instead, Anand played the seemingly very natural move 29. Nc4? And with that one lapse in judgment all of his previous, excellent play goes straight out the window. The position goes from clearly winning for white to better for black. Psychologically it is very difficult for a human player to adjust to that change of affairs. Chess is a cruel, hard game!

Why is the move so bad? It seems obvious enough, bringing the knight to a strong central square, form which it defends white's strong points on b6 and d6, and attacks black's grotesquely weak pawn on e5. But look more closely and you will notice that white's bishops, and his knight, are all unprotected. There is an old saying in chess that goes by the acronym LPDO, “Loose pieces drop off!” Anand is about to be reminded of that.

Nakamura played 29. ... Qe8! After black storms his h pawn up the board he will move his knight to h4 and his queen to h5. Suddenly his kingside attack is formidable. White, meanwhile, must move his attacked bishop. The obvious move would be Bh3. From there the bishop defends the kingside and prevents black from activating his queen rook via the c file.

But he can't play Bh3, because black then has the miraculous Qb5!, forking white's unprotected knight and bishop on c4 and c5. White loses a piece and the game. That means white is forced to play 30. Bd5. And with that black's attack has gained a tempo, and white has been forced to misplace a key defensive piece.

From here it's all downhill for Anand.

With just a few more moves the action has shifted completely over to the kingside, which is bad news for white in these sorts of positions. Black's rook, knight and queen are an impressive fighting force, and white is in full on grovel mode trying to find a way to draw. The glory days of his queenside attack are long gone. He still has lots of pieces over there, but at the moment they are all just standing around.

Carnage. White's rook on b5 is wondering where everyone went, while the rest of white's army is glumly trying to defend all of the weaknesses. Black's dark-square bishop, which has spent most of the game hemmed in behind its own pawns, has become a monster on d4. Black will simply take the white rook on f2, after which f3 will fall, and then e4, and then whatever square the king is on.

For the record, here's the final position:

Anand had seen enough and resigned. His pawn on e4 is about to drop, after which black will have two connected passers in the center. Meanwhile, his attack still rages. If white tries to do anything remotely active he will get checkmated. Game over!

So, congratulations to Nakamura on his fine win, and for possessing the sangfroid to play chess like this. A big day for American chess.

jrosenhouse Thu, 12/08/2011 - 09:11

Tags

chess

I for one enjoy your forays into chess. I used to follow it a lot.

I take it you're familiar with Nakamura's (in)famous game against Rybka?

I had never seen that game. I wonder why the computer fell apart by playing c4 at move 174.

Thanks for this, very exciting, and your commentary is quite amusing. I was looking at Ng4 for Black after the diagram which says "it really looks like Black is being routed." Not sure it works, or even if it's Black's move there, but it's interesting to consider.

Also, I was wondering about 30 Qb3, which was why I wasn't sure about 29 ... Qe8 (which I thought of, given your hint that LPDO). It protects the bishop as well as the b5 square, and the bishop doesn't have to move off the c8-h3 diagonal. (Not to second-guess the world champion or anything ...)!

Jason: in the infamous game against Rybka, Nakamura exploited the computer's desire to avoid a draw by 50-move rule. This happens at several points in the game. At move 174 the computer's evaluation was that even after giving up the c-pawn it was ahead in material (two exchanges) so this was preferable to allowing a draw.

A fine game explained in chess players and layman's terms. Well done

At move 174 the computer's evaluation was that even after giving up the c-pawn it was ahead in material (two exchanges) so this was preferable to allowing a draw.

And it appears Nakamura had to give up those pieces on purpose in order to exploit Rybka's aversion to allowing a draw when it thinks it's ahead. I like that they posted that game on April 1.

The best thing about that game was the time control; 3 minute clocks, no increment. 271 moves, including 60 or so at the end where Nakamura was just showing off. Parking five pawns on the second rank, promoting them all to minor pieces, deciding he had too many minor pieces and saccing a few, promoting his last pawn, then chasing Rybka's king around the board with five bishops before finally manouvering him right into a corner for checkmate, with all six of his remaining pieces touching.

greetings by
http://flickrcomments.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/throw-down-the-gauntlet/
talking about Bobby Fischer - I've set a link to your side there ...

I just want to say I like your chess posts. Please keep doing them. Go Nakamura!

Perhaps Daniel King (or an editorial assistant on the Guardian) also reads your chess posts?