Kasparov vs. The World: It's all different

Faber@FICS writes "I just checked how the match Kasparov vs. The World has been covered here. Today, more than fifty moves into the game, it is interesting that nearly everything that was said about this has been shown to be wrong. (1) This was no easy win for GK at all -- quality chess at its best, with very good drawing chances for the world after fifty moves. (2) Computers, although heavily used all over the net, did not play a significant role in this game so far. (3) This is no longer Windows-only -- Microsoft removed that requirement rather early in the game without comment. Surprise, surprise... Read a very insightful interview with Irina Krush, one of the official expert analysts, and check out the World Team Strategy BBS, where the world is at work. "

Comments

Democracy

[Kinthelt]

It was still kind of a one-sided match. I mean, the way the World chose moves might have been the best way to get alot of people involved, but it did not produce the best moves.

I would warrant a guess that the majority of people who play chess are average players. And almost everybody is a worse player than Kasparov (there might be some undiscovered talent out there). So, the grand majority get to choose moves that will ultimately lose, while the few genius moves will be out-voted.

This didn't happen as much as it would have since there were advisors on the World's team. And people never voted for a move that was against the advisors. So this wasn't really a match against the world, but against a few selected chess players. The voting mechanism was just to formalize everything and make people think their ideas counted.

Re:Democracy

[Possum Man]

It is true that advisors were essential in this game. In fact, the world basically followed Irena Krush's game (I'm not sure whether there's a single move against Krush's advice). However, it is important to note that Krush paid a lot of attention to the players' suggestions. She posted lines of play on her web site developed by a variety of different players on the internet. She constantly upgraded her opinion based on what different players suggested. She herself freely admits that she could never have played a game of this strength without her huge support base.

I would argue this method reflects the development of the Linux kernel (and other free software). The Linux kernel has an obvious leader. This leader would not have gotten very far if not for the respect and support of various people putting in almost as much as him. These giants in turn would not have gotten very far if they hadn't had the support of a much larger group of somewhat influential designers. These people in turn were supported by a much larger group of slightly influential people.

Originally I thought that the democratic element of this chess game was unnecessary. Why not just put one person in charge, and let the world advise them. But, as in the development of the Linux kernel, it is necessary that the people get to choose their leader. The other three advisors did not pay a lot of attention to the world-team players, and therefore were not listened to nearly as carefully as Krush was. The democratic element allowed the world to choose a leader who would represent them.

What does this undertaking show?

[jabber]

Well, besides the exercise of getting so many voices contributing to a strategic decision, a'la online voting?

This is a way for Kasparov to get his 'face' back, by defeating the collective chess expertise of the world single-handedly.

What I would like to see next is the world vs. Deep Thought. If the greatest chess mind in the world, capable of defeating the whole world, was himself defeated by a computer, does transitivity apply? Can the world be beaten by the computer? What would be the result on the human psyche, to be defeated by a machine? Would governments halt AI research funding out of fear as thoughts of the W.O.P.R. and SkyNet dance in their heads?

Yes, we all know that DT was coached, and in fact designed, specifically to defeat Kasparov. It was programmed with Kasparov's strategies and game history... But still, it makes one wonder how the collective ego of humanity would respond to having it's collective hinny wipped by it's own invention.

Is it possible to Slashdot effect the moves ... :)

[dustpuppy]

Is the voting for the moves checked (and vetoed) by humans?

Cos if it isn't, I could see an amusing result if the /. effect was rolled out over the voting form and we had a solitary pawn on the far left of the chess board advancing one square at a time completely ignoring any move that Kasporov made ... ;)

Democracy, with all the pitfalls

[Enoch Root]

If you look closely at how this works, this isn't truly Kasparov vs. the world. It's Kasparov vs. four chess masters, with a randomising factor thrown in to determine whose move is selected.

If you truly did a Kasparov vs. the world, you'd just invite everyone to vote for the move they want, without any advice. Then, indeed, you would have Kasparov vs. the world, and the world would be a very, very average player indeed.

Rather, this is more like democracy. Four masters "suggest" moves, which means the clearer (or cryptic and brilliant-sounding) their analysis is, the more likely they are to sway the majority in their favour. Oh, sure, you can vote for another move that isn't suggested, but when the average player has a chance of going with one master whose opinion he believes he shares, or thinking up his own move that none of the four masters thought up, what do you think he'll do? And even if he does, will there be enough votes from the other players? No.

So the little genius sitting at home and ready to beat Kasparov is not going to weight much in the balance. He doesn't have access to a visible, publicised advice posting like the other chess masters have. He could post on a BBoard, but what if he really sucks at English and cannot communicate his analysis properly?

So, what is left, is the ability to sway the crowd. Chess ability matters, but when the average player can't figure the game out one move ahead, he's gonna go for the more convincing, not necessarely the better one. And so, we're back to good old democracy: don't elect the one you know to be the best qualified, because you yourself are not qualified to make that call. Just elect the candidate that sounds the most convincing and seems to know where he's going. And he'll take care of the rest.

Interestingly enough, this is the only way the world can win (or draw, by looking at the game) against Kasparov. If there was no expert vote-swaying, it would be anarchy. Now it's democracy.

This game is a statement on human politics!

"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."