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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.