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

Depressing in a way

[q-soe]

I dont know if its naive but i find it a bit depressing that someone with bobby's intellect has to exist anonyomously to avoid the public limelight and scrutiny just to survive - witness the media attacks that form against any succesful person in the public eye these days - depressing that freely available information means a loss of any right to privacy.

Re:Depressing in a way

[selan]

No one forced Fischer to become a recluse. He chose it for himself and has gone to extreme measures to stay hidden. Read Searching For Bobby Fischer by Fred Waitzkin for details. It's a fascinating read about the chess world, a father and his chess prodigy son, and the search for Bobby Fischer. Also was made into a decent movie.

Regarding the rumor that Bobby is playing chess online, I've heard it before and I think it has been going around for a while. Could be true, but really total speculation.

Re:Depressing in a way

[dragons_flight]

Intellect isn't everything.

I know very little about Bobby Fischer so I'm speaking in general, not about him in particular.

Intellect can do a lot, but there are other skills that one needs to be successful, especially in the public eye. These are things like stage presence, speaking ability, charisma, style, bearing and common sense, which are only tangentially connected to intelligence. A smart person might be able to develop them faster than your average Joe. On the other hand intelligence might hinder their development, especially if that person is arrogant because of their intelligence.

To take a high profile example, by all accounts Al Gore is a pretty learned guy, but he still hasn't figured out what he wants his appearance to be, and the last election suggests that he has had only mediocre success connecting with the public. The stereotypical closed-in scientist (and I've known a few) can be far worse.

Bobby Fischer is, at least to my limited knowledge, something of a one trick wonder. He is exceptionally good at chess, but clearly doesn't want to be a public figure, and perhaps he wouldn't be very good at it?

The thing I wonder most about is what kind of a life is he living now? Chess isn't easy to make a profession of and it must be nearly impossible if you don't want people to know who you are. So does he program computers by day and trounce chess masters at night, or what?

My name is also Bobby and I'm pleased to hear that Mr. Fischer might be having some fun. For my part I've grown to realize the value of that other skill set, and I'm ever so slowly trying to cultivate it.

Re:Depressing in a way

[uchian]

Hmmm.

"Rook to rook eight and here's a picture of a goat"

Or

"knight to queens-bish three and here's some ascii art of two people having sex"

And never let AC's play as white - "hah hah! First move!"

Re:Depressing in a way

[WolfWithoutAClause]

It's not clear that he really chose it either. The stress of those matches he played were astronomical; IMO they may well have caused both players long term pschological damage which could easily cause him to become a recluse. (Or not... I don't know the guy, but it sounds logical.)

Re:Depressing in a way

[Mahonrimoriancumer]

I don't know why everyone keeps saying that he is hiding. He is not hiding, he just keeps a low profile. He is not very social. Maybe everyone thinks he went into hiding because he refused to defend the world chess title after he won it from Spassky.

Also, the only reason he does not live in the U.S. is because he played in a chess tournament in Yugoslavia in 1992 after President Bush (the elder) said that any U.S. citizen would face criminal charges if they help the Yugoslavia economy, similar to the embargo on Cuba. The only reason Bobby Fischer was gone after was because of his high profile.

Deep Fritz

[L3WKW4RM]

I'll bet he's controlling Deep Fritz via ICQ.

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

Interesting, hoax or not!

[Dr. Spork]

I have to admit, the evidence that Fischer is really out there is much better than I expected it to be before I read the articles. Still, it is very hard to have any idea of who your opponent is in internet chess.

Maybe it's an American Fischer fan who learned all the "Fisher-related facts." The only evidence against that is just the quality of play.

Still--can we rule out it was a very powerful experimental chess computer or a very talented and reclusive chess star? Maybe Kramnik or Kasparov has an odd sense of humor and was making all the moves while his American buddy was doing all the typing.

Unless it's one of the current greats incognito, this story is interesting even if the opponent really isn't Fischer. It sounds like there's someone out there with an incredible chess talent!

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:Interesting, hoax or not!

[fishbowl]

>can we rule out it was a very powerful >experimental chess computer

Probably. Many people make the assumption that
the internet chess servers are filled with people who are using chess computers and
software to cheat. They are there, but
they are easy to spot. Very advanced players
can easily tell when they are playing against
a machine, and they can often tell you after
only a few games which one they are playing against. People who try to cheat with computers, are in for a shock when they find out how easily it is detected. Kasparov claimed that Deep Blue was "insightful", but, that machine wouldn't play like Fischer. It may be insightful, but if it has a genuine sense of humor, it might pass the Turing Test... I really don't think a chess computer is going to fool a grandmaster into believing it's Bobby Fischer.

>or a very talented and reclusive chess star?

This isn't the first unconfirmed Fischer sigting. I'd say it is far more likely that a very talented person is out there, than someone has a machine that can fool even a recreational player (let's say 1700 level) into believing he is playing against a human. Whether that person Fischer or not is something we have to decide for ourselves, depending on how romantic we are about the whole thing. Consider there is no evidence presented. Let's see a double blind study, by chess historians and players, and find out if anyone else comes to the same conclusion.
According to Mr. Short's story, that should be possible.

I haven't noticed a ref to the specific games, which had better be recorded or else this is a ufo sighting (without the fuzzy photos even).
I would find it unironic that the least of my lost-in-20-moves games is archived indefinitely on FICS, while Bobby Fischer is playing on some ICC server with no record of the games?!

I hope for the sake of Mr. Short's reputation and his sanity, that he has recorded the moves in these games by the anonymous, enigmatic, ephimeral Bobby Fischer.

One of my books covers all of Fischer's games from 1965 to 1972. In the preface, the author points out that "[Fischer's] carrer is still in its early stages..." Seems I need to add some more annotated games. I'd especially like to see the "odds-all-pawns-to-3" line.

I have often wondered whether Fischer's, a.k.a. Robert D. James' reclusiveness originates not from being a primadonna, but from fear of the
mindless bureaucracy of the US. During a time period when the FBI seemed to take special interest in celebrities, he publicly provoked the State Department by playing in Yugoslavia while US sanctions were in force, and even admitted publicly that he had not paid his income taxes, and wasn't going to.

He is rumored to have had a number of run-ins with the police, and claimed to have been subjected to police brutality in Los Angeles, but that story may also be a hoax. Still, he has a dark enough history with Uncle Sam that maybe it's understandable he would want to live in seclusion, almost certainly outside the United States, its territories, assigns, and protectorates.

As for the chess games he is said to be playing, I'm from Missouri, until the chess moves are shown to the community. If someone claimed to have found a lost Mozart piano concerto, it had damned well better stand up to peer review and the consensus process.

Regards,
James, who is lousy at chess (1300+)

Pawns shifted forward?

[rokicki]

This seems incredible to me, that anyone playing someone of the caliber of Short can move all his pawns one square forward (giving Short 8 moves to develop his attack, essentially)---and still win!

Any chess experts want to comment on this unconventional play?

Re:Pawns shifted forward?

[iabervon]

I'd guess that he wanted to throw Short off (it sounds like that game was the first), and possibly get him to be careless, and also to make 8 quick moves at the beginning, saving his time for later. Also, while they're lousy moves to start with, they don't lead to any obvious attacks, so Short probably didn't have time to figure out how to take advantage of his ability to develop an attack without being bothered.

Re:Pawns shifted forward?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are his games, move by move.

As you can see, he brings his king to the center of his board. Very wierd.

Re:Pawns shifted forward?

[Gorimek]

I wouldn't call myself an expert player, but I've played for 35 years, and I know a lot about it.

I'm also stunned by this. I would have thought such a position was clinically lost. And it probably is in a real game, but in a blitz game Short has too little time to figure out this alien position, while Fisher has probably spent quite some time studying it and is aware of all the quirks of it.

Still, had someone asked me if this was possible, I would have laughed at it. And so would probably Short,.

I suppose it could be a computer or Kasparov on LSD, but it sure smells like Fisher. It's just the kind of thing he would do...

Re:Pawns shifted forward?

[_Sprocket_]

I think the fact is, that he was not a good chess player, but he was cheating.

Someone grab a demo. I bet he was running a speedhack on his chess client.

(sigh) Too much Quake this weekend...

Re:Interesting

[Raunchola]

This should give you some background info on Fischer and his "eccentricities."

Re: Who is Bobby Fischer?

[none2222]

. . . I've been following the chess world for the past few years, and though I've heard of Bobby Fischer a few times, I still don't know exactly who he is . . .

I find it hard to understand how someone who has been interested in chess for the length of time you claim to have been, can be ignorant of Bobby Fischer, one of the greatest players of all time.

Bobby was the youngest International Grandmaster ever. He won 8 US Chess Championships, and won basically every game he played between 1962 and 1972.

Unfortunately, he has become a reclusive paranoid schizophrenic who rants about how the Jews and Russians are out to get him (it should be noted that Bobby is half-Jewish).

By the way, in the future, perhaps you should try Google for queries like this.

Oh, come on

[ColGraff]

Why does Short think this guy is Fischer? Because he whipped Short's ass and because he's familiar with obscure players from the sixties? Look, I'm really into computers from the 80s and late 70s. I could rattle off a large amount of obscure stats about Colecos, a bunch of z80 machines, early apples, including file systems, bus speeds - does this mean I'm Steve Wozniak or Bill Gates? I don't think so. Neither are all the other hundreds of people on /. with the same interest.

As for this guy being a good chess player - good for him, it doesn't mean he's fischer. I'm sure there are people of world-class quality at chess who choose not to go pro for a variety of reasons - again, it doesn't make them bobby fischer.

Re:Oh, come on

[sokoban]

After studying hundreds of players styles and analyzing thousands of games like all modern grandmasters have, it is entirely possible for any of them to be able to identify anonymous opponents. Chess style is very much like handwriting, you can obscure your little nuances, but to the trained eye each person is unique. The random opening moves and the aggression with which this player played all suggest Fischer. Fischer was an advocate of opening deconstruction with his "Fischerrandom" variation of Chess. Also, pawn push openings and blitz play are definitely hypermodern ideas of which Fischer was the master. Really, though this has to either be a computer (which is insane considering the opening book it would be using), or a grandmaster since the preparation needed for top level play is far more than any non-professional could achieve. I would in fact be willing to wager that there is not a single amateur (meaning non-GM) player who could so thoroughly destroy a top level grandmaster such as Short.

Re:Oh, come on

[Anonymous Coward]

As for this guy being a good chess player - good for him, it doesn't mean he's fischer. I'm sure there are people of world-class quality at chess who choose not to go pro for a variety of reasons - again, it doesn't make them bobby fischer.

This is so utterly wrong it's difficult to explain to a non-chess-player just how wrong it is. It's like saying that there are plenly of basketball players just as good as Michael Jordan who choose not to go pro.

To be world-class at chess requires years of hard work and study that consumes all your time. You cannot be an occasional player and be world class. And your opponents must also be world class. When Korchnoi angered the Russians, Russian grandmasters were instructed not to play him--the lack of world-class competition is probably what prevented him from improving his skills to the level required to be world-champion.

There are probably three people in the world who could beat Short that badly in 3 minute chess; Anand, Kramnik, and Kasparov (and apparently Bobby Fischer). No other person on the planet could do it, unless Short was unconsciously throwing the games.

Of course, chess programs are stronger than humans at fast time limits. Someone with a very good computer and a sense of humor might be able to pull it off, but you can usually tell a program by its playing style; I don't think Short could be fooled

Re:Oh, come on

[Our Man In Redmond]

Let's say you claimed to be Steve Wozniak. There are questions I could ask you -- about the design of the Apple II, about the members of the Homebrew Computer Club, about the Bay Area of the mid-70s -- that in and of themselves would not establish whether or not you really were The Woz, but could rule you out. For instance, if I created a ficticious member of the HCC and started asking you about him, if you went on about this guy's eccentricities you would obviously be a poser.

Answer enough of these questions and you might not establish yourself to be Woz, but if you don't rule yourself out and show consistency both with your story and with the world as we know it, you COULD be Woz.

In this particular story there is another, unique dimension to it -- the chess play. If you study the styles of the past masters enough, you might be able to look at a game and get a good idea of which players might have played it. For instance, it's been many years but I believe Fischer was partial to the Sicilian Defense. If Short's opponent used the Sicilian, and in particular lines that Fischer was known to favor, that would be yet another indication that he was indeed playing Bobby Fischer.

The only credible alternative explanation I can come up with at the moment is that Short was playing a grandmaster-level player intimately familiar with Fischer's style -- someone perhaps like Larry Evans, who helped Fischer analyze positions during breaks in play. Few people would be able to pull something like that off, though.

Re:Oh, come on

[brunes69]

It would also be strong evidence that the guy had the grace of God working for him, as I can hardly ever find blue LED's in stock at my Radio Shack, let alone parts to build an Apple II. All they like to carry nowadays are Cell phones and RC's.

Re:Rounders.

[whatever]

Just b/c his typing, his use of language, knowledge, etc reminds you of someone that does NOT mean it is.

From bbc :

Despite his misgivings, Short eventually arranged to play the unknown opponent, and in October last year lost the first of their four confrontations 8-0.

Now, my question is, how many people in the world can beat Short 8-0, and who can they be?

Oh, now I understand

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Hot damn, that's why I keep losing all my chess matches online : Bobby, will you please STOP PLAYING AGAINST ME ?

0riginal Usenet Post

[elzahir]

Short's full story was posted on usenet. A bit more information than in either of the press stories.

Re:Shaky Evidence

[OblongPlatypus]

Moderators, please read the articles before you do your thing..

The articles both seem to say Short bases his theory on online conversations with the mysterious player, not on playing style. I'm not saying that makes it less shaky evidence, but let's at least stick to the facts of the article.

ummmm

[fjordboy]

I don't know if you guys know this...but Bobby Fisher didn't really dissappear...being a chess guy, he lacked on some social skills and was a little shy.....he has been hiding under my couch for the last several years trying to avoid social confrontation...but now that I know he has been tapping into my internet connection for personal gain, I am forced to reveal him on slashdot. Bobby fisher is in my house in trout run PA. Tell CNN. They need to give me money before they come to look at him.

Re:Maybe it WAS him!

[alexmogil]

I know what you mean.. I was playing Bridge Builder online against someone who was making IMPOSSIBLE structures, yet he won time and time again. Later I found it to be I. M. Pei. Who knew?

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:Rounders.

[chill]

2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss.

If the opponent WON all 4 games, the score would have been 8-0.

Championship chess normally has lots of draws.

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.

A problem with the evidence

[e_lehman]

I wanted to test my antagonist further so I thought of a number of tricky questions as we gossiped. For example, I asked him: "Do you know Armando Acevedo?" Senor Acevedo is an obscure Mexican player, not remotely of Grandmaster strength.

My opponent's reply came instantly, if cryptically: "Siegen 1970". Now if you look in the tournament book of the Siegen Chess Olympiad of 1970 you will find that Bobby Fischer played a certain Armando Acevedo in a preliminary round. He was obviously trying to tell me something.

Typing "Fischer Armando Acevedo" into Google turns up a reference to the 1970 Siegen match on the 3rd link. (The 2nd link is a consequence of Short's article.) It's in Spanish, but the exact phase "Siegen, 1970 appears explicity next to the first occurrance of "Fischer". See for yourself. The point is that one need not have access to a thirty year old tournament book, as Short suggests, to quickly generate the reply that he received. Thus this particular piece of evidence is a lot weaker than it appears.

Yeah, right.

[Carnage4Life]

As for this guy being a good chess player - good for him, it doesn't mean he's fischer. I'm sure there are people of world-class quality at chess who choose not to go pro for a variety of reasons - again, it doesn't make them bobby fischer.

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.

The time limit was three minutes per player, per game. My unseen opponent
began with some highly irregular, if not totally absurd opening moves -
shifting all his pawns forward one square. These were moves that that no
Grandmaster would ever play. I immediately felt that I was the victim of an
elaborate practical joke. But then I became aware of something else.

From this deliberately unpromising position emerged moves of extraordinary
power. In this first game I was totally crushed. I took a little more care
in the second game, but met with the same result. His openings became even
more cocky - 1....f6 followed by 2...Kf7 and 3...Ke6, exposing his own king
to immediate assault - was one of his bizarre and unprecedented gambits. It
was as if he was deliberately trying to handicap himself. However, I was
beaten again.

I played the man I believe to be Bobby Fischer on a couple of further
occasions - a total of 50 games, the last time in May - never getting
remotely close to scoring 50 per cent. By comparison, I scored 50 per cent
(six points from 12 games) the last time I faced Garry Kasparov at blitz
chess, in France in 1995.

I was going to keep this story a secret, but it has become obvious that
Fischer's activity on the ICC is slowly becoming known. (The English
Grandmaster Jim Plaskett has told me that he, too, has played Fischer on the
ICC. Jim also found that his opponent played fantastically weak openings in
order to create a level playing field, or rather chess board. Alas, Jim,
like me, was crushed like a beetle.) It was only a matter of time before
someone else published something.

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.

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.

On being a recluse

[dannywyatt]

So it's way too late for anyone to read this, but I'll post it nonetheless.

This is from Thomas Pynchon, when CNN tracked him down and filmed him--and maybe, sort of, in a way, "threatened" to show the film.

"my belief is that recluse is a code word generated by journalists ... meaning, 'doesn't like to talk to reporters.'"

And this from a reporter who previously stalked him:

"He shops at neighborhood stores. He lunches with other writers. He spends weekends in the countryside with his family,"

http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/05/pynchon/

Just because someone's not in the news, doesn't mean he or she is a shut-in. Of course, this may be different for Bobby Fischer, but it's a perspective we need to keep.

Re:Al Gore, an intellect by all accounts? I disagr

[The Mayor]

My wife's adviser for her PhD in geology was called to testify on global warming to some government committee a few years ago. In this, he was questioned by a number of respected individuals in the science field, many of whom were geologists (although not of the same specialty as my wife's adviser). At the end, Gore came in for a short 5-minute Q&A period. My wife's adviser said that the questions Gore put forth were the most intelligent and thought provoking of the bunch. Obviously he had been well briefed by his aides, but my wife's adviser says that it was clearly his own thinking (follow-up questions to his answers and such). He would most surely disagree with your opinions about Gore.

Oh, yes. My wife's adviser is a conservative southerner from Alabama. Most definitely not a Gore supporter.

You can be quite intelligent and now be an excellent orator. In fact you can be quite intelligent and not be very good at English. Don't put down Gore's intelligence. In fact, all the democrat presidents (and Gore) from the last half century stack up as wonderfully intelligent. However, most of them performed as president very poorly. Intelligence is not strongly correlated with the quality of one's presidency.

Re:Maybe it WAS him!

[circletimessquare]

Linux kernel hacker says anonymous 8" disk drive driver author was Bill Gates

Sunday, September 9, 2001
Breaking News Sections

(09-09) 11:06 PDT LONDON (AP) --

A British Linux kernel hacker is convinced that Bill Gates, one of computing's most legendary and elusive figures, is programming again -- anonymously for little-used Linux drivers.

"I am 99 percent sure that I am getting driver submissions from the computing legend," Alan Cox told The Sunday Telegraph. "It's tremendously exciting."

Gates, an American, fascinated the world by winning an epic battle against a Californian, Steve Jobs, in the desktop PC market in 1982. Then he disappeared, only to re-emerge from the Death Star in 1992 for a controversial rematch against Netscape in the Browser Market.

Gates won, and then disappeared again after U.S. authorities accused him of violating sanctions imposed against monopolies by playing the match.

He has remained out of the public eye and his whereabouts are unknown, although the Telegraph said he is believed to be living in cyberspace a la The Lawn Mower Man or Tron. Cox said he does not know where Gates is.

Cox, who unsuccessfully challenged Linus Torvalds for world Linux core kernel functionality control in 1993 in the Klingon ritual of Mauk-to 'Vor, said rumors began circulating last year that the American champion was anonymously authoring Linux drivers in quick, three-line snippets of badly-written Visual Basic code on "alt.binaries.BSOD.screenshots". Cox said he was skeptical, even after his friend, Brazilian Kernel developer Rik Van Riel, claimed to have run a Bill Gates-authored Linux driver.

"I could not help but burst into laughter, much as I would have done had my friend claimed to have seen the Loch Ness monster," Cox wrote in an article for the Sunday newspaper.

A few weeks later, Cox said, he was approached by someone who identified himself as an intermediary for "a very strong Visual Basic programmer ... who wished to preserve his anonymity." The intermediary gave Cox a special code word and arranged a time for a future drive submission.

"I thought that this 'intermediary' was almost certainly a fraud or a time-waster ... but on the off-chance of meeting the Loch Ness monster of world computer domination, I agreed," Cox wrote.

When the prearranged time came, Cox was requested by the anonymous player to sign into "alt.binaries.BSOD.screenshots" anonymously instead of as himself. That way no one would know Cox was submitting, and his drivers would not be put under public scrutiny, as they normally are.

Cox ran eight three-line Linux drivers for little-used peripherals in VB. Cox's machine was crashed.

"I never confronted my submitter with the question, 'Am I using VB code authored by Bill Gates,' " Cox conceded. But during subsequent driver usage, Cox said he noticed comments in the VB code, and the comments all seemed like they could only come from one man.

"He was obviously very familiar in a gossipy way with the major figures in the desktop PC world of the 1980s -- Gate's period of greatest activity," wrote Cox. "He was polite, he was funny, and clearly a Taelon, to judge from his spelling and pattern of conversation."

Cox is convinced that the author of the 8" disk drive Linux driver was the legendary Gates, and he said that he will always treasure the drivers he ran.

"To me, they are what an undiscovered Milli Vanilli symphony would be to a music lover," Cox wrote.

"alt.binaries.BSOD.screenshots", based in Redmond, did not immediately respond to a post seeking comment on Cox's piece Sunday.

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.

King movement

[jtdubs]

My favorite game was the one where he pushed his two bishop pawns and then proceeded to walk his king around, move his queen out of the way, replace it with the king, and effectively swap his king and queen in 10 moves. LOL! What unique and effective gameplay. Amazing stuff.

Justin Dubs

Hey, my specialty...

[migstradamus]

> Fringe murmurs hit the major media this weekend when Nigel Short declared that he believes he has been playing Bobby Fischer online. (Another report of the report here from AP.) Rumors of Fischer playing internet chess have been going around for months now and have caused a furor amongst the usual fans and foes. Most of these stories go as follows: 1) Mr. X insists that both players log on as guests and all communication is handled by way of an intermediary. 2) Mr. X plays crazy openings, often moving his king back and forth to intentionally waste time. 3) Despite this, Mr. X destroys top GMs in these blitz games, making virtually no errors. 4) The games are never published, Mr. X never says he is Fischer or makes comments suggesting he is. 5) Mr. X occasionally answers trivia questions about Fischer's life.

You don't need to be Johnny Cochran to know the difference between concrete and circumstantial evidence, and what we have above is a wheelbarrow full of the latter. Nigel Short, speaking in the Sunday Telegraph Review article that is also devoid of substantiation, says that he is "99 per cent sure" he has "been playing against the chess legend." This is based on four sets of games, none of which are given or commented on, other than to say that Short lost the first set 8-0. (The article also says Short went 6-6 in a blitz match with Kasparov in 1995. From the context of Short's actual words these were apparently casual games.) The Telegraph doesn't call the evidence circumstantial, it calls it "overwhelming." Johnny Cochran would be proud.

Short was also impressed by Mr. X replying "Siegen 1970" when the Englishman asked him if he knew Armando Acevedo. Well, I not only know of him, but I met the simpatico Mexican master in the flesh 10 years ago. But that's another story. Acevedo lost to Fischer in the 1970 Siegen Olympiad. That many a Fischer fan and anyone with a database would also know this seems to have been overlooked in this latest continuation of the rampant desire to believe Fischer is not only alive and well, but just biding his time before coming back to take his rightful crown at the age of 58. (It is not as if the person playing these games, Fischer or not, would be unaware of the intense speculation that has been ongoing in the chess community. Fischer was the only Grandmaster the Mexican faced, at least as far as his published games are concerned.) Who is qualified to ask Fischer a question that only Fischer would know? Not many people, and probably not Nigel Short. (Here's one for Bobby: Buenos Aires, 1996. What did you say Mickey Kantor was too busy doing to protect your rights? The rude comment the interpreter wouldn't translate, but you caught her and repeated it several times? But most people at that press conference would know this one...)

Personally I have no problem at all believing Fischer plays online anonymously. Despite the obvious decline in his mental health, he was still very animated by chess when I met him in 1996. I do not doubt that if he played into shape he would be a tough opponent for the top 10 today and more than a match for Armando Acevedo. But acting as though he would be an invincible demigod after 30 years of almost complete removal from competitive chess is silly. He played a few dozen games against Spassky in 1992 and the rare flashes of brilliance only glimmered brighter due to the thick layers of rust on his game. His knowledge and insight helped Peter Leko several years ago when the two would meet in Hungary, this we know. We cannot imagine a Fischer who has left chess behind.

As I said above, if you have good arguments you don't need junk. A master playing with strong computer assistance would have little trouble demolishing a top GM in blitz, we know this from experience. Even in rapid games humans make too many mistakes to compete successfully against CPU power on a consistent basis. I'm quite willing to believe that Bobby Fischer is "out there" and playing blitz online, but it will take published games, and more than just a few, to make this into anything more than a rumor.

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.

Urban Legend.

[gdr]

Seems to me like Short is deliberately continuing an urban legend (Fischer playing chess online). Note that the only record of the moves played is in Short's hands and he refuses to make this public. We only have Short's word that he was beaten after his opponent effectively threw several moves away.

Note how he gives an excuse as to why he will not be able to acquire additional evidence in his original article because Fischer will probably not play him anymore.

Several times in the article Short teases us with amazing evidence which he wishes he could share with us, but alas ...

I think Short is having a bit of fun with us, chess GMs can have a sense of humour you know. :-)

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