Kasparov Wins Game 3 Against X3D Fritz 434
Vulcao writes "Garry Kasparov just brilliantly won game 3 in the Kasparov vs. X3D Fritz chess match, which pits man against machine. Kasparov created a positional advantage on the queen side with a very strong pawn structure to which Fritz didn't have an answer. The result is now 1.5 - 1.5, and the last game will be this Tuesday, Nov. 18."
The game of Go ? (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:The game of Go ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The game of Go ? (Score:5, Funny)
Kinda like how your average Slashdotter watching the crowd go wild over Barry Bonds breaking the home run record is secretly thinking, "Oh sure, but can he put together a Beowulf cluster of Linux boxes?"
Re:The game of Go ? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The game of Go ? (Score:5, Funny)
A simple wall-shaped opponent pressed right against the net, with a large enough surface area, will beat any opponent. Well, maybe with a hole in there for serving.
A chess game with a 19x19 board would send a computer into shock too.
Less so than Go, since with Go the number of possible moves at each junction in time is larger than in chess - Go on a chess-sized board still features a larger search space than chess. Just like 110 in binary is less than 110 in decimal.
Re:The game of Go ? (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, no it won't, because it would still have to use a regulation-sized tennis raquet. If it couldn't move the racquet to hit the ball fast enough, it would actually lose all the points, since a tennis player loses the point if the ball strikes any part of their "body".
Re:The game of Go ? (Score:3, Redundant)
Re:The game of Go ? (Score:3, Insightful)
And building a chess program to beat any opponent is pretty simple, by making all the computers pieces queen king mixtures, so they move like queens but the computer only loses if *all* its remaining pieces are in checkmate at once.
But it's generally only interesting when you restrict the computer to actually following the rules of the game.
Re:The game of Go ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The game of Go ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Meaning that no computer anywhere is going to be decent at beating a human on a relatively large board?
Re:The game of Go ? (Score:2)
Re:The game of Go ? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The game of Go ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The game of Go ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The game of Go ? Mod Parent Up (Score:2)
Re:The game of Go ? (Score:3, Funny)
Especially with quantum computing, Go computers won't be beating humans anytime soon.
Re:The game of Go ? (Score:2)
Axiom of Choice and game of Go ??? (Score:3, Informative)
Are you trying out an application of your .sig here?
Because (1) the axiom of choice only applies to infinite sets, whereas the number of possible games of GO is huge, but not infinite, and (2) The axiom of choice is not an open question that may "happen" to be true or n
Re:The game of Go ? (Score:3, Informative)
Playing the game is most necessary - computer programs(GNUGo and Igowin are both worth checking out) can challenge any new player these days, but humans will usually be more helpful to learn from because they play less predictably and if they're polite will review the game with you afterwards to help point out mista
Re:The game of Go ? (Score:2)
Go find a copy, if you want to learn Go. You'll probably only get half of it the first time through, but it'll last you a long time.
For those who wish to bet... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:For those who wish to bet... (Score:2)
I disagree... (Score:5, Insightful)
Computer chess games deal with statistics and historics of previous games to decide how they will move their next turn. Usually they analyze hundreds of thousand of differents moves, even dumb ones !
When a human player take a look at the chess board, he rejects the vast majority of the possible moves and concentrate only on very few of them.
I would call that efficiency and if computers where as efficient as human, they would win easily without requiring huge processing power.
Re:I disagree... (Score:3, Informative)
When a human player take a look at the chess board, he rejects the vast majority of the possible moves and concentrate only on very few of them.
This is called pruning the search tree. Computer chess players do this too; see a description of alpha-beta pruning [ic.ac.uk].
Re:I disagree... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I disagree... (Score:5, Informative)
Now, just because you don't do it conciously doesn't mean you don't do it. Your brain does an incredible amount of processing behind your back. Think about visual processing or auditory processing. All of that goes on completely outside of your concious thought.
Re:I disagree... (Score:5, Informative)
Most skilled human chess players apply pattern matching by looking at the board and identifying interesting things. They start with nothing and add new options to the list until they feel they have a sufficiently comprehensive understanding of the situation.
Search tree pruning, by contrast, starts by including the entire space of potential moves and identifying courses of action that can be eliminated. Alpha-beta pruning is a particularly poor example here since it has the useful property that all a-b pruned subtrees are guaranteed not to be optimal. However, humans often ignore superior courses of action and choose suboptimal ones that "feel right" or match prior experience.
There have been various experiments on the limits of raw pattern matching ability with chess pieces. An interesting one involved asking participants to memorize an arrangement of pieces and reconstruct it a minute after the arrangement is removed. Participants included people with little or no chess experience and masters.
Those without experience memorized it as raw data, and did as well as they would have if asked to memorize random numbers instead of chess arrangements. The masters were more interesting. They did about the same as the beginners on random arrangements that could never actually happen in a game, but they were infinitely better at reconstructing realistic arrangements that often show up in games. The experiments proved that masters can recognize groups of pieces and evaluate them collectively.
In a game situation this means the master looks at the board, and certain parts of it just stand out. The master will pay no attention to areas that don't grab his attention, and doesn't need to evaluate whether any of those individual pieces are worth moving. Interestingly, this means that playing with nonstandard rules (such as changing piece movements) will likely devastate a master's ability while only slightly reducing an amateur's skill level and leaving the computer's ability unchanged.
Even though I think the parent is a troll, here's [uncoveror.com] an academic article detailing some other experiments on the topic.
Re:I disagree... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, grandmasters don't think of this as searching and pruning a tree, but that's what they are doing subconciously. If they didn't, they'd get obliterated in tactical exchanges.
The main difference between the human and computer tree searches is simply that the computers are far better (faster) at searching while the humans are far better at
Re:I disagree... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that is just a stupid thing to say anyway. If a computer consistently beats humans in chess, the only thing that has proved is that it is better than humans in chess.
Chess, is not as some people seem to believe, the absolute sign of intelligence.
Re:I disagree... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it used to be, back before people really thought about how to build a chess program. One of the problems with AI is that we don't really know what "intelligence" is. Every time we are able to write a computer program to solve a problem that we thought required intelligence, we conclude, "Oh, then that can't be what we meant by intelligence" rather than "The computer has now achieved intelligence."
Re:I disagree... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Only intelligent beings can make stupid decisions"
It kind of encapsulates the problem with AI really nicely; whenever you try and define it, all you are really doing is pushing the definition requirement into another area.
People have been arguing this since Plato, and IMHO have not made much headway since. If anything computer models have only confused the issue. Until this problem is solved, you
Re:I disagree... (Score:3, Interesting)
How can you create something that you cannot adequately define?
Evolve it.
grib
Re:I disagree... (Score:3, Interesting)
There have been a series of problems that people have posed with the idea that they couldn't be solved without giving the program the ability to figure out the problem. Each time, however, people figure out h
Re:I disagree... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think computers need true intelligence [singinst.org] before they're equal to humans, no matter how well they play one classic board game.
Re:I disagree... (Score:2, Insightful)
Having said that, I have to disagree with some of the points in your post.
How is this different from human players? Most good che
Re:I disagree... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I disagree... (Score:2)
Well, I for one reject them because I don't know where half the pieces are able to move, but thats just me.
Re:I disagree... (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because an airplane does not flap its wings to fly like a bird does, is it really not flying? On the contrary, airplanes are better fliers than birds.
AI isn't about emulating humans but about matching humans in mental capacity. How it will accomplish that is up to the researchers.
Humans do NOT control the best airplanes. (Score:2)
Re:I disagree... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I have the ultimate answer for this question.. (Score:2)
2.Human proceeds to reach for nearest rock and smash the computer to smitherines.
3. Human wins next match since the computer can no longer play!
**DISCLAIMER**Violence against living beings is whacked, but i've been known to slap my computer around on occasions.
Checkmate (Score:5, Funny)
a very strong finger pointed at the reset button to which Fritz didn't have an answer.
Re:Checkmate (Score:2, Funny)
Actually, that would be the ultimate proof of winning for Fritz.
Re:Checkmate (Score:5, Funny)
And that is why Fritz sent a Terminator back in time, to get rid of Kasparov before he was born.
There's the human advantage exposed right there (Score:5, Funny)
Well, what can poor Fritz, a cold emotionless computer, do when a handsome russian stallion of a man puts his pawn on the queen's side? Of course he didn't have an answer
Re:There's the human advantage exposed right there (Score:3, Funny)
Kasparov's nationality (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Kasparov's nationality (Score:3, Insightful)
Other AI programs (Score:4, Interesting)
Play here. [sympatico.ca]
Nine Men's Morris (and more) is solved (Score:4, Informative)
So has Qubic (4x4x4 Tic-Tac-Toe) by Patashnik O in 1980. (First Player Win)
Connect Four by James Allen in September 1998. (First Player Win)
Let's see John W. Romein and Henri E. Bal from that wonderful games research group in U of Alberta solved Awari in 2002. (Draw)
Read Victor Allis' PhD thesis for a good overview on finding game theoretic results of games. He invented the proof-number search technique that he used to (re)solve Qubic and Connect-Four. http://www.cs.vu.nl/~victor/thesis.html [cs.vu.nl]
Nine Men's Morris is not researched actively anymore, but Ralph Gasser's paper is often cited in any paper that deals with artificial intelligence in games.
Of course, even though the game might already be solved, that does not mean that it is not fun to play...
Kasparov's Comment (Score:5, Funny)
Programmer: No way! Look at my ping. It was lag!
Re:Kasparov's Comment (Score:2)
Whew! (Score:4, Insightful)
The second game on Thursday had Garry as black beat pretty much from the beginning. Garry fought back very well and might have drawn the game, but then foolishly blundered which cost him the game almost immediately. You could see the frustration level just go through the roof, as he's still trying to prove that he's better than the computer, but only to be beaten by the slow, steady computer approach.
But today, he's redeemed himeself. Although the match is now tied, he has shown that he can win against the computer. I feel better.
The last game will be difficult for Garry as black. But the fact that he won an game, and didn't draw them all has got to have him elated.
Battle chess (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Battle chess (Score:3, Funny)
Eight Pawn Chess (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Eight Pawn Chess (Score:5, Funny)
Good thing you latched on the chess game cartridge, otherwise you'd have grown a moustache, started wearing red overalls and sporting a strong Italien accent, and become a plumber
1600 is nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
Kasparov tried playing "anti-computer" chess against Deep Blue and got his butt handed to him. After losing to Deep Blue Kasparov really, Really, REALLY wants to beat Fritz (after helping hype him as "even better than Deep Blue"). If it were as simple as you describe, he wouldn't be wasting any time doing it now.
Re:Eight Pawn Chess (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Eight Pawn Chess (Score:3, Insightful)
Televised Chess (Score:5, Informative)
porp
The revolution will not be televised. (Score:3, Informative)
Two classic computer chess articles (Score:3, Informative)
In replying to my original email you asked if I had any specific thing I miss. I can reply that over time I've seen two really good articles on computer chess. The first was the cover story from Scientific American in 1990:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005CC
It was about Kasparov vs. Deep Thought. The second was in 1997 from Byte Magazine:
http://www.byte.com/art/9707/sec6/art6.htm
The thing that stuck in my memory from the second article was this information:
"Hsu told BYTE that his team chose the RS/6000SP because it was the best available IBM system for the job, even though its P2SC processors don't have the best integer performance. Although the P2SC lags in raw integer horsepower, the RS/6000SP largely makes up for it by uniting 32 of the processors in a parallel system architecture with high-speed, low-latency connections."
I would be very interested to see the above sort of coverage of the current chess match. To put it in colloquial terms I'd like to see a big fat writeup of the workings of fritz, how it's design is broken down, how it makes tradeoffs between one kind of technique vs another, how it works with the intel architecture, how it uses null-move ordering, RAM caching, and how it fits into the history of human-chess matches.
Re:Two classic computer chess articles (Score:2)
The only two articles the search engine returned for the string "Kasparov" were 1996 and 2001 articles. Is there somewhere else the article can be found?
I love these stories... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is far from the end of our species, chill out. Even if we are worse at chess than the computers, it doesn't make the experience of being human meaningless. It doesn't mean we will be welcoming our new robot overlords any time soon.
Anyway, would it really be so bad, if AIs started getting better than humans at a lot of things? I think that in the end, we could take our greatest joy as a species in knowing that we created something better than ourselves.
Of course, that is an issue so seperated from computer chess, that many of you are probably complaining to yourselves.
That's how I feel when I read the excuse making and naysaying.
Is Fritz learning? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is Fritz learning? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am curious to find the answer to your question.
Re:Is Fritz learning? (Score:2)
Re:Is Fritz learning? (Score:3, Informative)
However, Kasparov won't be able to reproduce this exact game in the next game for two reasons:
1) He has the black pieces in the next game, and
2) Even if he would be playing white again, Fritz chooses opening moves and variants from his database with a random element. So it's very unlikely that two of the games will turn out exactly the same. In one of the previous matches,
Re:Is Fritz learning? (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the main shortcomings of these matches is calling them "man versus machine". Because that's really a misnomer and obscures the actual situation. Which is, that the Kasparov is playing a computer program that is not thinking entirely for itself. A lot of the decisions that the program makes have been pre-programmed by the team of chess experts prior to each match. It's the group of experts that evaluates the opponent and decides the general strategy of each game.
The program isn't altered in the middle of a game. But it also isn't Kasparov versus a completed chess program thinking for itself. I would go so far as to say the reprogramming during a multiple game match and the evaluation of the opponent by the chess experts is cheating. And really relegates these matches to novelties to be gawked at but not to be considered real.
Human (Score:5, Funny)
Ducking Kasparov (Score:3, Interesting)
Does Kasparov play human beings anymore? or is he too good for us?
Ponomariov held out for more money (non-existant) in a sheduled match with Kasparov that would have led to a championship match between either Kramnik or Leko. Neither match ever happened so Kasparov headed back to New York for another payday with Fritz. The problem is not Kasparov playing other humans but other humans having the guts to play Kasparov. Kramnik has not defended his title in 3 years. The FIDE stripped Fischer's title after
'brilliantly won game 3' my shiny metal ass (Score:5, Informative)
"If X3D Fritz lacks a clear target it plays like a braindamaged lemur"
As Fritz moved its pieces back and forth throughout the game, Kasparov could make several free moves. That isn't brilliant, that's just making use of the other guys mistakes. Kasparov dominated the whole game, while Fritz had no clue at all what to do. According to one of its makers, X3D Fritz reached a new record of reading deeply (19 ply if I'm not mistaken) since the number of possible moves was so small in the cramped space they were building up their positions. This, however, didn't help a bit and I had a few giggles over bishops and knights moving away and then back again to the very same place they were coming from.
Only at the very end did Fritz realize it was losing, throughout the whole game it couldn't see what was glaringly obvious to the audience.
I've been told that this was proper anti-computer chess. The cramped position makes it tremendously difficult for a computer program to play properly while a human can easily see what's to be done.
All in all, it wasn't brilliant, Fritz just didn't have a clue
What am I discussing all this chess for? Let me get back to KGS...
Re:'brilliantly won game 3' my shiny metal ass (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like I rode the Short Bus to school (Score:5, Funny)
I played chess all the time with pals about 10 years ago. We were all at about the same level of bad. I thought I would prove my chess-skilz one day and played some guy at the local coffeeshop. After 3 moves, I was checkmated. My middle eastern opponent turned to my friend and said, "Your friend is stupid. I will not play him again.", swept all the pieces off the board, got up, shook his head and left.
That stung. So You Go Gary! I must live vicariously through you! Kick some ass! Then I must go back to OS X gnuChess which mocks me every time I play, "You are stupid. I will not play you again."
Re:It's not like I rode the Short Bus to school (Score:2)
Don't feel bad...sure, it's embarassing, but it turns out there are only a few ways to checkmate someone in the first 10 moves of the game, and it only takes about half an hour of instruction to learn how to avoid all of them.
In other words, you could almost instantly become unbeatable! Well, within those first 10 moves, anyway. :-)
The next level of difficulty after that is to learn the basics of opening development -- how to get all of your pieces out and mobile while
Re:It's not like I rode the Short Bus to school (Score:5, Funny)
I remember one time, I was tossing darts, and won a game of cricket in the fewest possible throws.
By the time I was on my last toss, everybody in the bar was gathered around. My last toss landed perectly, the crowd goes wild. I had a great reputation, free drinks when I retold that story, and I never, ever, threw darts anywhere near that bar again. heh.
A matter of fact, about 10 years latter, I meet a guy at agaming clubg. He kept looking at me funny. Then one day he looks at me and runs off. about 30 minutes latter he returns. Turned out his father was the guy a beat, and gave him a picture of me tossing that last dart. the caption:
"With practice comes perfection."
I was laughing so hard, I had tears rolling down my cheeks.
Anti Computer Strategy (Score:2)
See here [slashdot.org] for more info.
Does he still play humans? (Score:2, Interesting)
I play chess...since 3rd grade but I don't follow tournament play. Does he get more money to play the computers?
Does this still mean anything? (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, why should we care who wins? I don't want to troll, but the machine vs human chess player story is getting a bit stale. If the computer wins, that will mean, what? It's such a specialized field that you can hardly call it a milestone in computer science.
maybe Kasparov should be an Action Ranger (Score:5, Funny)
Nichols: Incoming transmission from MCI one rate department. It sounds like a limited time offer.
Gore: Tell them I'm in the tub! To my left you'll recognise Gary Gygax, inventor of dungeons and dragons.
Gygax: Greetings! It's a...[rolls dice.]...pleasure to meet you!
Gore: And our summer intern, Deep Blue. The world's foremost chess playing computer.
Deep Blue: Bishop to knight 4.
Gore: Not all missions can be solved with chess, Deep Blue. Someday you'll understand that.
Its not Human V Computer (Score:3, Insightful)
An interesting game... (Score:4, Insightful)
The annotators of the first game pointed out over and over again, that some of each player's decisions were based on the computer's looking over a few million positions, and 'knowing' that it was safe to play the kind of moves that a human's fears and instincts would have made it very uncomfortable for a human to have played (e.g., the capture of the bishop by the king in the drawn game). Games like the first two show the greatest strengths of computers: superhuman ability in positions involving the calculation of tactical complications.
The current game by contrast grave rise to a position that is possibly the greatest illustration of a human's real strengths: the ability to create closed positions where tactical calculations of severely reduced utility; creating a position where experience and 'instinct' far outweigh calculation.
In the latest game, the computer's playing, 5...a6 created a 'hole,' a 'positional weakness,' and the rest of the game was a matter of exploiting its consequences while simultaneously giving the computer no chance to balance the game neither by winning back material, nor by a compensatory attack against white's position.
To put it another way, the nature of the position allowed white to create and exploit a position where the computer's ability to look at millions of positions per second was essentially useless.
It was clever and precise play on Kasparov's part.
Be afraid, be very afraid... (Score:3, Interesting)
The position after 29. a6 was indicative of how paranoid Kasparov was about the computer's tactical capabilities. In addition to the pawn blockade stretching diagonally from f2 to b6, he had marched his king all the way from e1 to b2 and protected it behind a wall of pieces. The king's bunker looked like this:
BN N
K R Q
As chess positions go, that one cracked me up.
Style. (Score:3, Interesting)
On one hand, a victory for the computer means a victory for everything we've been working at for a long time. It means that computers are getting smarter, and smarter, and smarter.
Call me a hypocrite, call me sentimental, but I desperately want Kasparov to win. I want us to still be better than computers at this game. It's highly mathematical, but there's always been a level of flare, panache, and style to the game. Even though 'Knight to King 4' may not sound particularly interesting, it could have been something intrinsically bold and audacious when done by a human player. When the same move is made by a computer it becomes purely calculated.
I want Kasparov to win because I feel like it'd be a blow to the game to let an algorithm (albeit a brilliant one with an unbelievable amount of brute force behind it) beat something feeling.
Does this mean (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Just goes to show (Score:5, Funny)
No, they just saw this stuff on TV. Once Fritz gains access to the Star Trek archives he won't again be so easily distracted and outplayed by Kasparov using his secret weapon: "how do you feel?".
Re:Only a matter of time.. (Score:4, Funny)
Okay, I give you 10 seconds to demonstrate the Fermat theorem : 1..2..3
Imho computers are 100 years too early to even compete with the human brain
[/me checks the date]
No, I knew I was right, it is 2003.
Re:Only a matter of time.. (Score:2)
I give you 1000 years to solve the Riemann hypothesis. Of course only about 70 of those years will be of any use to you
Kasparov: World's Best Computer Programmer? (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of people are trying to make of this a kind of John Henry against the steam drill contest. Here is my take on it.
Some while ago someone told me that computer programmers "break things", and I never quite understood what they meant. Some while later, a "competitor" was demoing a Windows version of a type of program for which I had put a great deal of effort into a DOS version. The program had a lot of graphical and interactive displays of scientific plots and other data, and I knew enough about Windows and all the stuff you had to do (WM_SIZE, WM_PAINT) to make it look right, and I suspected my acquaintence was "first to market" by taking a lot of short cuts on his UI. He let all the scientists in the room play with his program, but he was very reluctant to let me near the thing -- because the first thing I was going to do was try and break it to find out how much work he had yet to do.
The only way Kasparov is going to beat that chess program is if he uncovers some limitation or shortcoming -- in other words to break it, and once broken I bet he could beat the thing at will. Last time around the cheat was a team of programmers hanging around trying to patch the program as soon as Kasparov latched on to such a weakness.
The chess program will have reached true AI (in a limited problem set) once Kasparov is able to find a weakness, beat if for several games straight and for the program to somehow learn from what is going on and "close the hole", and if the program can withstand other such attacks from other chess grand masters and likewise "close the hole" without going unstable (one of the problems with learning algorithms is that can overadapt and go into limit cycles). That would have far reaching implications in terms of computer security, spam prevention, 24-7 uptime, and automated bug correction -- a program capable of fixing itself would be an advance indeed.
Re:Kasparov: World's Best Computer Programmer? (Score:4, Informative)
So what is actually going on? The programmers have been given a problem (chess) to solve, and have created a system that is very good at solving it. Kasparov is also good at "solving" chess, and he's putting his expertise in that field up against the best automated chess-solving system that can be devised. Meanwhile the programmers are improving the rules governing the automated system as the game progresses.
AI requires some level of situational awareness, but what you describe is a form of self-awareness. Admittedly, a program able to analyze its own rulesets and tactics for weaknesses is higher on the AI scale than a program which slavishly follows them.
But I don't think it's worthwhile to draw a sharp line separating "true AI" from imitators. Chances are, the program currently has some limited "self-adaptation" built in; it's just not robust enough to allow the programmers to exit the loop entirely. If a sharp line could be drawn, then one would have to point out which of the thousands of potential improvements would push the system over the line.
I'm of the opinion that chess programs have been demonstrating rudimentary intelligence at least since my 486 first beat me.
Mod up! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Kasparov: World's Best Computer Programmer? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm no master chess player, but I used to play a lot of chess against Sargon III on my C=64 back in the day.
I discovered, quite by accident, that the chess engine in Sargon III could not see "indirect" attacks (there's probably some real chess term for this - if you want to threaten a piece with some other piece, put some third piece in the line of intended attack, move the attacking piece into position, and then "reveal" the attack by moving the "blocking" piece someplace else)
After a while, the program had trained me to set up these elabourate attacks... that a real human, even another amatuer like myself, would instantly recognise.
Say... I wonder if the computer was programming me?
DG
Re:darn flash... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:darn flash... (Score:3, Informative)
[Site "New York"]
[Date "2003.11.16"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Garry Kasparov"]
[Black "X3D Fritz"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "D45"]
[WhiteElo "2830"]
[Annotator "Greengard,M"]
[PlyCount "89"]
{61MB, DELL8200} 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. d4 c6 5. e3 a6 {
Diverging from game one.} 6. c5 Nbd7 7. b4 a5 8. b5 e5 9. Qa4 Qc7 10. Ba3 e4
11. Nd2 Be7 12. b6 Qd8 13. h3 O-O 14. Nb3 Bd6 15. Rb1 Be7 16. Nxa5 Nb8 17. Bb4
Qd7 18. Rb2 Qe6 19. Qd1 Nfd7 20. a3 Qh6 21. Nb3 Bh4 22. Qd2 Nf6 23. Kd1 Be6 24.
Kc
a different strategy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:a different strategy (Score:3, Funny)
Inconceivable. After all, one should never enter a battle of wits with a Sicilian, especially when death is on the line. It is the second greatest strategic blunder, the first being "Never get into a land war in Asia."
Re:O_o (Score:2, Interesting)
When the left image is on the screen, the left shutter is open and the right shutter is closed, so that the image is viewed only by your left eye. When the right image is on the screen, the r
Re:O_o (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, but:
The X3D technology fools the brain into seeing 3D. I wonder how much this 50% lack of visual stimuli changes the way the chessmaster's brain works here.
No effect whatsoever, because there is no "50% lack of visual stimuli". Anything that flickers fast enough is perceived by the retina itself as a solid unchanging image.
The "critical flicker fusion rate" that determines "what is fast enough" varies from about 40 frames per second to about 80 frames per second, depending on image brightness, ambient illumination, the particular individual viewing it, etc.
TV in the US, for instance, flickers at about 60 hertz, but in non-flourescent ambient illumination, most people don't notice. In Europe the rate is 50 hertz, and people frequently do notice. And some people get headaches from computer monitors that flicker even at 72 hertz, especially under flourescent lights.
I used to regularly get annoyed at PC monitors in conference rooms flickering at 60 hertz, when others didn't notice -- so I'd bring up display preferences and set it at the highest refresh rate. Until it occured to me that I was sabotaging people who needed to interface it to the overhead projector at 60 hertz. Oops! :-) But I digress.
Movies are displayed at 48 hertz (although only 24 unique frames per second; they are "double-shuttered" to double the frame rate). Cartoons sometimes have as few as 6 unique frames per second (although they are displayed at movie or tv flicker rates) because that's about the threshold for perceiving continuous motion. Lots of issues, lots of thresholds.
But even if the 3D viewing shows perceptible flicker, there isn't any issue of "50% lack of visual stimuli". Both eyes are constantly receiving information.
I could imagine that any number of things about this 3D gadget could distract a chess player -- but so does cigar smoke (a trick used to advantage in chess matches early in the 20th century).
Years ago I used to use similar 3D goggles to play first person shooters like Quake, and it was great. It helped my game. Quake isn't chess, but 3D goggles aren't rocket science.
You can assume that, if he agreed to use this 3D setup, he was confident it wouldn't throw off his game. He does care, after all.
Re:O_o (Score:2, Informative)
Give me a break.