Chess Dispute: Kasparov vs. the World vs. MSN 178
The following is by Richard Bean, Queensland, Australia.
Starting June 19, 1999, an experiment in playing chess over the Internet was held at the Microsoft Network's Gaming Zone. The world's highest rated player, de jure world champion Gary Kasparov, was to play a game versus "The World" at a rate of one move every 24 hours. After Kasparov decided on his move, he would send it to four expert teenage analysts who would suggest moves for "The World" with analysis. Internet users were to vote for whichever move they preferred, with the move receiving the highest number of votes being played. Voting was by use of Microsoft Zone software or, later, simply authenticated by entering a valid email address.
In the course of the game, it became obvious that the effort being put in by one analyst, US Women's Champion Irina Krush, far exceeded that being put in by the other 3 analysts (French Grandmaster Etienne Bacrot, US International Master Florin Felecan, and the German Elisabeth Paehtz). The quality of her work and the number of lines analyzed by her dwarfed anything the other analysts provided. She was aided by several grandmasters, the St Petersburg Grandmaster Chess School, and most of all by the World Team Strategy Bulletin Board. She became the unofficial team leader, and of the first 57 moves, her recommendation was played 53 times by "The World" (the exceptions were moves 3, 6, 51 and 52).
At move 51, the play had been virtually forced since move 40, and the World Team Strategy BBS had determined that the best move was 51... Kb1-a1; this move was recommended by Irina and endorsed by the GM Chess School. However, 51... b7-b5, the recommendation of Elisabeth Paehtz, was played. A BBS member, Jose Unodos, claimed to have "stuffed the vote" simply by entering multiple different email addresses and voting repeatedly for the same move. To test whether this worked, another BBS member, Martin Sims, stuffed the vote about 250 times on move 53 for a move that no-one else would play - 53... Qd1-e2, giving the Black Queen away for nothing with check, which would never be played by a sane player. This move made it into the top five votes (search for d1-e2), proving that vote-stuffing was possible by another method - creating multiple Zone IDs while still using the same IP address. Previous Microsoft denials that vote-stuffing was possible became a change in policy - non-Windows users could not vote, as at the beginning of the game.
On move 58, due to a problem with delayed e-mail, Irina Krush did not receive Kasparov's move until after 1am EST, when she had gone to bed. Due to school tests the next day she could not post her analysis until later. Microsoft was warned that her move recommendation would be delayed. It had been determined beyond doubt on the Strategy BBS that 58...Qf3-e4 lost and 58...Qf3-f5 was forced to retain drawing chances. (The endgame was too complicated to say for certain what the correct result should be - 6-piece endgame tablebases would determine it for certain but would require vast amounts of computer time & memory to generate.) Paehtz & Bacrot, who did not follow the BBS, recommended Qf3-e4, Felecan recommended Qf3-f5, and Krush's move recommendation was never posted. (Krush's recommendations were almost unanimously followed up to this point, even in the case of the other 3 analysts recommending one move and Krush recommending another. Hence, had her analysis been posted, Qf3-f5 would have been played, as it would have been a 2-2 split with Irina explicitly stating that Qf3-e4 was a losing move.)
E-mail posted by Smartchess, Irina's corporate sponsor, demonstrated that her recommendation had been sent at 12:20pm PST. The submission was repeated at 5:10pm PST. The voting page at the Zone claimed throughout the voting period that "Irina's move recommendation will appear here shortly." Irina continued to post to the Microsoft BBS, demonstrating that any network problem was not at Smartchess's end. After voting began, Microsoft corrected a mis-spelling of Kasparov's name on the Zone webpage without updating Irina's analysis.
On previous moves, a similar message had appeared for other analysts' delayed recommendations, with the analysis being posted later. On move 58, with Irina's analysis not posted, the moderator, Grandmaster Daniel King, calling 58...Qf3-e4 a "sensible option", and the analysts 2-1 in favour of the losing move Qf3-e4, it won the vote and was played.
Outrage ensued on the BBS, and in the live chat with Danny King, Microsoft representatives attempted to smooth over the furore. Acknowledging that Krush's move recommendation was sent at 12:20pm PST, Microsoft spokesman Eddie Ranchigoda, Marketing Manager for the MSN Gaming Zone, stated that it was "not received by MS e-mail till after 4:00 PT [after which] we generally do not have resources to update the site unless an emergency occurs." (Apparently, even though voting was a 24-hour international affair, no-one at Microsoft realised the importance of Irina's contribution or worked after 4pm.) Another spokesman, "Ben", implicity acknowledged that vote-stuffing was possible, stating that Microsoft "generally [relied] on the honor of the World Team members to keep the game on track" (without explaining how Kasparov could have been prevented from stuffing the vote with a second-best move himself).
As a protest against what was seen as Microsoft incompetence and/or malevolence, and in an attempt to leave a lasting memorial of move 58 events, BBS members rallied together to vote for 59... Qe1, another move which gave the queen away for free with check. This won the vote with 66.27% of the votes. Despite this being a legal move with many members having voted for it exactly once, Microsoft "disqualified" the move by deleting all votes for it, due to alleged vote-stuffing, without explaining how it had been detected at that point and not before. The final tally of the modified vote-count added to 100.07%.
The event showed that World Team discussion on the BBS, led by Irina Krush, and assisted by computers could provide a series of moves equal in quality to Kasparov's. However, due to the fact that an e-mail was delayed on Microsoft servers, and despite an advance warning that an analyst's move recommendation would be delayed, a losing move was played at move 58 due to Microsoft's failure to post Krush's analysis. On the next move, BBS users were deprived of their opportunity to protest the handling of move 58 due to the disqualification of votes for a perfectly legal move. International Master Ken Regan, an associate professor of Computer Science at Buffalo, among others, called for a Microsoft explanation of this failure in electronic democracy, which had not been delivered as of this writing.
A newbot shows no major newspapers have yet covered the story; however, other accounts can be found at a Norwegian net newspaper and a German chess newsletter.
(Note: The MSNBC BBS articles have a 48-hour expiry time and hence copies have been provided rather than the original links. The expiry time, as well as the 55-character column width making URLs difficult to include in text, was introduced as the game dragged on longer than expected.)
Cheating (Score:3)
Match fixing. (Score:4)
cheating? (Score:3)
I'd be very careful of accusing anyone of cheating. I think that this is a simple cock-up, probably bought about by a simple "Not My Problem" attitude somewhere along the chain...
Would this have been posted had been any other company than Microsoft running the show? I wonder...
Cheating (Score:1)
M$ turns every chance into an opportunity to sell windows. Lousy idea leaving a very sour taste in the mouth.
So they claimed cheating was impossible... (Score:2)
It looks like they didn't even require a unique IP address! Cheatproof, eh?
Yet another attempt to enhance the Microsoft reputation gone horribly, horribly awry when the true quaility of their products and thought processes comes through.
I wonder if there's a grandmaster out there who would agree to a chess tourney set up by a open-source community? I'm no chess freak, but something similar in concept to the Microsoft idea, but with a superior backend (think IP uniquing, online expert recommendations, online what-if scenarios).
Does anyone have the bandwidth and the know-how to succeed where Microsoft has failed?
No winners... (Score:3)
It's a shame that in order to get MSN to admit to problems, an interesting experiment had to be ruined by forcing selection of second-best and irrational moves
Neither Kasparov nor the World can claim true victory. And MSN isn't a winner either. Rematch? I'm sure the world wants it.
Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824
The Reuse RocKeT [mibsoftware.com]: Efficient awareness for software reuse
Free WWW site lists over 6000 of the most popular open source libraries, functions, and applications.
Monday morning, 6am PDT... (Score:3)
Boilerplate denials and coverage in the technical press will follow later in the day. The mainstream press will pick it up later in the week.
Business as usual.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Re:So they claimed cheating was impossible... (Score:1)
Only problem I can see if people on dial-up links with dynamically assigned IP addresses. On other other hand, how hard would've been to store the time along with the IP and not allow votes from that IP for a given period of time (say 5 -> 10 minutes?)
nice to know (Score:2)
Interesting parallel with BBC Gates Interview. (Score:5)
Re:cheating? (Score:1)
Oh, Arse.
I meant to say (drum roll please)
"Would this have been posted had any other company than Microsoft been running the show?" Which when I think about probably sucks grammatically, but I've been writing Perl code all day, and context switching is a bitch sometimes...
fscking Monday afternoons
Kasparov Vs. Slashdot Vs. Slashdot (Score:4)
Re:So they claimed cheating was impossible... (Score:1)
Overall, I think the loss due to complete IP uniquing would be less than the loss due to not having it in place.
BTW: I like your solution more. That's nice, I may have to use that for some things I'm working on.
Re:So they claimed cheating was impossible... (Score:1)
AFAIK, requiring a unique IP will hinder progress more than it will prevent cheating. For instance, those who use a dial-in ISP will have a different IP every time they dial in and could vote multiple times easily. It could also prevent other (ligitimate) voters from voting until they log off and log back in.
There are several other other places that would cause problems too. In general, it's probably not a good idea to require unique IPs. There are probably better ways to prevent/minimize cheating... via cookies or something similar?
E-mail rigging (Score:4)
As for vote stuffing, reminds me of the time that Steps didn't win at some Brit music award thingy, of course they were miffed, the night before they had been ahead in the poll. But suddenly, a large number of votes came in for the hitherto-unrenowned Belle and Sebastian (Edinburgh popgroup). Apparently 12% of the votes had been from Cambridge and Edinburgh Universities in the last day. This is an example where all the e-mails were genuine, all the people voting were different, yet the poll was rigged. (Spam works).
In another example, the BBC Sports Personality of the Year (a while back) noticed a huge number of votes coming in for a very unlikely candidate, Justin Fashanu, and disqualified him from the competition. But this was only because he stuck out like a sore thumb. If it had been a more likely candidate, chances are they might have got through this net.
Got to come up with some other way of validating e-mail polls. Phone polls used to work quite well because people only have a few phone numbers and each call would run up a nice little bill, enough discouragement, and a lot of effort just for little impact. But here, with dynamic IP addresses, millions of potential e-mail addresses per person, and at little cost to the end user, how do you guard against it?!
um.. (Score:1)
were you required to be using some propeitary MSN voting program? even then, couldn't you just uninstall and reinstall the voting program? or have a script do it for you?
or did they just assume those wild, open-source fanatic linux users and the tree-hugging hippie mac users would be the only ones unethical enough to ballot-stuff?
would it really have been that difficult for microsoft to take the segfault.org strategy and just log IPs? sure, you could still ballot-stuff if you had a lot of shells or were in a computer lab or had a dynamic IP, but at least you'd be limited by the number of shells or computers or IPs available. as opposed to any other method, whereby ballot-stuffing would be nearly impossible to hinder..
please explain.
Gazza's Stranglehold (Score:2)
Re:Match fixing. (Score:4)
Laugh it up, while you can. But someday it's going to be a game of Solitaire -- and then the Windows users will kick everyone else's asses.
---
Re:cheating? (Score:2)
A:Yes!
Any other high-profile company that had promoted a similar competitive event this much, had made the same claims MSN did, and had then acted in the same manner, would have opened itself up to the same criticism. The word "Microsoft" in this story is not particularly relevant.
The main reason this story is here is so that other online gamemasters can learn from the mistakes described - and not repeat them.
- Robin "roblimo" Miller
Re:So they claimed cheating was impossible... (Score:1)
Kasparov should off draw and ... (Score:2)
This would be a great opportunity for a Linux-related company (VALinux, RedHat, etc.) to approach Kasparov and try to persuade him to give this a second chance, with a more thought-out voting system, and an open adjudication process. It would be a heck of a PR coup for Linux, and a case study in debunking Microsoft's "Linux Myths".
Re:cheating? (Score:1)
Yes. Slashdot posted at least some stuff when Kasparov faced the BGig Blue. And IBM defintely did not have to change the rules in mid game or behave pathetically.
Rematch (Score:1)
If this was really just MS being stupid, then I wonder if any Linux, Mac, or SUN supporting company would be willing to step forward and create a "rematch done right".
I wonder if Kasparov had some of non-compete clause in his contract with MS; that would be amusing.
Re:Gazza's Stranglehold (Score:1)
He cheated? How did he do that?
This is PR not electronic democracy (Score:5)
People seem to want it both ways. First, this is a great test of "collective thinking" against the world champion, and then second, they get upset because the Krush/Kasparov duel got interrupted for technical reasons and they were forced to think for themselves.
And the suggestion that Kasparov might cheat is ludicrous.
As a separate aside, on the topic of whether this game "proves" that Krush and several grandmasters and lots of computer time can produce moves at Kasparov's level, I'll quote analyst commentary from move 3 about Kasparov's choice of move:
So, yes, Krush and "The World" can rival Kasparov... as long as he isn't trying his hardest.
-XDG
Re:cheating? (Score:1)
Re:So they claimed cheating was impossible... (Score:1)
get a grip (Score:1)
on a chess related note (Score:1)
Vote Totals (Score:1)
Ask yourself one simple question, why haven't the votes for "The World" been released?
Re:So they claimed cheating was impossible... (Score:1)
I certianly understand your point, but ballot-stuffing is an unacceptable risk, ask MS has so kindly shown for us.
NAT and dynamic-IP are bastardations of the standard. They are necessary, but they break so many things like this.
What would you suggest? Fully authenticated users with confirmed e-mail addresses? Is that worth the effort on the part of the users? It'll have to be server-side so there's no possibility of cheating.
Eagerly awating any suggestions for solutions to this kind of problem. Perhaps it's time for an "Ask Slashdot"?
Re:Gazza's Stranglehold (Score:1)
Re:Can it get any more boring than this? (Score:1)
It would be interesting to see a game against the world where each of the World Team members had to make thier decision on thier own....
Re:Unfair Advantage? (Score:1)
Re:on a chess related note (Score:5)
Chess has a point rating system determined by sancitoned tournament play. The higher ranked your opponent the more points you can gain from beating them. If I remember correctly Grandmaster is 100 thousand points. I might be very very wrong about that, but it's what I remember.
http://www.igl.net/echess/
uses a simpler Ladder system of ranking whereby you start out unranked, then play up the ladder by defeating opponents above you. This is the simplest form of ranking system.
http://www.chess.net
may have more info on ranking systems somewhere, but I couldn't find it.
http://www.ishipress.com/chess.htm
Has a LOT of Chess info, including info on previous grandmasters and world champs.
http://www.worldfide.com/
Is the website for one of the major world chess organizations.
http://www.ishipress.com/ratingre.htm
Has information about the current rating system and its problems.
I hope this helps, if you need more info on anything e-mail me or ask me here.
Kintanon
Two obvious answers, and probably more... (Score:1)
C'mon, you guys are analysts - ya should be able to figure out some kind of non-whiny solution here.
Re:on a chess related note (Score:1)
TML
too bad (Score:1)
Biased comments. (Score:1)
I think Etienne Barcrot is a much better end game player and I choose to vote for his moves over Irina Krush.
This tournament isn't Irina Krush vrs Kasparov, its the World vrs Kasparov. So if Irina misses sending in her analysis, so be it. Its not cheating on Microsoft's part. Etienne missed several analysis while playing in the French Championship and I'm not complaining.
Re:This is PR not electronic democracy (Score:1)
The world trully played a good game. And it's not like it was Irina Krush playing and the world just following blindly. The BBS was a great source and forum for excelent analysis where Irina her self partisipated alot and gave and recieved many Ideas and lines which she used and posted on her move analysis page.
The world trully played better as a unity than any one individual on the team. It sort of reminded me of ESR's saying: "Given enough eyeballs, every bug is shallow". In this match it was alot of eyeballs and players analysing on the bbs. And the world did great. But then MS f*cked up.
Irina Krush? (Score:1)
Also, a quick perusal of the portaits of the analysts will show that Irina definately has the most professional-looking (and attractive) photo. Might I suggest that this may have played a role in her moves being selected almost every time? The picture of Mr. Felecan is just awful. Mr. Bacrot and Ms. Pätz look a bit better in their photo's, but I think that most would agree that Ms. Krush looks a lot more professional and attractive. In a game where experts of approximately equal skill disagree, it seems unlikely that 'The World' would have a clue who's move is really 'better'. I think it is more likely that the analysts charisma played more of a role in deciding who's move was selected than anything else.
Also, if you take a peek at msn's main page, you will notice that while there was almost always a link to the match previously, there is none now. I found a link to it after a few minutes of clicking, but the match is definately no longer being played up as much as it was. Sounds like microsoft is trying to sweep it under the table and let this whole thing die a quiet death.
A possibility (Score:3)
If I were sexist, or elitist, I'd also eliminate the top woman chess player.
Of course, MSNBC couldn't possibly be doing any of these things. They're -far- too mature and sensible. Honest!
IMHO, this shows how emotional corruption is just as insidious and destructive as any other kind. Banning views contrary to their own is no way to run an open tournament. If that's how they want to play, why aren't they just entering their own moves? It would be more honest of them to do so!
As far as ballot-stuffing is concerned, they are =QUITE= capable of preventing that. They have NO excuse, whatsoever. Even using cookies would limit it, though if they wanted to be a bit more thorough, they could be issuing browser-side certificates. A simple check for IP address, cookie and/or certificate, and rate of vote entry would effectively block most trivial forms of ballot stuffing.
But, no! MSNBC insists that people play fair, unless they don't like the move, in which case it's cheating, and they'll insert their own preference instead.
Sorry, but cheating by admins is just as unacceptable, in MY book, as cheating by anyone else. There can be NO exceptions.
As for "but... but... our mail server didn't get the message!" - Quit the whining! First off, I don't believe that, in the least. MSNBC's mail system is perfectly adequate for the job, and mail queues are typically set to 30 minutes, not 3 hours. Secondly, if MSNBC's mail servers AREN'T capable of handling the load, it's their responsibility to upgrade them, and ensure that their systems can support their users, NOT the job of the users to compensate for the failings of MSNBC.
P.S. To whom it may concern - a typo is an emergency, but an entry by the most successful panelist is a mere triviality? You wouldn't be planning on running for Congress, would you?
An insider notes (Score:3)
1) Given a good leader, the world put up a damn good fight. I'm not sure how many positions were analized but it was really a good group effort. Even deep blue would have been in trouble.
2) Style is everything. There where several points in the game where the world could play offensively or defensely. For the most part, the world played offensively almost with reckless abandon.
3) MS sucks. They really tryed their hardest to put the world at an disadvantage. Only one of the anylists was allowed to follow the discussion board, and they where not allowed to talk to each other.
4) Trolls suck. The discussion board was full of garbage posts and flamebait - it was a wonder that anything got done. On top of that, any Joe that came along could vote what he liked without even discussing the alternatives.
5) I want a replay. PR stunt or not, most of us in the know learned a ton of stuff from GK. My rateing probally has tripled since the start of the game. The slow pace was nice, kind of like a school class. I'd like to see more games played (or at least followed) this way.
Re:This is PR not electronic democracy (Score:2)
My understanding is that it's a BBS bulletin board that Krush "leads" that came up with the fact that move 58 chosen by the other analysts was a losing move. Not Krush alone. So, they were thinking for themselves, and then their move wasn't one available to vote for. That would piss me off too.
So, yes, Krush and "The World" can rival Kasparov... as long as he isn't trying his hardest
Kasparov apologetics? I'm not buying it. I bet Kasparov wouldn't either. He knew he was going to have to go for an alternate in the opening, he chose the one he was happiest with.
Re:get a grip (Score:1)
Re:Interesting parallel with BBC Gates Interview. (Score:1)
-davek
An idea.. chess using distributed computing (Score:1)
Anybody have any ideas on how well chess games would work in a distributed environment? Some problems are more suited for distributed processing than others, and if chess is... then some interesting options come up.
Kasparov vs. the computers of the world, or computers A of the world vs. computers B of the world. The last one (A vs. B) seem most interesting to me: let two groups come up with their own method of distributing parts of the cpu cycles out, let them fight it out and see who's got the best code.
Re:Kasparov Vs. Slashdot Vs. Slashdot (Score:1)
There are quite a few possibilities for organizing such a game.
Direct democracy - count votes for each move.
Experts suggest, majority vote as MSN did.
Irina Krush as benevolent dictator, with a slashdot-like BBS infrastructure.
Irina Krush as benevolent dictator, with move trees assigned to sub-teams (maybe farm out further moves to sub-sub-teams recursively) who report their analysis of each position upward until it ends up in a database Irina inspects and selects from.
Same as above except position analyses are weighted numerically to choose the move.
There are some very interesting experiments in the management of distributed activities waiting to happen here.
Re:So they claimed cheating was impossible... (Score:1)
*cough*uniqueprocessorids*cough*
:) SEE! NOW you understand why Intel was so hip on PIDs. It was all a ploy to help out with ballot-stuffing on the M$ game zone. - And people say that they don't think ahead.
--
Blue
Re:Bean's assessment is 100% correct (Score:1)
Re:Gazza's Stranglehold (Score:1)
seriously, years ago, either.
Some kinda power elite thing goin' on here!
DW.
Re:Unfair Advantage? (Score:1)
Re:on a chess related note (Score:1)
them. If I remember correctly Grandmaster is 100 thousand points. I might be very very wrong about that, but it's what I remember.
Mostly right up to the 100 thousand points part. Kasparov probably has a rating somewhere between 2600-2800. Actually, to get GrandMaster status, you need a combination of rating and a certain amount of success in sanctioned tournaments. Ratings go something like this:
2000 = expert
2200 = master
2400 = ???
After achieving Master rating, you can become an International Master, and/or a grandmaster by entering enough sanctioned tournaments and doing well enough in them. To keep Grandmaster status, you need to keep it up.
I'm probably wrong on some details, but that's the gist of it.
Re:Can it get any more boring than this? (Score:1)
I dont think MS is to blame for this one. (Score:1)
It's all part of thier grand scheme! (Score:1)
A cute little program, in the guise of a harmless chess voting mechanism, would scoop out the unique ID from Intel processors and send that (along with pertinent information about the programs you run, the sites you've most recently visited, and your views on the Intergalactic Treason Situation [slashdot.org]) to M$ Headquarters in Redmond.
A crack team of dolphins pour over the data (leftovers from the specially bred torpedo carriers of WW2) and make recommendations as to your suitability for future acquisition... Commencing after MS's current plans of controlling software entirely, is the inevitable next step of Embracing and Extending individual people [tjseclectic.com], much as M$'s CEO has already undergone.
Your identity would then be subsumed into the growing colective of Micro$oft Lobbyists [slashdot.org], used to provide the public appearance of legality and disinformation about the truth that M$ controls the entire US puppet-state government. (You'll notice that no media outlet actually specified which 'Bill' left a deposit on Ms. Lewinsky's dress...)
Don't make it easy for them! Play hopscotch, jai-alai or mazola twister instead! Throw a wrench into thier plans for domination, before they stick a wrench into you!
</ConspiracyTheory>
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Re:get a grip (Score:1)
Re:E-mail rigging (Score:1)
Re:Interesting parallel with BBC Gates Interview. (Score:1)
But we all know that there is a very low correspondance between marketing and reality...
-=-=-=-=-
Re:this wholy idea is inherently stupid (Score:1)
Mark it down as flamebait if you want, but I believe this to be at least an arguably sound logical conclusion given the facts.
Why this matters. (Score:2)
People seem to be saying that this either (1) is gratuitous MS-bashing on /.'s part, or (2) doesn't merit attention because it was just some silly PR move.
- MS-bashing, well, yes. Gratuitous, no. The events of this match gave the lie to many things MS said about it, and many things they say about themselves. Notably, this whole "we just want to enable people to be their best" hogwash. They seek control, as the final death throes of this game demonstrate.
- PR move, yes. So if MS demonstrates the weaknesses of its own model in the course of this PR move, should critics of MS let them spin it all away? I don't think so.
If, say, FIDE had set this up and done these things, it wouldn't have gotten onMS's mishandling indicts their role as a company producing technology to enable this kind of gee-whiz collaboration, and as responsible stewards of this technology. The way in which they screwed up leaves concerns about MS's qualifications in that area. It would have been the same if Sun or IBM or Red Hat had done this. And just as deserving of an article here, IMO.
phil
What a joke. (Score:1)
What OS does she use? (Score:1)
why windows only? (Score:1)
ah well, shouldn't have expected anything else from them..
Re:E-mail rigging (Score:1)
Just depends whose shoes you're standing in I guess.
Nick.
Can we say Animal Farm? (Score:2)
Target Practice
Incompetance? (Score:1)
It would seem clear by this point, to all involved, that it is no easier or harder to make a web-based collaborative effort than any other colaborative effort. Certainly, we see this was a complex and large scale system that wasn't adequately supported by Microsoft, but was the failing in underestimating the amount of work needed to make everyone happy?
It's not easy to get thousands of people to cooperate on a large project, and especially hard for one person to hold it up alone as Mrs. Kush tried to do. I for one think the failure is with microsoft- not for failing, but for promising too much and not delivering.
We've seen a lot of that, come to think of it.
-Ben
how titles are awarded (Score:1)
The world chess federation [fide.com] adopted a rating system devised by Professor Arpad Elo [chesslinks.org]. Players start off with a base value and have points added or subtracted to their rating on the basis of how they fare against their opponents in a tournament. So if your rating is 2400 and the average rating of your opponents in a tournament is 2300, you are expected to have a positive score against them(ie. win more than lose). Your rating goes up if you score more than the expected amount, down if you score less.
Grandmaster and International Master titles are awarded when players maintain a certain level of play(determined by calculating number of points that should be scored depending on opponents' ratings) over a certain number of games. There are other requirements, such as a minimum of three grandmasters playing in a tournament for it to qualify as one where grandmaster ``norms'' may be awarded. A collection of at least two grandmaster ``norms'' spanning a certain number of games(I think 24) qualifies one for the grandmaster title. There are exceptions and other means of being awarded a title. The winner of the world junior championship is awarded a grandmaster norm. If a non-grandmaster qualifies for the Candidates' cycle(to determine a challenger for the world champion), the grandmaster title is automatically awarded. With the political turmoil that exisits in the chess world, this Candidates' tournament no longer exists.
The GM and IM titles are awarded for life. Ratings change depending on one's performance. A minimum number of rated games must be played per year for a player's rating to be listed. You can search rating lists here [uni-kl.de].
Checkmate (Score:1)
World v. World? (Score:2)
I doubt Kasparov will be lured into another one of these games. Instead, it would be a much more interesting proposition to have a World v. World match to investigate the Many_Minds_Cooperating = Greater_Intelligence proposition.
Suggestions for a World v. World match:
- Give each participant a unique registered voter ID
- Set up a move market exchange instead of pure voting for moves, ala the Foresight Idea Exchange [ideosphere.com]
- Do not allow mixing between sides. Market exchange is split into two seperate exchanges.
- Restrict players to only one side. No spying. (Q: how to implement to eliminate spying and sandbagging? This is a problem analogous to secure credit-card transactions, only worse.)
- Have GrandMasters do a postmortem analysis of the game, but no live analysis of moves.
IV
Microsoft... (Score:2)
Re:cheating? (Score:2)
http://bbs.msnbc.com/bbs/kasparov-team/posts/od
Still think it's a simple cock-up? I'd argue
that MS's main problem is not of technical
nature - but rather their attitude throughout
the game. I can understand glitches, I can't
understand coverups, especially when they are so
needless that the only reason for them seems to
be MS overall corporate climate.
Here's what MS could have done: have basic
security (at least a SETI level authentication),
show vote counts, have a 24/7 staffer(s) to
update their web page - this is after all the
"easy to maintain" Microsoft system they are
running, better yet - allow analysts to submit
their recommendations via the web (with
authentication). If they have a problem - come
out and say so.
They had other problems as well - like
(a)pathetic analysts of which only one cared,
a web page that doesn't draw correctly on
different platforms, lack of basic chess
functionality such as offer draw and resign
buttons, incorrect timing shown on their
web page (the world had 24 hours but the page
would make you believe at times that you had
less), bad BBS system - I wished they used slash.
Technical problems were just too numerous to
put forth here. I'd argue once again that this
was not a simple cock-up.
Democracy works... (Score:2)
The fundamental reason democracy works better than tyranny is that the best solution for any given problem is more likely to come from the minds of 250 million individuals than from one. No matter how smart the tyrant is, the odds are seriously balanced such that someone else in the masses has had an experience or an insight that makes his opinion on the issue at least equally relevant.
However, there are also 249,999,999 people in that mass who don't know the best solution. Therefore the one person who knows must be free to speak his mind, and the others must have the minimum level of intelligence necessary to recognize his contribution. This is critical because the main thing masses are good at is shouting loudly; quality of thought, not quantity, is the key to successful democracy.
Microsoft's online democracy tried to emulate this successful paradigm, and came very close; apparently IK was a pretty good match for GK when assisted by the other panelists, powerful computers, and the lack of time constraints. Unfortunately, the system was flawed in such a way that the voice of reason was not heard from at a critical time... and the match was lost. Democracy qua Microsoft fails miserably.
A better test of democracy qua Democracy as an allegory for our civilization would have been Gary Kasperov vs. the World in a multi-competition consisting of Chess, Backgammon, Parcheesi, and Quake. Possibly with some other skills such as metalworking, water skiing, lion taming or French cooking thrown in. While GK may be the greatest chessmaster in the world, I have a feeling Thresh is a better cook.
Scudder
Could MS be taken out of the loop? (Score:1)
I also feel sorry for Kasparov. It seems like he's being forced to do "stunts" just so he can get a decent game. Playing the world, playing Deep Blue, etc. If there aren't any grandmasters on the verge of genius, I might humbly suggest Ms. Krush be the next opponent for Mr. Kasparov.
It almost makes me want to get my board out again...
_____
has to be said so i'll say it (Score:1)
actually, up until recently, according to this article, microsoft hadn't screwed it up too horribly
i think there should be a rematch with another gaming service (maybe one that mostly specializes in chess)
Re:has to be said so i'll say it (Score:1)
*doh* i guess preview is a good idea
Reality... (Score:1)
Kasparov is likely the top chess player right now, however he isn't world champion because he refuses to play under FIDE rules. He just needs the publicity to remind people who he is.
Sorry if this sounds like a troll. But this is really how it is.
Chess / the internet (Score:1)
I wonder if someone else (AOL, Mindspring) had handeled it, if it would have come out differently?
People need to realize that although it is a huge thing, and totally incredible that Kasparov would do it, it IS the first time something like that had been tried.
The soiled few will always try to ruin it for the rest of us..
via slashdot polls... (Score:3)
- Ke1-f1
- Orange
- Merangue
- Hemos Sucks/Rob Sucks/Kasperov Sucks
Incredible Experiment (Score:1)
I think even m$ fuckup did a lot for this. It has certainly brought the experiment a lot of new eyeballs and commentary.
-- Reverend Vryl
Re: MS Bashing (Score:1)
Would this have happened at all if another company were running things?
I doubt ZDnet would've made such pathetic attempts at PR damage control, and they certainly wouldn't've had a Windows only requirement for their vote script to work. Any webmaster who puts up a poll (even an idiotic "boxers or briefs" type poll) without IP verification should be shot.
Using Microsoft software is like having unprotected sex.
PR Coup (Score:1)
Microsoft clearly relies on it's FUD not simply to garner support from businesses but the average Joe as well. Unfortunately, Average Joe reads CNN.com and is happy with that. CNN.com takes the carrot like a rented mule. And like another
I can't decide if I agree with you on the draw aspect tho. Clearly it would be the "sportsman-like" thing for him to do, but I'm not really sure that's his responsibility in this case.
My
Quux26
Kasparov quote (Score:3)
Then he was beaten by a machine and went down in history for it.
Re:So they claimed cheating was impossible... (Score:1)
MUST... NOT... FLAME...
MUST... KEEP... CONTROL...
:-)
Ahahahaha. No.
Re:I dont think MS is to blame for this one. (Score:3)
After the first prankster pointed out the problem, the MS team examined their code as came back with a "no way". So a second (external) guy had to verify it. And not only did he do that, but without access to the code he came back with a different way to break it. Two exploits, and the MS team couldn't tell by looking at their own code? Even after having one of the exploits pointed out to them?
And of course when they couldn't deny it anymore they came back with their standard quick fix: turn off features. When will they learn to examine features before they implement them? And simply not implement them if they are inherently insecure?
So this is important with respect to what it tells the world about Micorsoft's corporate culture. And their ability/willingness to learn from similar mistakes in the past.
Or perhaps they merely didn't put their best people on it? But you'd have to wonder about a company that sets up a high-visibility PR stunt and doesn't bother to staff it to succede. Don't they care about anything? If they don't put their top people on their own PR ventures, what kind of people are they going to put on the things I need?
No explanation seems to give them a clean slate. Sure, security is hard and bugs happen, but that's all the more reason to be able to respond promptly and appropriately.
The only reason not to view this as a big pie in MS's face is the fact that it's about the 100th pie this year, and individual pies just don't make much difference anymore.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Re:what about Crafty? (Score:1)
Re:Kasparov Vs. Slashdot Vs. Slashdot (Score:1)
A Slashdot vs. Slashdot game might be entertaining, though it wouldn't likely be a very good game. Also, that's really not the point of slashdot. That type of event would be better for a game site, not a news site.
Proper authentication...it's not easy (Score:1)
IP verification would not work, the average dial-up user has access to a few hundred IP's at least. All he has to do is to disconnect and redial the POP. A sysadmin anywhere might have access to a few hundred or even a few million IP's.
So what are the alternatives. A valid email address, verified by sending a password to the account is a reasonable start, but most people who own a domain have the option of a few dozen email addresses or even "star addressing" (i.e. *@somedomain.com will go to the main account), so this turns out to be even easier to spoof. A PGP message signed by the individual sounds like it should be fullproof, but of course anyone can have any number of PGP keys.
As far as I can tell (and correct me if I'm wrong), but the best an identification method using only the internet can hope to do is to assure me that the person attesting to be John Doe is the same person that attested to be John Doe yesterday (or an authorized agent). It is much harder to say that John Doe is the same person that said they were Jane Doe yesterday.
There are a couple of ways around this problem, you can link the ID method to a unique ID controlled by the government such as a SSN or Driver's License number. This does not prevent identity theft but it is more expensive for the possible cheater (as well as being more expensive for the service provider). You could demand a high level Verisign certificate (which require a face to face meeting for issuance and are expensive). The easiest way to give yourself a reasonable assurance of unique identifiers is to charge a fee for your service and demand unique credit cards. Few people will cheat if it means spending more money (and if they do you probably don't care).
If unique internet identity becomes important in our brave new world there will have to be some serious consideration and possibly government involvement in the issue. I'm not completely convinced that uniqueness is necessary for most things. It is important that the credits I use are authentic but that doesn't necessarily require that I am in fact me. A smart card with onboard processing could handle the authentication in hardware. It will be important in issues such as on line voting and other legal interactions. For that, the only nearly foolproof method I can think of is some kind of implanted smartcard. Any physiological method such as retinal scan or fingerprint could be spoofed by hacking the input device or the information transmission.
In the end, perhaps it is not essential to make cheating foolproof. Our current system certainly isn't, as evidenced by identity theft and voter fraud, but it works pretty well in most cases.
Re:An idea.. chess using distributed computing (Score:1)
See the distributed.net Projects page [distributed.net]. Specifically, scroll down a bit to the "Possible Projects" section.
distributed.net used to host a mailing list for the discussing the possiblity of a distributed chess system; however, all references to the list seem to have disappeared from their web site. Also missing are any archives of the list discussions, which is unfortunate because a great many very smart people involved themselves in some wonderful discussions on that list.*
The web page does provide the email address of one Remy de Ruysscher, who may be contacted regarding work on the creation of a distributed chess module for the v3 Bovine clients. You may be able to obtain more information that way.
* This is not to to imply that I in any way participated in those discussions. My knowledge of both chess and distributed computing are limited enough that silently lurking was my most helpful contribution.
Re:nice to know (Score:1)
Only a few hours? you're lucky! I'm not sure what email agent MSN uses, but I sent a test email from my friends MSN account to my personal account. I sent the email in May. I got the email in my account in late September...
And they call the postal mail 'snail mail'
Ender
Re:Gazza's Stranglehold (Score:1)
How chess titles are rewarded (Score:2)
Rating titles (at least in the US) are as follows:
1200 and below: class E
1200+: class D
1400+: class C
1600+: class B
1800+: class A
2000+: Expert
2200+: Master
2400+: Senior Master (if rating is sustained)
For an international title, such as IM or GM, a you must achieve a "norm" in a tournament. The norm is the number of points you must win based on the relative strength of the other players (IM norms being lower than GM norms). You must achieve three of these norms in a fixed period (two years?) to get your title, which is awarded by an international organization at some future date.
The ultimate OS Holy War? (Score:2)
Email reports (Score:1)
I don't expect much from Microsoft but I would think that an event like this that is being touted as a way to bring children and a wider overall audience to chess would deserve much better treatment. I've never been a fan of MS software but I've never expected much from them in that area, in this case though, it's not just software and shame on them for it.
Re:Match fixing. (Score:1)
And yes, she did not cheat. She doesn't even know what the registry is; yet alone how to edit the score table, etc.
Silly rule... (Score:1)
Yes, technically, the move was made. That doesn't mean he intentionally cheated, and it doesn't mean he deserved to lose. He only lost touch with it for a split second, and who can say that it was intentional?
I think the move should be official when you hit the clock. Then it would be completely unambiguous.
It's pretty petty to complain over a technicality (after all, in a friendly game you'd let it pass unless you're a complete prick), but what do you expect from people whose lives center around a board game?
Re:cheating? (Score:2)
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Re:World v. World? (Score:2)
Microsoft vs. Linux! C'mon, you know you want it...
Re:Kasparov Vs. Slashdot Vs. Slashdot (Score:3)
Your Chess Online: Kasparov vs. Slashdot
Today, we'll be taking suggestions for move 19; as always, the best suggestions (as selected by Slashdot's random moderators) will be submitted to the board.
CmdrTaco: I wish to apologize for the crashing of the server at move 12; thanks to everyone who alerted me to this emergency...
JonKatz: "Slashdot's King Pawn opening at Move 1 was an epiphany of chess awareness for geeks and a singular triumph of the Open Source Software (OSS) movement."
_____
Re:Proper authentication...it's not easy (Score:2)
aggravating at a level of 100 per person, since
only few people were dedicated enough to cheat.
Thus, making a vote registration procedure
long (10 minutes, say) would alone cut down on
cheating, especially if you only allow one
vote per IP address, so one couldn't have several
Netscapes open and vote a few times at once. Indeed, you'd need about that long to
make sure a person has a clue before they vote.
This would quickly weed out people who don't care
about the game and would make stuffing hard.
If you cared to promote the game of chess, you
could prearrange with chess clubs around the
country and have them authenticate users in
face to face meetings, providing them with new
members and also increasing security.
Ultimately, it comes down to how much you care.
Neither MS, nor three out four of its analysts
cared one bit, hence the result.