Bobby Fisher Against the World
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
He loved breaking other people's egos so much that he became a world chess champion? Breaking egos is fun, but damn son! You went all out!
Deep Blue can beat anybody. Is Deep Blue a "deep thinker" in your definition?
After the loss, Kasparov said that he sometimes saw deep intelligence and creativity in the machine's moves, suggesting that during the second game, human chess players had intervened on behalf of the machine, which would be a violation of the rules. IBM denied that it cheated, saying the only human intervention occurred between games.
In a recent match, Deep Fritz vs. world chess champion Vladimir Kramnik in November 2006, the program ran on a personal computer containing two Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs, capable of evaluating only 8 million positions per second, but searching to an average depth of 17 to 18 plies in the middlegame thanks to heuristics.
Why can't a human brain beat even an Intel Core Duo chip if "deep creative thinking" is the key?
Nitro, I would like to get your comments on this passage from his Wikipedia page:
Fischer Random Chess
Main article: Chess 960
On June 19, 1996, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Fischer announced and advocated a variant of chess called Fischerandom Chess (later known as Fischer Random Chess or Chess960) intended to ensure that a game between players is a contest between their understandings of chess, rather than their abilities to memorize prepared opening lines.
Fischer Random was designed to remove any advantage from the memorization of opening variations by rendering it impracticable. Fischer complained in a 2006 phoned-in call with a television interviewer that because of the progress in openings and the memorization of opening books, talented celebrity players from long ago, if brought back from the dead to play today, would no longer be competitive. "Some kid of fourteen today, or even younger, could get an opening advantage against Capablanca", he said, merely because of opening-book memorization, which Fischer disdained. "Now chess is completely dead. It is all just memorization and prearrangement. It's a terrible game now. Very uncreative."[361] Fischer heavily disparaged chess as it was currently being played at the highest levels.[362]
Fischer Random Chess
Main article: Chess 960
On June 19, 1996, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Fischer announced and advocated a variant of chess called Fischerandom Chess (later known as Fischer Random Chess or Chess960) intended to ensure that a game between players is a contest between their understandings of chess, rather than their abilities to memorize prepared opening lines.
Fischer Random was designed to remove any advantage from the memorization of opening variations by rendering it impracticable. Fischer complained in a 2006 phoned-in call with a television interviewer that because of the progress in openings and the memorization of opening books, talented celebrity players from long ago, if brought back from the dead to play today, would no longer be competitive. "Some kid of fourteen today, or even younger, could get an opening advantage against Capablanca", he said, merely because of opening-book memorization, which Fischer disdained. "Now chess is completely dead. It is all just memorization and prearrangement. It's a terrible game now. Very uncreative."[361] Fischer heavily disparaged chess as it was currently being played at the highest levels.[362]
i wonder if Kasparov still maintains his position now that we know more about how computers play chess. I am guessing his does not. Deep Blue caught him with his pants down and on the spot he came up with his rationalization for his loss at the time not knowing what is possible by the machine.
Not sure what you want specifically, so I assume you want to know if Chess has become a memorization act.
To a great extent what Fischer is saying is true. I think people hold Chess on such a high level, as if it is a mystery that can't be solved or something. The mystery, romance and innocence has gone from Chess. Does that make it any less hard to master for a human being? Not by a long shot. On the other hand, anyone who is willing to work hard can become very proficient at it today.
Is it less creative? Perhaps in some sense it is, but I think that the creativity has been pushed further back in the game. The opening analysis simply has pushed back where the middlegame begins. What I have noticed is that games between top level players are going longer than they used to, and this is a result of the fact that we understand the opening theory so much more.
People forget that chess is almost certainly a draw with best play by both sides. So it is mistakes that wins or loses games. Between human beings, in a game that lasts 80 moves, there are plenty of opportunity for errors. So while I agree with Fischer to some extent, I think he didn't take into account that games will simply be fought harder deeper into the games than they were before.
I have some really interesting ideas as to how to change the rules of chess slightly to make it fantastically more complex, even take computers dominance away...
To a great extent what Fischer is saying is true. I think people hold Chess on such a high level, as if it is a mystery that can't be solved or something. The mystery, romance and innocence has gone from Chess. Does that make it any less hard to master for a human being? Not by a long shot. On the other hand, anyone who is willing to work hard can become very proficient at it today.
Is it less creative? Perhaps in some sense it is, but I think that the creativity has been pushed further back in the game. The opening analysis simply has pushed back where the middlegame begins. What I have noticed is that games between top level players are going longer than they used to, and this is a result of the fact that we understand the opening theory so much more.
People forget that chess is almost certainly a draw with best play by both sides. So it is mistakes that wins or loses games. Between human beings, in a game that lasts 80 moves, there are plenty of opportunity for errors. So while I agree with Fischer to some extent, I think he didn't take into account that games will simply be fought harder deeper into the games than they were before.
I have some really interesting ideas as to how to change the rules of chess slightly to make it fantastically more complex, even take computers dominance away...
I agree that the creativity aspect is just pushed back in the game. Given the enormous amount of possible moves and situations in any given chess game, I would think it is near impossible to memorize certain moves and situations for the entire game. Once the game reaches the mid-point, I think each game becomes unique for the most part.
I am curious as to what your ideas are to make chess more complex and take away the computers' dominance?
There is also the whole genre of blitz games. I've studied a little bit of opening theory and I certainly love playing the longer games. But I have to say I do love the quick thrill of a blitz game.
Anyone here play blitz?
Anyone here play blitz?
I also posted this on my chess thread, but for your convenience:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7308
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7308