Bobby Fischer Online?

talilee writes "This story from AP (but I found it at SFGate.com) suggests that Bobby Fischer is playing online chess anonymously against champion level players. I'm glad to see that he has an opportunity to express his genius without having to deal with the overwhelming attention (and without exposing his, um, "eccentricities".)" The BBC has a slightly more informative story.

Comments

Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

without exposing his, um, "eccentricities"

anybody have more info on what those eccentricities are?

proof

[seanw]

of course there probably isn't any way to prove that this was actually Fischer, but I for one belive Short, the man who claims to have played him, for one reason: whatever happpened during these game, he seems absolutely moved, as though the moves themselves had a power and grandeur that transcenced the game. I guess it could be fake, but he sounds like these games wanted to make him cry.

I wonder though if he wouldn't post the move lists the for games. that would tell us something.

sean

Re:proof

[looie]

The advantage computers have in chess is pure computational power and the reason they do so well in real tournaments is because they have minutes to process for each move. Speed chess games, that take a maximum of 6 minutes (3 minutes for each player) are not the strong point of any respectible computer chess program.

This is backwards. It's much more difficult to beat a computer at speed chess than it is in a game at tournament time control. The reason is simple: the computer can analyze at a rate orders of magnitude more quickly than the human player. It's not uncommon for a computer in a 5-minute game to blitz off 20 moves in under a minute, something very difficult for the human player to do (just the mechanics of moving the piece are a significant time factor). The human player's slower thought process frequently will guarantee a loss on time even if he stays in the game.

Computers don't do nearly as well in tournaments at standard time controls as they do at short time controls. The reasons are two: at the longer time control, the human doesn't give up the computational advantage -- her imagination can come into play; and the human can play a positional game, something at which almost all present chess computers still pretty much suck.

mp

Maybe it WAS him!

[WickedClean]

I play chess online a good bit, and Bobby Fischer or not - there are some badass chess players out there. Sometime I can hold my own and other times those guys pull all kinds of weird stuff on me. My mother once found Omar Sharif playing bridge online.

Shaky Evidence

[Diplomat73]

I find this interesting since British Grandmaster Nigel Short has this theory just based on the style he played with that "person". Short said his adversary's style of play was very intriguing and something he had not seen before..
"My unseen opponent began with some highly irregular, if not totally absurd, opening moves - shifting all his pawns forward by one square. These were moves that no Grandmaster(?) would ever play." Short said he immediately suspected a hoax, but became aware there was method in the apparent madness.
If you ask me this evidence is very shaky and In my opinoin the thought of Bobby fisher playing is only a rumor

anonymous karma whore

[Anonymous Coward]

Those of you who, like me, don't know why he's a fugitive, here' s the story in brief. (Warning: bad midi background music). To make short story really really short, he played a Yugoslavian dude for money during the cold war and the US government put out an arrest warrant.

Re:Interesting, hoax or not!

[Chrimble]

Unlikely it's Kasparov, seeing as Short drew 6-6 against him last time they played Blitz. According to Short, the anonymous player was a lot stronger, although sometimes inclined to make mistakes that a computer program wouldn't.

I read the full article this morning (unfortunately I don't think it's online - but there are quite a few articles *about* the article), and it's really rather convincing - if not conclusive - but then he claims only to be 99% certain.

Short even went so far as to speak about it with Spassky:

• "When I said that, contrary to popular perception, he didn't sound mad, at all, Boris replied 'Of course he isn't'".

Here is another quote from the article, to add a little more perspective:

• "I have discovered three or four others with a similar story to tell - although the reliability of some people's evidence is complicated by the fact that, according to one of the ICC's administrators there are at least three Fischer hoaxers (two amateurs using computers and one grandmaster)"

In all, I think that Short makes a good, if not entirely convincing case. If only he'd recorded the games... I'd have loved to have seen that eight-pawns by one-square game... 8)

Re:Depressing in a way

[sokoban]

Well, the American government kind of forced him to become a recluse when they demanded hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes in 1992. If he had come back after the Spassky match, he would have been promptly arrested. That is why he moved to Argentina, to prevent being extradited. It would cost Millions for Fischer to return to tournament play. There would be the repayment of the US government, preparation time and money to be able to play at the top levels of chess in a real time setting (Pawn-push openings would be destroyed in over the board tournament play against GM's, but could be an interesting surprise in g/3) and then, why would Fischer want to play tournament games again. He already won the world championship in perhaps the most decisive manner ever. If he were to play again, it would require the current world champion to offer a match entirely on Fischer's terms. That would mean probably random piece starting placement (FischerRandom) and a closed playing hall (if not a virtual one).

I have the movelists

[HanzoSan]

http://www.chlodwig.com/Fischer/Fi_Games_ICC.htm

This is no computer, NO computer would ever play a game like this.

Re:I have the movelists

[Xoro]

Those games are truly eye-opening. I'm not a great chess player, but charging out with the king like that is messed up. No wonder Short thought it was a bad joke after the first few moves, assuming it was the same "opening".

That made me doubly sure it *wasn't* a computer. From what I know, computers use libraries for opening moves since the choices are too wide open to compute. But who knows? I like the mystery here, because all possibilities are cool:

• It is Bobby Fischer
• An amazing unknown has appeared out of nowhere and is demolishing grandmasters
• There has been a major advancement in computerized strategic thinking

I'll be watching this story.

Aptitude vs. Intelligence vs. Effectiveness

[dispensa]

Bobby Fischer is an interesting case study in differences among these. I suspect he was a smart guy, but could he really find the String Theory equations in physics, write the next Hamlet, or solve P == NP? The inverse is an interesting question, too: could Richard Feynman have beaten Bobby Fischer if he had dedicated his life to chess in the same way Fischer did? Doubtful IMHO, due to the thing Fischer had that Feynman ostensibly did not have: a remarkable aptitude for chess.

There's also an interesting analogy in sports. The strongest, fastest player does not necessarily lead to the best player. To be the best, you have to have some natural talent, i.e. aptitude.

Effectiveness, i.e. being really good at something, requires both intelligence and aptitude. Intelligence, of which I'm sure Fischer had his share, helps get you to a certain level, just as being fast and strong helps in sports, but to be truly great requires aptitude, which is altogether different.

By the same token, being really good at something like chess does not necessarily mean you're particularly intelligent. Maybe, but not necessarily.

Al Gore, an intellect by all accounts? I disagree

[FallLine]

I couldn't disagree more about Gore. Gore is at most a mediocre intellect. His is most certainly greater than most of the American public, but he's positively mediocre when compared with other well educated individuals. His speaking abilities are pretty marginal. His use of diction is absolutely uninspiring, in fact, he repeats himself too much. His analytical abilities show no spark of insight. He is not that well read and, for what it's worth, he wasn't even a good student.

Frankly, I don't see why certain people choose to ascribe the word intellect to Gore. The man is essentially a geek and not much more. By this I mean, he puts a lot of energy into what he does. He memorizes lots of facts and figures and he's capable of blinding people with bullshit when absolutely necessary. Perhaps this trait impresses some, but not me, I do not call that intellect.

The bottom line is that I see little reason to think of Gore as being any more intelligent or intellectual than what is seen in Washington, company executives, and the like. If there's any good reason to believe otherwise, please point it out to me.

Re:Pawns shifted forward?

[phantumstranger]

Contrary to popular belief, or stated misnomers, pushing pawns forward does very little to upset an opponent. It may however give the opponent a sense of empowerment because while the only pieces you are developing are "measly pawns" you opponent is bringing out primary, or more useful pieces towards a strong(er) development.

If I were to bring out all my pawns one square at a time that would not only "just" develop 8 points (1 point per pawn (P), 3 - 3.5 due to preference per bishop (B), 3- 3.5 due to preference per knight (N), 5 per rook (R), 9 for the queen (Q) while the king (K) has no given value because the game is lost without it.) it would also give my opponent time (time = to amount of time given for development) to develop anywhere from 16 - 25 points for pieces. Not only that, but would appear to be even more amateurish, it would also block my Q and B's past the second rank completely and limit my N to two seemingly inconsequential squares behind my pawns (D2 / E2 given I'm playing white).

OTOH, while my seemingly lack of development is allowing my opponent to "take over the board" I am also given ample time to review the movements that my opponent makes and subsequently be in a better position to attack a weak line given the right time (time in development terms as well as actual minutes and seconds since this was a game of blitz). While it's not something I would suggest a novice do in competitive play (read: me) I can surely see how a GM, or higher in Fischer's case IMHO, would be able to capitalize it.

I would love to see the notation to see just what level of genius this was. IIRC, Short lost, or in his words, "was crushed" in all 6 games; that's (excuse the language) fucking huge!!! I have no idea as to whether or not it was Fischer playing but I have to say that it's a much more intriguing mystery to me than the Loch Ness Monster.

Re:Yeah, right.

[digitaltraveller]

You're kidding right? This player beat Short a lot worse than Short has been beaten anyone in the world including Garry Kasparov. The likelihood that there is someone out there able to defeat the best players in the world who happens to be so good he plays up to 8 bad moves at the beginning of the game and still defeats them who has never revealed himself is so unlikely as to be absurd.Maybe you'd feel better if you saw exactly what Short had to say about the incident. [google.com]

It's possible this is Fischer, but probably not. Fischer is a recluse's recluse, he's not dumb enough to give away clues to his identity (eg. speaking in American english) unless he wants his opponent to know who it is.

I used to spend alot of time on ICC before I became aware of their co-opting of GPL'ed software of which they violated the spirit of, if not the letter of the law, using the ASP loophole. After that I stopped playing there.
I did spend about 3 years there as a serious player at the time I was rated around 2200 OTB and significantly higher on ICC (around 2500). Alot of excellent players (GM's/IM's/FM's) play there, also alot of marked computers AND unmarked computers. ICC is and was a haven for troublemakers who liked to run unmarked computers like Fritz and Crafty, and other chess engines against top players for reasons of ego. Sometimes it was obvious, other times less so. Some "cheaters" as they are called on ICC are dumb enough to follow the ICC computer Howto exactly, which involves setting certain variables for computer players. It was also pretty obvious to me, for example, when I got a message from PimpBoy rated 1600 begging me to play him. Immediately after getting beat, you'd get a message from him that said "U R weak". My rating isn't the highest, but I've drawn GM's and beat IM's. It's unlikely that a player rated 1600-ICC (probably 1400-OTB) would be able to beat me. I and any one of thousands of players rated over 2000 could easily play Nigel with a copy of Fritz in the background, make a few ridiculous moves at the start, let Fritz play for awhile and occasionally interrupting Fritz to play a "human" move so that post-game analysis wouldn't make the use of a computer too obvious. The evidence is shakey at best. Nigel probably just wants some attention now that his rating is so low and the chess press no longer reports on his silly little idiosyncracies. Like dying his hair odd colours before matches. Nigel BTW, really dislikes Garry.

Congratulations to whoever did this

[Our Man In Redmond]

Whoever wrote this program, please step forward. You're a genius. The program has passed the Turing test with flying colors.

Fischer vs. Kasparov?

[Schwarzchild]

I keep hearing tales of how Bobby Fischer was the best player ever and that he is probably a better player than Kasparov who seems to be the best player in recent times.

Anyone know if someone has done any analyses of how Fischer's ability compares to other Grandmasters? If this online Fischer can trounce Short in speed chess whereas Short can hold his own with Kasparov then does this necessarily mean that Fischer can trounce Kasparov?

Also why didn't Fischer play Kasparov back in 1992 and what is Fischer Random play?

Re:Fischer vs. Kasparov?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fischer was much better among his contempory chess players then Kasparov is among his.But the top level of play has advanced since Fischer's time. And many believe that without tournament level practice that a Kasparov-Fischer match would be decidedly favorable to Kasparov. Also because Fischer is 58.

I don't believe this. Fischer never spent a long time playing grandmaster level play before he was the best. Its likely Fischer is able to maintain a high level of play without actually playing games. Only playing against himself.

Fischer lives inside the chess board. He remembers every move in every game by every player he ever saw or himself played in. Which makes him able of playing how many current computers play(from GM game database.) as well as applying his extensive theory on the game.

Fischer played Spassky in 1992 because it was a rematch of his classic cold war world championship match. The odds were decidedly in his favour because of spassky's age, the fact that he was always better then spassky to begin with, etc. Also there was a great deal of money offered for the match which its likely fischer needed because i can't see him flipping burgers or working any other job.

Just because one player can beat another doesn't neccessarily mean superiority to all players the other can beat. It depends on the style of play. But it is a very good indicator of the likely outcome.

Kasparov and fischer are both super aggressive. Fischer even more so.

Fischer Random is just that the pieces are placed somewhat randomly on the board as opposed to the usualy mirrored armies setup. This allows you to judge a players actual strategy as opposed to their opening book knowledge. Most beginners can't beat experienced players of equal chess skill just because the experienced player knows the many good beginning moves. Most GM level chess games actually start around move 12 or so because each player has played all moves up to that point from memory.

Boris Spassky on Fischer's sanity

[bryanbrunton]

This bit of text in the usenet article was interesting:

---
Boris considered it highly probable that I had come up against the elusive genius. When I said that, contrary to popular perception, he didn't sound mad, at all, Boris replied "Of course he isn't."
---

Boris isn't exactly a mental health expert. This is the same Boris Spassky who during the matches in 1972 broke down and accused Fischer of having mind-altering electronics installed in his arm chair.

Draft Bobby

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, Slashdotter's, who's up for starting a collection to pay Bobby Fischer, wherever he is, to represent humanity this October against Deep Fritz? I'll send a buck! Somebody should do a "Draft Bobby" webpage or something...

Re:You just proved my point

[Malcontent]

You forget one thing.
It's not enough to simply acquire a playing style similar to fischer. This is like saying "so and so aquired a playing style similar to Michael Jordan". Sure you can play like him but can you actually go on the basketball court and consistently beat Kobe Bryant?

Whoever this is reoutinely beat the pants off of a grandmaster even after throwing away as many as eight moves. I seriously doubt any computer can do that and whoever did it must be a player of enormous talent not just some shmoe of the street who studies patterns of play.

Really #1 is the most plausable theory. If it's not fischer it's somebody at least as good as him maybe better. I find it hard to believe somebody that good would play anonymously.

Some serious comments

[CyberDruid]

OK, I have been competing in chess for most of my life, so I am a pretty decent player (not a GM or anything). Most of the comments here have clearly been by patzers. Here comes my take on the whole thing.

I played through the alleged Fisher-games against the IMs (unfortunately Short's games are nowhere to be found), I also read the full Google Groups article that someone posted.

The opening moves that "Fischer" used are not a "secret weapon" that he has been working on all these years. They are simply designed to give the opponent an advantage. They are also absurd enough to give quite the psychological advantage if your oponent does not exploit them. Psychology is important in chess. More than most players realize. If you get your ass kicked from some unknown guy who plays such an opening, you are going to be unsure of yourself and play much, much weaker than when you are on a streak. (see for example Kasparov vs Deep Blue)

A computers are notoriously good at shorter timelimits (programmers reading this ought to understand why throwing more time at an exponential problem leads to marginal increase in playing strength). This could very well be some bored IM or something, that is playing some weird moves in the opening and then uses the computer to defend super-humanly, confusing the opponent and finally winning simply because there are so much messy tactics on the board (which a computer will always like).

Fortunately there are good statistical tests, used for checking for people cheating with computers. These are based on the fact that most programs make the same moves in the same position. If Short were to show his games, they could be analyzed by the standard ICC-algorithm.

The knowledge that "Fischer" showed in the chat between the games could have been generated with fast google-searches, as has been previously stated.

However... The games against the IMs are pretty damn impressive. And 8-0 against Short?! A guy manually operating a computer would most likely be too slow to manage that. The improbable thing about this story is not that Fischer plays chess on the internet (why would he not?). The improbable thing is that he would still be that good. I know that he is an american legend, but is it humanly possible? Short gives it a 99% probability because his ego is involved, because he really wants it to be true and because he probably is not aware of how easy it is to use the internet to get information fast (such as the 1970-thing). I just don't know what to think. I think that my final verdict is that Short probably did play Fischer, but that the excitement and psychology of the strange openings made him play less well than he normally would. I cannot believe that Fischer would still be the best chess-player in the world.

No bobby, sorry

[MotyaKatz]

Unfortunately, Bobby Fischer was made the "Elvis of chess" by many frustrated American chess fans who feel even more uncomfortable that their own national team mostly consists of Soviet born and bred players.

Fischer was vas a very strong player, but mostly psychologically superior to his opponents during 2 years only (1970-72), outside that time his successes were not outstanding. The dominations of Lasker between 1896-1914 (and possibly 1923-24), of Alekhine (1927-1933) and Karpov (1975-85) are more remarkable in my opinion.

I saw the games mentioned in the article. Computer was used by someone who also understands chess. It could possibly be Fischer using a computer, though.

He is a very dangerously sick schizo, and it is good for the chessworld and the whole world that he is hiding somewhere, not propagating his ideas instead.

Fischer Turning Test

[kwclark]

> I never confronted my opponent with the
> question, "Am I playing Bobby
> Fischer?" I did ask him, however, who was the
> strongest blitz chess-player
> he had ever played. His response was, "If I am
> who you think I am, I would
> answer Mikhail Tal."

New definition of intelligence: can you convince Nigel Short you are Bobby Fischer.

Ken