Well, there is that little thing about the DOE scientists evaluating the safety of Yucca Mountain and the likelihood of it contaminating the water supply... you know, the thing about the scientists falsifying data:
Regarding the government scientists falsifying safety data for Yucca Mountain disposal site in Nevada, and the earthquake near the site in 2002, I posted links that are broken (error on my part). Since I couldn't figure out how to edit my original post, here are corrected links:
Well, there is that little thing about the government scientists at Yucca Mountain falsifying information in their reports regarding the dangers of the water supply being contaminated. Don't remember that? Well, let's refresh our memories:
And, well, there is that little detail about the waste needing to be stored safely for oh, say, maybe ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS! Gosh, that shouldn't be too difficult. Especially in light of the earthquakes around Yucca Mountain. Mkay? Don't recall that either? Well, let's refresh our memories again:
I am a very serious chess player. I looked through all of the games - every single one, purported to have been played by Fischer. Going into it, I was VERY skeptical; my initial reaction to the story was that it is most likely a hoax done with a strong computer. As many have stated, computers can play world class chess at fast time controls.
The unorthodox openings, at first glance, might lead one to believe that it wouldn't be a computer. However, someone could create a special opening book with these moves, plug them into a program, and accomplish this feat. The (intentionally) poor opening moves, therefore proves nothing one way or the other. It is even quite plausible that a strong computer would be able to defend such inferior positions. I kept looking for tell-tale signs of computer play. It's not that simple to discern. I believe there are clues that this is a human, however. Nonetheless, I could be wrong. Moreover, even if it is a human (which I rate at 80 percent probability), it may not be Fischer.
The clues are subtle... one thing to look for is the likelihood that a computer will make the same or very similar moves in identical positions. Although, again, this too can be overridden by a human operator.
One occasion jumped out at me - one of the few (and possibly the ONLY - more on that later - legitimate loss that "Fischer" played). You will note that "Fischer" was black when "he" lost. Note that the very next game, "Fischer" is again black (one of the few games in which they didn't alternate colors). This strikes me as a very, very human (read "egotistical") reaction - e.g. you just beat me as black, I want a rematch as black for revenge and I'll play the same opening and play an improvement. Note, the next game's opening is the same (although there is a transposition of move order - another sign that it is probably a human), "Fischer" deviates on move 12, plays an improvement, and proceeds to win the game. This, I consider very, very, VERY strong evidence that the player is human.
The other losses (2) of "Fischer" were, in my estimation, instances of "Fischer" intentionally losing. One was a simple, well-known mate (the fastest mate possible) in which "Fischer" intentionally sets himself up for mate - this was most likely a human with a sense of humor allowing this to happen (known as "help-mate"). I don't see that any computer would have a sense of humor, nor allow this simple mate, so it was either done by a human or a human operator (if there was a computer in the loop at all). The other loss, "Fischer" resigns when there is no compelling reason (he had fought out of many, much worse positions to the one in which he resigned) - I have no explanation, perhaps he wanted a different opening and wasn't interested in that particular position.
The remainder of the play was, in my opinion, human. However, it is somewhat difficult to tell at times. I believe that a computer would, in general, be more materialistic, especially in blitz, than the play exhibited by "Fischer". I saw no evidence of the famous "horizon effect" which computers are known to suffer from; however, this was blitz and many times humans aren't able to exploit this type of thing in fast play.
I cannot say for sure, but I'm pretty damned confident that it wasn't a computer. There are probably a handful of humans who could pull this type of thing off - Fischer is one candidate. Kasparov another. Indian GM Viswanathan Anand maybe, though doubtful. GM Karpov, doubtful, though one couldn't rule him out. The aged but legendary GM David Bronstein - maybe, just maybe, but he's a bit old, however this is definitely his style of play. I'd say Fischer could be the man behind the moves. I mean, really, it would be surprising if Fischer wasn't playing chess on the internet, the only question is: are these his games?! I say "probably" so.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there is that little thing about the DOE scientists evaluating the safety of Yucca Mountain and the likelihood of it contaminating the water supply... you know, the thing about the scientists falsifying data:
:-)
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600119181,00.html
and there is that little thing about, you know, earthquakes in the vicinity:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/06/14/yucca.quake/index.html
But other than that it's perfectly safe.
Regarding the government scientists falsifying safety data for Yucca Mountain disposal site in Nevada, and the earthquake near the site in 2002, I posted links that are broken (error on my part). Since I couldn't figure out how to edit my original post, here are corrected links:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600119181,00.html
and:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/06/14/yucca.quake/index.html
Yeah, it's safe mkay. Repeat after me, mkay, it's safe. Mkay? Yeah, mkay.
:-)
Well, there is that little thing about the government scientists at Yucca Mountain falsifying information in their reports regarding the dangers of the water supply being contaminated. Don't remember that? Well, let's refresh our memories:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600119181,00.html/
And, well, there is that little detail about the waste needing to be stored safely for oh, say, maybe ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS! Gosh, that shouldn't be too difficult. Especially in light of the earthquakes around Yucca Mountain. Mkay? Don't recall that either? Well, let's refresh our memories again:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/06/14/yucca.quake/index.html/
Maybe not so easy to keep safe for a hundred thousand years or so after all, mkay.
I am a very serious chess player. I looked through all of the games - every single one, purported to have been played by Fischer. Going into it, I was VERY skeptical; my initial reaction to the story was that it is most likely a hoax done with a strong computer. As many have stated, computers can play world class chess at fast time controls.
The unorthodox openings, at first glance, might lead one to believe that it wouldn't be a computer. However, someone could create a special opening book with these moves, plug them into a program, and accomplish this feat. The (intentionally) poor opening moves, therefore proves nothing one way or the other. It is even quite plausible that a strong computer would be able to defend such inferior positions. I kept looking for tell-tale signs of computer play. It's not that simple to discern. I believe there are clues that this is a human, however. Nonetheless, I could be wrong. Moreover, even if it is a human (which I rate at 80 percent probability), it may not be Fischer.
The clues are subtle... one thing to look for is the likelihood that a computer will make the same or very similar moves in identical positions. Although, again, this too can be overridden by a human operator.
One occasion jumped out at me - one of the few (and possibly the ONLY - more on that later - legitimate loss that "Fischer" played). You will note that "Fischer" was black when "he" lost. Note that the very next game, "Fischer" is again black (one of the few games in which they didn't alternate colors). This strikes me as a very, very human (read "egotistical") reaction - e.g. you just beat me as black, I want a rematch as black for revenge and I'll play the same opening and play an improvement. Note, the next game's opening is the same (although there is a transposition of move order - another sign that it is probably a human), "Fischer" deviates on move 12, plays an improvement, and proceeds to win the game. This, I consider very, very, VERY strong evidence that the player is human.
The other losses (2) of "Fischer" were, in my estimation, instances of "Fischer" intentionally losing. One was a simple, well-known mate (the fastest mate possible) in which "Fischer" intentionally sets himself up for mate - this was most likely a human with a sense of humor allowing this to happen (known as "help-mate"). I don't see that any computer would have a sense of humor, nor allow this simple mate, so it was either done by a human or a human operator (if there was a computer in the loop at all). The other loss, "Fischer" resigns when there is no compelling reason (he had fought out of many, much worse positions to the one in which he resigned) - I have no explanation, perhaps he wanted a different opening and wasn't interested in that particular position.
The remainder of the play was, in my opinion, human. However, it is somewhat difficult to tell at times. I believe that a computer would, in general, be more materialistic, especially in blitz, than the play exhibited by "Fischer". I saw no evidence of the famous "horizon effect" which computers are known to suffer from; however, this was blitz and many times humans aren't able to exploit this type of thing in fast play.
I cannot say for sure, but I'm pretty damned confident that it wasn't a computer. There are probably a handful of humans who could pull this type of thing off - Fischer is one candidate. Kasparov another. Indian GM Viswanathan Anand maybe, though doubtful. GM Karpov, doubtful, though one couldn't rule him out. The aged but legendary GM David Bronstein - maybe, just maybe, but he's a bit old, however this is definitely his style of play. I'd say Fischer could be the man behind the moves. I mean, really, it would be surprising if Fischer wasn't playing chess on the internet, the only question is: are these his games?! I say "probably" so.