Slashdot Mirror

It's possible to say that Kasparov have a strong computational resources at his home so he have not only prepared well against the hardware competitors (does he had such an oppurtunity with DeepBlue?) but the devolopers have close ties with Kasparov by ownself.

(Don't think that DF/DJ have a 'kasparov backdoor' :)

Gee, two chess threads in one week, I'm thrilled. But then as a chessplayer I love thrills, apparently.

It is eternally amusing to me to see Americans immediately start several chessplayers=geek threads the first thing the game is mentioned. I generalize, but they inevitably turn out to be Americans since it is about the only place in the world where such a view prevails. Even so it is a remarkable contradiction since in no other culture is chess so consistently used as a positive metaphor. Dozens of commercials use chess and chess imagery to symbolize intelligence and strategic planning. Every Hollywood movie and TV show that wants to not-so-subtly demonstrate that a character is brilliant and cultured slaps a chessboard - usually set up wrong - in his den or has him playing.

The 'chess is for geeks' model in the US is then most easily explained by envy and fear, much the way people who don't know anything about computers denigrate those who do. The old 'scribble scribble scribble' method of squeezing sour grapes. But in general most people I meet in the US are impressed and/or fascinated by the fact that I work for Garry Kasparov and am a master level player myself. No, I didn't get beat up in school for starting a chess club in my California high school. (At 1.95m that wasn't much of an issue.)

In Europe and South America chess and other 'brain games' receive both attention as sports and respect from the public. In the US - a country that has oxymoronic basketball scholarships - on the other hand, there is a tendency to want to believe that any sport worth the name must involve blood loss. (They conveniently ignore the various tubs of lard who play first base.)

The incredible level of concentration reached by Grandmasters is on par with that needed for any peak performer in any sport or art and the same goes for the amount of energy expended, although it is not as quantifiable in drops of sweat. Take a good look at a player before and after a week or two of professional chess and you'll see what I mean. Weight loss of ten kilos is not unusual and physical conditioning is critical for top performance. Most players begin to decline on the rating list by the time they pass 32 years of age, similar to professional sports like football. (There is only one player in the top 10 over that age and only one in the top 20 over 40 years old.)

As touched upon in the article that started the thread, chess is in many ways a thrilling and even violent game. Much like boxing, it is purely mano a mano; there are no teammates to blame, no wind that wasn't blowing your way, nothing but your ego on the line. Losing can be absolutely crushing, and to excel you must build up an ego on par with those possessed by other pro athletes. (Yes, they even refer to themselves in the third person sometimes.)

It can take months or even a lifetime to recover from a bad result. Even an amateur can have a missed chance or bad loss stick in their brain for years. You don't hear too many people going on about some pickup basketball game they lost 10 years ago, but this is common in chess. The psychological elements are extremely powerful, and the history of damaged individuals in chess do not only illustrate the attraction of chess for introverts and others with everything from quirks to acne to serious psychoses. These anecdotes also show the power of the game to affect people who were quite stable to begin with.

In short, chess ain't for sissies. Those who insult chessplayers are usually those who don't have suffient self-confidence to play it themselves. (Apart from people who just have no interest in it, of course.) In a culture that says chess is for smart people you have to come up with some sort of reason to explain why you aren't good at it. "It's for nerds," isn't a good one, but it appears to still be around.

I know lots of top chess players who wouldn't strike you as particularly intelligent otherwise. While chess employs many faculties that make up the amorphous term 'thinking,' there are also chessplayers who fail their math classes, don't like to read, and vote Republican.

Saludos, Mig
KasparovChess.com

my gut is screaming "bullshit"

Your gut, Anonymous Coward who claims to work at KasparovChess.com, is wrong.

A very effortless web search seems to indicate that Mig is indeed the Editor-in-Chief (and possibly a VP) of KasparovChess.com.
here
And from the horse's mouth...
here

It's one thing to post out of ignorance and laziness on /. It's another to not even read the website of your OWN COMPANY. Pull your head out of the sand and stop swapping the backup tapes long enough to read your own website, buddy!

Hmm, where to start. My name is Mig Greengard and I run Garry Kasparov's website. I work with Shay Bushinsky, who is one of the programmers of Junior, the current world microcomputer chess champion. Just leaping at a chance to karma whore in my specialty. Let me cruise through the various questions and misperceptions I've seen so far.

This is an online tournament held in the biggest online chessplaying site, the ICC. The games are "60 + 10" time control, meaning each computer gets 60 minutes on its clock and 10 seconds are added for each move. So games can last up to 2.5 hours, tops. If you think this is long, this is what we call "rapid chess." Classical games can last up to seven hours.

Uniform hardware has pretty much been given up. They still distinguish between microcomputer and massive machines like those at NASA and Deep Blue, but everything is pretty much wide open these days. The programmers try to get the best hardware they can and usually know very well which platform is best for their program. (There WERE hardware chess accelerator cards, by the way. Back in the 80s when RISC and dedicated chess processors had better cost/chess performance ratios than CPUs. This hasn't been true since the Pentium, although various "Deep Blue on a chip" initiatives exist, including one by a member of the DB team.)

Anyone with a Slashdot account automatically forfeits the ability to call anyone else a nerd.

Move lists and online replay are both available on the site in the original post and at the ICC. Move lists are called "PGN" (portable (or player) game notation") which is an ASCII format used in databases but can be printed out and read easily if you know algabraic chess notation. Online java game viewer applets are quite common.

Both Shannon and Turing spent quite a lot of time on chess algorithms. Shannon actually wrote the first chess program before a computer existed. He 'ran' the program using slips of paper and generated moves this way.

The chess programming breakdown already posted is pretty good. The key concept these days is brute force speed versus knowledge. 20 years ago most programmers thought you needed to make the thing somehow think like a human because the brute force method was so slow. Intel and Moore won. The "fast searchers" now dominate thanks to the minimax algorithm. It just looks at one line after another and counts the beans to rapidly prune. Programs differ to an extreme degree in the amount of knowledge they apply. (HIARCS, for example, is one of the few "slow" programs at the top. It applies a lot of knowledge and looks at maybe 1% of the number of positions the fast programs like Fritz and Junior check.) A top level program, and the top 5-8 are roughly equal at a given time, will look at over one million positions per second. This sounds like a lot (well, it is a lot), but it only puts the program at a level equal to a top 100 level player at a classical time control. (At faster time controls, particularly blitz games of just minutes per side, computers are lethal. Humans just can't play mistake-free chess at that speed.) A program will look six-eight moves deep on the average, but extension will dive deeply into promising or unclear lines, sometimes up to 20 moves in a middlegame position.

Those who think chess is solvable should speak only theoretically. The number of positions is one of those great "million times the number of stars times the grains of sand in the world" numbers. The current method of tree and pruning adds less than one full move of search depth when you double processing power (node count). So the diminishing returns are very much here. The game of go is even worse for comps. Top programs still can't touch the human masters. Back-solving chess using massive databases starting with just a few pieces has had a big impact on computer chess in the past decade. Invented by Ken Thompson (yes, that Ken Thompson), endgame tablebases can now play any combination of five pieces (and many combinations of six) perfectly. This leads to humorous situations of a computer making optically stupid moves to reach a tablebase position it knows for sure is a mathematical win. (Tablebases allow the once-fantastical announcements of things like "checkmate in 45 moves.")

Most of the top commercial programs ARE playing in this event, but most people, particularly chess-ignorant Americans, only know Chessmaster. Fritz, Junior, HIARCS, and Shredder are all top commercial programs. In the chess world, Fritz is almost synonymous with chess program. Chessmaster has a very strong engine (called The King) by a well-known Dutch programmer. Various versions of The King have participated in these competitions and done just fine. Chessmaster has no reason to put its name brand on the line in these bloodbaths. An open tournament like this of only 11 rounds is not at all scientific, for one, but there mostly it's that since all these programs are so strong the power of the engine really isn't the most relevant thing when an amateur buys a chess program. Features like training materials, game databases, GUI, and graphics are much more relevant. Any decent program will kill you on even a low level unless you are an expert.

There are dozens of places to play online, and most of them have computer players as well. KasparovChess has multiple versions of the champion program Junior running and a new one generates when someone starts a game with one so you can always give it a try. (It's a dumbed-down version or it wouldn't be much fun.) The sites with the most players are, inevitably, Yahoo! and MSN. Their software and community suck, of course. Location, location, location. Of the specialist sites, the ICC, chess.net, and KasparovChess.com (my site, as disclosed above) are the largest and best. They have downloadable client software and administrated communities as well as live events, lessons, etc.

There have been many attempts at the holy grail of a massive online tournament. The biggest problem is simply cheating using these programs we're talking about. I could go on for a few dozen pages about methods and countermethods for catching cheats, but basically it's impossible at the end of the day. Don't get me started. KasparovChess hosted the first super-tournament to be played online, in the beginning of 2000. We had human observers with each Grandmaster, all over the world. We also hosted the largest online tournament so far, the world school chess championships. Thousands of kids from hundreds of schools around the world played. (Gotta trust the kids and teachers, right? Right? Actually there were several accusations made, but no decent cases.)

Yes, the ICC used to be free, and that free internet chess server (FICS) is still alive and well, although it is rapidly losing market share. There was a long and bitter battle about that split and the use of the FICS kernel, which is the foundation of just about every chess playing site in the world.

We cover top computer chess events, of which this one really isn't, but if you want to browse around some start here, at the last world championship. WMCCC

It sounds funny, but in the computer championships they have to play face to face and the programmer himself has to make the moves. The worry, of course, is HUMAN cheating, that is, a strong human helping the computer in an online event. The wisdom of a human Grandmaster combined with the accuracy of a computer program would be a devastating combination. (They have competitions of this, with GMs using computers while they play. It's called 'advanced chess' and was introduced by Kasparov. It's interesting, but not always dramatically superior quality chess.)

You can also stop by and play for free, either with an account and a rating or as a guest. We have a java applet if you don't want to download and install. We also have a lot of "learn to play" materials if you are one of the sad crowd that think it's just another board game.

Saludos, Mig

No really, it's me. Send me an e-mail if you like. I've been reading /. for a long time. I was taking networking seriously long before chess. Actually I was only going to post the first paragraph of that, which is from my article that went up at KasparovChess yesterday, and the link, but my mouse ran amok in my sleep-deprived, sunburned state and I clicked submit. Really. Anyway, here's the link to the full article. Only the last bit is about Fischer.
KasparovChess article about Fischer online.

Technical specs aside, and interesting they are, it would be nice to see a list of vendors for those feebleminded souls (e.g., moi) who don't plan on building a machine by molding their own tower and smithing the wires. IBM just dropped AMD chips and Dell doesn't sell them. That leaves Compaq (ick) and, I think, HP in the heavyweight category. Also Gateway and Micron. AMD maintains what looks like an outdated list of where to buy AMD systems here: http://www.amd.com/products/cpg/bguide.html

Everyone is talking major CPU price war in the upcoming months, so I'm thinking October for my monster-mega-dual-mp3 player. ("2GHz, because Word just doesn't open fast enough on a P3.") Cheap dual Athlon 1.4 by then?

Saludos, Mig

http://www.kasparovchess.com

as Kasparov is defending his title, currently Champ: 3 Challenger: 4.

Oh, was that offtopic?