Before turning in last night I watched an episode of one of my all time favorite sit-coms, FRASIER. It was 'Chess Pains' from Season 3, Episode 18. From IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106004/episodes#year-1996) "Frasier buys an elaborate antique chess set, but becomes obsessed by his inability to win against Martin."
Martin is Frasier's father. The chess set is a monstrosity. Anyone who would play on such a set should lose; both of them!
There was a line that, had I been aware of it, I would have quoted in my last post. "The King is stationary while the Queen has all the power."
After losing the first game to Martin, Frasier was sitting in the coffee shop, looking at the position on what looked like a wooden travel type board, while talking with Roz, the pretty woman with a mellifluous voice, obviously my favorite character (insert smiley face here). "Now I know how he won," blurts Frasier. "He somehow stumbled onto the Panov-Botvinnik Attack!" At least the writer used a legitimate chess term, although chess players know it as an opening, not a 'winning attack'. Hey, he could have written it as the 'Stalin-Trotsky' attack!
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Equality in Chess
A woman I met mentioned a TV program she is 'hooked on' and suggested I watch a program. The one she suggested was Covert Affairs, Season 2, Episode 8: Welcome to the Occupation. I was able to watch it 'on demand' and found it to be like a comic book come to life. I mentioned this to her at our next meeting, our last, as it turns out. She did not care for what I thought about her "fave program." From IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1495708/episodes#season-2): "Eco-terrorists hold a group of oil executives hostage in Mexico City, and Ben Mercer re-emerges as part of Annie's team sent in to assess the situation."
Ben is one of the stud's on the show and he was sent along with the star, Piper Perabo and her superior at the C.I.A. to rescue another agent, a woman, who was undercover, and being held hostage. Ben and Annie (Piper) were scaling the wall, heading to the roof, when two 'bad guys', mercenaries armed with assault weapons, were 'overpowered' by the unarmed women. Excellent C.I.A. training, I presume. It strained credulity, to say the least. Hence, the comic book nature of the show.
My female friend took umbrage at my point of view. So I asked her, "If your life were on the line in real life and you had to choose either the unarmed women, or the mercenaries with assault rifles, which would you pick?" She said, "That's not fair." I retorted, "Nobody has ever said that life is fair." She evidently watches a lot of tube because she proceeded to tell me about many programs with women "kickin' men's ass." She mentioned a female character, Ziva David, a trained Mossad assasin, on the #1 rated TV show, NCIS. I don't know the name of the muscle guy on Leverage, but I recall he is called 'Hitter'. I kinda liked that. When I mentioned it was all fantasy, and only served to emasculate men, I thought she might 'kick some Bacon butt'!
This got me cogitating...
Why is it the Queen is so powerful in chess? It was not always thus. It is time to bring the Lady down a peg or more. Why should the Queen be more powerful than the King? I call for EQUALITY!
I propose the Queen be limited to only TWO moves in any direction, providing the square is unoccupied. I also propose equality for the King, who should be allowed two moves in any direction, same as the Queen. Think of it, if the King is checked by a Knight from f3 in the castled position, the King can capture the Knight if it has an open avenue to do so, unless, that is, the Knight is protected. If the Queen checks a King on e1 from, say, e3, the King can capture the Queen, unless it is protected.
This would, along with allowing pawns to 'advance to the rear' (see post, Revolutionary Proposal For Chess: Free The Pawns! Monday, July 25, 2011, http://baconlog.blogspot.com/2011/07/revolutionary-proposal-for-chess-free.html) alter the game drastically. It would also prevent many draws by repetition. And, more importantly, it would bring much needed equality to the game.
Ben is one of the stud's on the show and he was sent along with the star, Piper Perabo and her superior at the C.I.A. to rescue another agent, a woman, who was undercover, and being held hostage. Ben and Annie (Piper) were scaling the wall, heading to the roof, when two 'bad guys', mercenaries armed with assault weapons, were 'overpowered' by the unarmed women. Excellent C.I.A. training, I presume. It strained credulity, to say the least. Hence, the comic book nature of the show.
My female friend took umbrage at my point of view. So I asked her, "If your life were on the line in real life and you had to choose either the unarmed women, or the mercenaries with assault rifles, which would you pick?" She said, "That's not fair." I retorted, "Nobody has ever said that life is fair." She evidently watches a lot of tube because she proceeded to tell me about many programs with women "kickin' men's ass." She mentioned a female character, Ziva David, a trained Mossad assasin, on the #1 rated TV show, NCIS. I don't know the name of the muscle guy on Leverage, but I recall he is called 'Hitter'. I kinda liked that. When I mentioned it was all fantasy, and only served to emasculate men, I thought she might 'kick some Bacon butt'!
This got me cogitating...
Why is it the Queen is so powerful in chess? It was not always thus. It is time to bring the Lady down a peg or more. Why should the Queen be more powerful than the King? I call for EQUALITY!
I propose the Queen be limited to only TWO moves in any direction, providing the square is unoccupied. I also propose equality for the King, who should be allowed two moves in any direction, same as the Queen. Think of it, if the King is checked by a Knight from f3 in the castled position, the King can capture the Knight if it has an open avenue to do so, unless, that is, the Knight is protected. If the Queen checks a King on e1 from, say, e3, the King can capture the Queen, unless it is protected.
This would, along with allowing pawns to 'advance to the rear' (see post, Revolutionary Proposal For Chess: Free The Pawns! Monday, July 25, 2011, http://baconlog.blogspot.com/2011/07/revolutionary-proposal-for-chess-free.html) alter the game drastically. It would also prevent many draws by repetition. And, more importantly, it would bring much needed equality to the game.
Monday, August 29, 2011
The Queen's Gambit Job
Spent most of Sunday reading, Betrayal in Dallas: LBJ, the Pearl Street Mafia, and the Murder of President Kennedy by Mark North. "A man who knows that enough is enough will always have enough", wrote Lao Tzu, and I had enough reading for the day, so I turned on the boob tube and began to flip around searching for something to deaden the brain waves before hitting the rack. I found a title, 'The Queen's Gambit Job' that sounded interesting, thinking it may have something to do with chess. It did, unfortunately. The program was LEVERAGE on TNT. The Royal game was featured prominently in the episode. It was hilariously funny! I mean, LOLFOTCROTF FUNNY! (That's: Laughing Out Loud, Falling Off The Couch, Rolling On The Floor)
I have come to not expect much when I see chess depicted on the screen, whether samll or large. I recall an episode of Law & Order Criminal Intent that featured Robert Carridine as a 'chess master' (Season Four, episode 11: entitled 'Gone'). It made me want to cry. It is being shown again on Oxygen, Thursday, Sept 8, at 7 & 11. I will pass. I seem to recall an episode of 'Columbo' that focused on a 'chess master'. Someone mentioned that the 'master' was a cross between Bobby Fischer and Tigran Petrosian, since he was hard of hearing. Missed that one, thankfully.
Someone came to the Atlanta Chess Center and gave free passes to a screening of the movie The Luzin Defense, starring John Turturro and Emily Watson. Naturally, Turturro was out of his mind. Why is it that most, if not all, chess masters depicted on screen are 'crazy'? It used to be that, when you mentioned to someone that you played the Royal game, they would say, "You must be smart!" Now mention chess and they move away from you...
Since it was free, a group of us went to the movie. After the movie ended, thankfully, we walked outside to be met by a group of young people, pen and pad in hand. "What did you think of the movie?" I was asked. "Ridiculous," I answered. "Would you like to elaborate on that?" the pretty young woman asked. "Don't get me started." I was trying to be nice. I will never forget the look on the face of Thad Rogers, owner of the House of Pain and Mr Southern chess for many years, as he came out, hoppin' MAD! I no longer recall exactly what he said, but I will never forget how he said it! I am sure those people regretted asking Thad his opinion. I heard one of our group say, "What a load of CRAP!" I thought he summed it up rather nicely.
A lady named Meredith Jacobs has written a review of 'The Queen's Gambit Job' episode, which you can find here:
http://www.examiner.com/leverage-in-national/leverage-summer-finale-the-queen-s-gambit-job-recap-chess-and-sterling
She pretty much lays it out the way she saw it. She must know little or nothing about the world of chess. It is unfortunate that the vast majority of people know so little about chess, and think what they see on screen depicts "the way it is."
If I were to write a review of the program, I would start by excoriating the writers unmercifully. They must be reasonably intelligent people, but they do not show it with their writing. It would seem that, if someone were going to write a story about a subject, any subject, they knew little about, they would, at the very least, educate themselves first. One would think...
These chowder heads continue to put this pabulum on screen because people watch it. I admit, they suckered me into watching. But hey, I got a BaconLOG post out of it! Maybe if there were enough chess players who started a movement, saying, "We are mad as hell and we are not gonna take it anymore!" they would get the message. Then again, maybe not...
I have come to not expect much when I see chess depicted on the screen, whether samll or large. I recall an episode of Law & Order Criminal Intent that featured Robert Carridine as a 'chess master' (Season Four, episode 11: entitled 'Gone'). It made me want to cry. It is being shown again on Oxygen, Thursday, Sept 8, at 7 & 11. I will pass. I seem to recall an episode of 'Columbo' that focused on a 'chess master'. Someone mentioned that the 'master' was a cross between Bobby Fischer and Tigran Petrosian, since he was hard of hearing. Missed that one, thankfully.
Someone came to the Atlanta Chess Center and gave free passes to a screening of the movie The Luzin Defense, starring John Turturro and Emily Watson. Naturally, Turturro was out of his mind. Why is it that most, if not all, chess masters depicted on screen are 'crazy'? It used to be that, when you mentioned to someone that you played the Royal game, they would say, "You must be smart!" Now mention chess and they move away from you...
Since it was free, a group of us went to the movie. After the movie ended, thankfully, we walked outside to be met by a group of young people, pen and pad in hand. "What did you think of the movie?" I was asked. "Ridiculous," I answered. "Would you like to elaborate on that?" the pretty young woman asked. "Don't get me started." I was trying to be nice. I will never forget the look on the face of Thad Rogers, owner of the House of Pain and Mr Southern chess for many years, as he came out, hoppin' MAD! I no longer recall exactly what he said, but I will never forget how he said it! I am sure those people regretted asking Thad his opinion. I heard one of our group say, "What a load of CRAP!" I thought he summed it up rather nicely.
A lady named Meredith Jacobs has written a review of 'The Queen's Gambit Job' episode, which you can find here:
http://www.examiner.com/leverage-in-national/leverage-summer-finale-the-queen-s-gambit-job-recap-chess-and-sterling
She pretty much lays it out the way she saw it. She must know little or nothing about the world of chess. It is unfortunate that the vast majority of people know so little about chess, and think what they see on screen depicts "the way it is."
If I were to write a review of the program, I would start by excoriating the writers unmercifully. They must be reasonably intelligent people, but they do not show it with their writing. It would seem that, if someone were going to write a story about a subject, any subject, they knew little about, they would, at the very least, educate themselves first. One would think...
These chowder heads continue to put this pabulum on screen because people watch it. I admit, they suckered me into watching. But hey, I got a BaconLOG post out of it! Maybe if there were enough chess players who started a movement, saying, "We are mad as hell and we are not gonna take it anymore!" they would get the message. Then again, maybe not...
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
The Fix Is In St Louis
Much is being written these days concerning the proliferation of draws in chess. For example, on the forum section of the USCF website there are three pages of comments regarding Greg Shahade's article, Greg on Chess: Stop the Draw. (http://main.uschess.org/content/view/11351/639/) There are articles on every major chess website, and minor ones, too. Many different ideas are being proposed. The only one implemented thus far to have been proven to work seems to be the awarding of 3 points for a win and only one point for a draw. As I have written, I would prefer different points for each different result. For example, 1 1/2 points for a draw with White; 2 points for a draw with Black; 3 points for a win with White; and 4 points for a win with Black. This would end the last round 'group hugs' seen at so many large events. It would also reward the unfortunate player who has to play with the Black pieces three times in a five round swiss.
This past weekend at the Missouri State Championship GM Ben Finegold offered a draw to his opponent after 1 e4 c6. His opponent was his son, Spencer. Ben writes about it on his blog, in a post entitled, 'And the winner is...', at the St. Louis Chess & Scholastic Center website. (http://saintlouischessclub.org/news/2011-08-22/and-winner)
Ben writes about the 'game', and I use the term very loosely, "I “played” Spencer in round 4, if you can call 1.e4 c6! draw agreed playing. I thought I pretty much equalized and did not see the point of playing any further." I guess this is his attempt at humor. I seriously doubt if any of the other competitors in contention found it amusing. Ben goes on to write about his last round game, "The last round was a Finegoldesque squeeze as my opponent, Mark Ferber, chose a dubious variation that I used to play." "Finegoldesque squeeze" could be interpeted another way, since Mr. Ferber had three points going into the last round, as did NM Richard Benjamin and Spencer Finegold. While the Finegold family rested after their 'draw' in round four, Mr. Benjamin and Mr. Ferber had to spend that time actually sitting at the board, playing chess. The last round advantage obviously rested with the Finegold's. Thus, the 'squeeze'.
Many years ago IM (of GM strength, something that used to be said about Ben Finegold)Boris Kogan emigrated with his family from what used to be part of the Soviet Union, the 'Evil Empire' according to President Ronald Reagan. He settled in Atlanta and was the strongest chess player in the South. His son, Mike, also played in chess tournaments and was strong enough to become a NM. They met many times in tournaments in Atlanta, and possibly in other tournaments in the South. I cannot recall one instance of Boris giving his son a draw, especially one in which only one move was played! I believe the Legendary Georgia Ironman, Tim Brookshear, and the impresario of Southern chess, Thad Rogers, as well as many others, will attest to that fact. Playing five games over a two days, as it was back then, or even three, beginning Friday night, was tough on Boris, who was a middle-aged man upon coming to Georgia. He could have opted for a quick draw with his son, and some much needed rest, but refused to do so. Consider what happened at the Columbia Open in the Great state of South Carolina this past weekend. GM LUBOMIR FTACNIK lost in the third round Saturday night to ALEXANDER MATROS. Lubomir is 53 years of age now, no longer a spring chicken. In the last round, two much younger players, NM Chris Mabe and the aforementioned Matros agreed to a nine move draw, probably thinking the GM would win and they would tie for first. But ALEXANDER ZELNER, with 3 1/2 points going into the last round, had other ideas. He beat the GM and finished in first place, a half point ahead of 'no guts & no glory' Mabe and Matros.
Bobby Fischer railed against Soviet collusion and his allegations have been proven correct over time, as many former Soviet players have written about how the 'fix was in'. Boris had too much integrity to stoop to such a level. Yet what we have here in St. Louis is an instance of a GM doing the exact same thing Bobby Fischer used to vilipend so vehemently!
Ben Finegold even has the audacity to write at the conclusion of his blog, "An excellent tournament for Spencer, who broke 2100 for the first time." Well, yeah, it is much easier to have "an excellent tournament" when one is able to rest Sunday morning in lieu of working hard at the board! And the rating points come quickly when your GM father donates them to you without playing a game! The Finegold cartel took two of the top prizes at the tournament with their colusion. Why would any strong player want to come to St. Louis and play having to compete with this?
At the beginning of his blog post, GM Finegold writes, "I decided to play at the last possible moment, after my long travels and moving into a new apartment almost dissuaded me from going for the $500 first prize. But, as Tatev Abrahamyan has told me on several occasions, “$500!!” He ends it with, "Tatev was right… $500 feels good!" I realize there is little money in chess, and we are in a depression the establishment calls a 'recession', but is GM Finegold not the Grandmaster in residence at the St. Louis Chess & Scholastic Center? Does he receive a stipend? If so, is it not enough for him to have to resort to collusion with his son to 'earn' an extra $500?
The St. Louis Chess Club also bills itself as a 'Scholastic Center'. Rex Sinquefield, the filthy rich man who has given the money for the place is, from what I have read, justifiably proud of what is happening with regard to scholastic chess in his city. He, and his chess & scholastic center, have won many awards from chess organizations, and no doubt others of which I am not aware. St. Louis is leading the way for the rest of the US as far as chess is concerned, according to what I read online and in foreign chess magazines. Yet, what kind of example is being set in St. Louis? What if, during the fourth round at a scholastic tournament, one young player offers his best friend, rated 500 points lower, a draw after only one move? What happens when you tell the players they cannot do that because it is against the rules of chess, and they fire back with, "GM Finegold and his son do it!"
Rule 14B6 of the USCF Official Rules of Chess is: "Premature or prearranged draws. It is unethical and unsporting to agree to a draw before a serious contest has begun. The same is true of all arrangements to prearrange game results. In case of clear violations of the moral principles of the game, penalties should be imposed at the director's discretion. See also 20L, Manipulating results." It says: "Collusion to fix or throw games, whether before or during the game, in order to manipulate prize money, title norms, ratings, or for any other purpose is illegal and may result in severe sanctions, including revocation of USCF membership. Such agreemants include arrangemants to split prize money no matter what the result of the game."
The TD should have forfeited the Finegold family for their egregious breech of the rules! But, since the GM is the 'big dog', except when Hikaru is around I suppose, and paid by the man with the deep pockets, I can see that it would be rather difficult for a TD to follow the rules. Certainly the pooh-bahs at USCF should take some kind of action, if it is to only vacate the rating result of the so-called 'game' between the Finegolds. The sad fact is that if you put all of the pooh-bahs of USCF together, you will not have enough material for even half a cojones!
When I was in the seventh grade there was a fellow class member named Clifford. He was 16 and still in grammar school, so it is obvious he was not the brighest bulb on the tree. He towered over the rest of us and got his way, since we knew he could put a hurtin' on all of us combined! One day we were outside at recess playing soft-ball when Clifford decided he wanted to play. He grabbed a bat and got in the batter's box and hit the ball over the fence. The next batter stepped up, thinking Clifford would hand him the bat. Clifford let the poor boy now in no uncertain terms that he wanted to hit a few more. "But that ain't the way we play the game," protested the little fella. "It's the way I play the game, squirt." But, as Bob Dylan wrote, "You gotta serve somebody." The principal kicked Clifford out of school and we rejoiced! Is there anyone who will step up to the plate and put an end to the big dogs of chess? Are people so afraid that Rex will stop sinquefielding money into chess that they let him do what ever he pleases? None of the man's largesse has, or will come, my way, so I will speak out. Is there anybody out there in chess land with enough cojones to do the same?
This past weekend at the Missouri State Championship GM Ben Finegold offered a draw to his opponent after 1 e4 c6. His opponent was his son, Spencer. Ben writes about it on his blog, in a post entitled, 'And the winner is...', at the St. Louis Chess & Scholastic Center website. (http://saintlouischessclub.org/news/2011-08-22/and-winner)
Ben writes about the 'game', and I use the term very loosely, "I “played” Spencer in round 4, if you can call 1.e4 c6! draw agreed playing. I thought I pretty much equalized and did not see the point of playing any further." I guess this is his attempt at humor. I seriously doubt if any of the other competitors in contention found it amusing. Ben goes on to write about his last round game, "The last round was a Finegoldesque squeeze as my opponent, Mark Ferber, chose a dubious variation that I used to play." "Finegoldesque squeeze" could be interpeted another way, since Mr. Ferber had three points going into the last round, as did NM Richard Benjamin and Spencer Finegold. While the Finegold family rested after their 'draw' in round four, Mr. Benjamin and Mr. Ferber had to spend that time actually sitting at the board, playing chess. The last round advantage obviously rested with the Finegold's. Thus, the 'squeeze'.
Many years ago IM (of GM strength, something that used to be said about Ben Finegold)Boris Kogan emigrated with his family from what used to be part of the Soviet Union, the 'Evil Empire' according to President Ronald Reagan. He settled in Atlanta and was the strongest chess player in the South. His son, Mike, also played in chess tournaments and was strong enough to become a NM. They met many times in tournaments in Atlanta, and possibly in other tournaments in the South. I cannot recall one instance of Boris giving his son a draw, especially one in which only one move was played! I believe the Legendary Georgia Ironman, Tim Brookshear, and the impresario of Southern chess, Thad Rogers, as well as many others, will attest to that fact. Playing five games over a two days, as it was back then, or even three, beginning Friday night, was tough on Boris, who was a middle-aged man upon coming to Georgia. He could have opted for a quick draw with his son, and some much needed rest, but refused to do so. Consider what happened at the Columbia Open in the Great state of South Carolina this past weekend. GM LUBOMIR FTACNIK lost in the third round Saturday night to ALEXANDER MATROS. Lubomir is 53 years of age now, no longer a spring chicken. In the last round, two much younger players, NM Chris Mabe and the aforementioned Matros agreed to a nine move draw, probably thinking the GM would win and they would tie for first. But ALEXANDER ZELNER, with 3 1/2 points going into the last round, had other ideas. He beat the GM and finished in first place, a half point ahead of 'no guts & no glory' Mabe and Matros.
Bobby Fischer railed against Soviet collusion and his allegations have been proven correct over time, as many former Soviet players have written about how the 'fix was in'. Boris had too much integrity to stoop to such a level. Yet what we have here in St. Louis is an instance of a GM doing the exact same thing Bobby Fischer used to vilipend so vehemently!
Ben Finegold even has the audacity to write at the conclusion of his blog, "An excellent tournament for Spencer, who broke 2100 for the first time." Well, yeah, it is much easier to have "an excellent tournament" when one is able to rest Sunday morning in lieu of working hard at the board! And the rating points come quickly when your GM father donates them to you without playing a game! The Finegold cartel took two of the top prizes at the tournament with their colusion. Why would any strong player want to come to St. Louis and play having to compete with this?
At the beginning of his blog post, GM Finegold writes, "I decided to play at the last possible moment, after my long travels and moving into a new apartment almost dissuaded me from going for the $500 first prize. But, as Tatev Abrahamyan has told me on several occasions, “$500!!” He ends it with, "Tatev was right… $500 feels good!" I realize there is little money in chess, and we are in a depression the establishment calls a 'recession', but is GM Finegold not the Grandmaster in residence at the St. Louis Chess & Scholastic Center? Does he receive a stipend? If so, is it not enough for him to have to resort to collusion with his son to 'earn' an extra $500?
The St. Louis Chess Club also bills itself as a 'Scholastic Center'. Rex Sinquefield, the filthy rich man who has given the money for the place is, from what I have read, justifiably proud of what is happening with regard to scholastic chess in his city. He, and his chess & scholastic center, have won many awards from chess organizations, and no doubt others of which I am not aware. St. Louis is leading the way for the rest of the US as far as chess is concerned, according to what I read online and in foreign chess magazines. Yet, what kind of example is being set in St. Louis? What if, during the fourth round at a scholastic tournament, one young player offers his best friend, rated 500 points lower, a draw after only one move? What happens when you tell the players they cannot do that because it is against the rules of chess, and they fire back with, "GM Finegold and his son do it!"
Rule 14B6 of the USCF Official Rules of Chess is: "Premature or prearranged draws. It is unethical and unsporting to agree to a draw before a serious contest has begun. The same is true of all arrangements to prearrange game results. In case of clear violations of the moral principles of the game, penalties should be imposed at the director's discretion. See also 20L, Manipulating results." It says: "Collusion to fix or throw games, whether before or during the game, in order to manipulate prize money, title norms, ratings, or for any other purpose is illegal and may result in severe sanctions, including revocation of USCF membership. Such agreemants include arrangemants to split prize money no matter what the result of the game."
The TD should have forfeited the Finegold family for their egregious breech of the rules! But, since the GM is the 'big dog', except when Hikaru is around I suppose, and paid by the man with the deep pockets, I can see that it would be rather difficult for a TD to follow the rules. Certainly the pooh-bahs at USCF should take some kind of action, if it is to only vacate the rating result of the so-called 'game' between the Finegolds. The sad fact is that if you put all of the pooh-bahs of USCF together, you will not have enough material for even half a cojones!
When I was in the seventh grade there was a fellow class member named Clifford. He was 16 and still in grammar school, so it is obvious he was not the brighest bulb on the tree. He towered over the rest of us and got his way, since we knew he could put a hurtin' on all of us combined! One day we were outside at recess playing soft-ball when Clifford decided he wanted to play. He grabbed a bat and got in the batter's box and hit the ball over the fence. The next batter stepped up, thinking Clifford would hand him the bat. Clifford let the poor boy now in no uncertain terms that he wanted to hit a few more. "But that ain't the way we play the game," protested the little fella. "It's the way I play the game, squirt." But, as Bob Dylan wrote, "You gotta serve somebody." The principal kicked Clifford out of school and we rejoiced! Is there anyone who will step up to the plate and put an end to the big dogs of chess? Are people so afraid that Rex will stop sinquefielding money into chess that they let him do what ever he pleases? None of the man's largesse has, or will come, my way, so I will speak out. Is there anybody out there in chess land with enough cojones to do the same?
Monday, August 22, 2011
Intrinsic Chess Ratings
Forbes recently had an article on chess, 'Humans Are Getting Better At Chess - Thanks to Computers' (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/08/10/humans-are-getting-better-at-chess-thanks-to-computers/), written by Alex Knapp. His story begins, "A recent study suggests that there are more great chess players now than there ever have been – and that players continue to improve."
Mr. Knapp throws in a thought of his own when he writes, "The authors don’t suggest a mechanism, but if I were to guess, I’d suggest that the reason for this has to do with competitive chess software and online play." Mr. Knapp thinks that if humans continue to 'interface' with programs, "...it may be that humans catch back up to the best AI programs." I will not live so long...
I clicked on 'recent study' and found a PDF titled, 'Intrinsic Chess Ratings', written by Kenneth W. Regan of the University of Buffalo and Guy McC. Haworth of the University of Reading, UK. This must be the former chess player, IM Ken Regan. I put him into a search engine and found he has a chess page: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/ Gotta be the same guy.
The first sentence lays it out: "This paper develops and tests formulas for representing playing strength at chess by the quality of moves played, rather than by the results of games."
I wondered who was to be the ultimate arbiter of "the quality of move played." My question was answered by the next sentence: "Intrinsic quality is estimated via evaluations given by computer chess programs run to high depth, ideally so that their playing strength is sufficiently far ahead of the best human players as to be a 'relatively omniscient' guide.
There it is. We have reached a point in human evolution whereby 'puters have now become our 'relatively omniscient' guides. I could not help but think of the first paragraph of an editorial by Charles M. Blow, 'Obama in the Valley' dated August 19, 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/opinion/blow-obama-in-the-valley.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)
"In 1970, the Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori coined the phrase “uncanny valley.” In the field of robotics, and increasingly in computer animation, it refers to the theory that people feel good about robots — up to a point. When they start to look almost real, but not quite, we experience an eerie and unsettling sense of revulsion."
In the introduction the authors say, "Our work brings new evidence on controversial questions of import to the chess community, with ramifications for skill assessment in other games: 1) Has there been 'inflation'-or deflation-in chess Elo rating system over the past forty years? 2) Were the top players of earlier times as strong as the top players of today? 3) Does a faster time control markedly reduce the quality of play? 4) Can recorded games from tournaments where high results by a player are suspected as fraudulent reveal the extent to which luck or collusion played a role?
The paper, especially page seven, contains a plethora of equations. If you had showed it to me and told me they were equations for a magnetoplasmadynamic propulsion system from aliens from planet Zud, I would have said, "OK". Fortunately, they sum it up by saying, "We conclude that there is a smooth relationship between the actual players' ELO ratings and the intrinsic quality of the move choices as measured by the chess program and the agent fitting." Got that? It continues, "The results also suppost a no answer to question 2. In the 1970's there were only two players with ratings over 2700, namely Bobby Fischer and Anatoly Karpov, and there were years as late as 1981 when no one had a rating over 2700 (see Wee00). In the past decade there have usually been thirty or more players with such ratings. Thus lack of inflation implies that those players are better than all but Fischer and Karpov were. Extrapolated backwards, this would be consistent with the findings of (DHMG07), which however (like some recent competitions to improve on the ELO system)are based only on the results of games, not on intrinsic decision-making."
Whoa! Has the level of chess play risen to the point that ALL 2700+ players of today are better than ALL players of a generation ago other than Bobby Fischer and Anatoly Karpov? That is saying a great deal.
I recall GM Andy Soltis writing a column whereby he went back a century and compared the moves of the greats of that era with the players of today and found that the old masters made more blunders, and, frankly, I would tend to put more credence in what a HUMAN GM has to say than a COMPUTER.
I cannot help but wonder what a computer analysis of USCF ratings would conclude. Has there been inflation, or deflation? Back in the 70's the average ratting of a tournament player in the USCF was around 1500, give or take. (I believe that was where Prof Elo based his 'average') Today the average rating is around 900. I submit to you that the 'average' player of the 70's was vastly superior to the 'average' player of today. Most players knew then that, if a player made class 'B', he had stopped dropping pieces and could play a decent game of chess. In the first round of the 1980 US Open in Atlanta, a class'B' player upset GM John Fedorowicz in the first round. Consider this game played by two players in the top half of all USCF rated players at a G/30 played here in Louisville at the Monday night tournament where the score is not kept and the game is played without a clock. One of the players is my student. I will not say which to protect the guilty... 1 e4 e5 2 d4 f6? 3 d5?! I will spare you the rest...
I tied for first in the Atlanta Championship in 1974 with a score of 4-1 as a class 'B' player. It was said at the time by many that, "We have a 'B' player as champion!" At the time I was playing actively and working on my game, which needed much work, let me tell you! Although an adult, I was one of those players whose rating had not caught up with with his strength. I won the 1976 Atlanta Championship with a score of 5-0 as a low 'A' player. At that time ratings were not as up to date as they are today. One time the rating system went down for almost a year. There usd to be something called 'bonus points', then they were elimanated. I recall crossing the expert line, 2000, during a time of no bonus points, and my friend, the Legendary Georgia Ironman, Tim Brookshear, took the time to figure what my rating would have been if the bonus points were still being awarded. He came to the conclusion I would have obtained a rating of over 2100. "And you did this while swimming against the tide!" he said. I mention this to give some perspective and to say that, as good as I was, I was nowhere near the level of the top players of today, such as Georgia champions NM Richard Francisco, NM Damir Studen, and FM Kazim Gulamali. At that time I was maybe 500 or 600 points higher rated than the 'average' player. A player today rated 500 or 600 points higher than the 'average' USCF player would be rated 1400 or 1500! What does that say about the current rating pool?
Mr. Knapp throws in a thought of his own when he writes, "The authors don’t suggest a mechanism, but if I were to guess, I’d suggest that the reason for this has to do with competitive chess software and online play." Mr. Knapp thinks that if humans continue to 'interface' with programs, "...it may be that humans catch back up to the best AI programs." I will not live so long...
I clicked on 'recent study' and found a PDF titled, 'Intrinsic Chess Ratings', written by Kenneth W. Regan of the University of Buffalo and Guy McC. Haworth of the University of Reading, UK. This must be the former chess player, IM Ken Regan. I put him into a search engine and found he has a chess page: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/ Gotta be the same guy.
The first sentence lays it out: "This paper develops and tests formulas for representing playing strength at chess by the quality of moves played, rather than by the results of games."
I wondered who was to be the ultimate arbiter of "the quality of move played." My question was answered by the next sentence: "Intrinsic quality is estimated via evaluations given by computer chess programs run to high depth, ideally so that their playing strength is sufficiently far ahead of the best human players as to be a 'relatively omniscient' guide.
There it is. We have reached a point in human evolution whereby 'puters have now become our 'relatively omniscient' guides. I could not help but think of the first paragraph of an editorial by Charles M. Blow, 'Obama in the Valley' dated August 19, 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/opinion/blow-obama-in-the-valley.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)
"In 1970, the Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori coined the phrase “uncanny valley.” In the field of robotics, and increasingly in computer animation, it refers to the theory that people feel good about robots — up to a point. When they start to look almost real, but not quite, we experience an eerie and unsettling sense of revulsion."
In the introduction the authors say, "Our work brings new evidence on controversial questions of import to the chess community, with ramifications for skill assessment in other games: 1) Has there been 'inflation'-or deflation-in chess Elo rating system over the past forty years? 2) Were the top players of earlier times as strong as the top players of today? 3) Does a faster time control markedly reduce the quality of play? 4) Can recorded games from tournaments where high results by a player are suspected as fraudulent reveal the extent to which luck or collusion played a role?
The paper, especially page seven, contains a plethora of equations. If you had showed it to me and told me they were equations for a magnetoplasmadynamic propulsion system from aliens from planet Zud, I would have said, "OK". Fortunately, they sum it up by saying, "We conclude that there is a smooth relationship between the actual players' ELO ratings and the intrinsic quality of the move choices as measured by the chess program and the agent fitting." Got that? It continues, "The results also suppost a no answer to question 2. In the 1970's there were only two players with ratings over 2700, namely Bobby Fischer and Anatoly Karpov, and there were years as late as 1981 when no one had a rating over 2700 (see Wee00). In the past decade there have usually been thirty or more players with such ratings. Thus lack of inflation implies that those players are better than all but Fischer and Karpov were. Extrapolated backwards, this would be consistent with the findings of (DHMG07), which however (like some recent competitions to improve on the ELO system)are based only on the results of games, not on intrinsic decision-making."
Whoa! Has the level of chess play risen to the point that ALL 2700+ players of today are better than ALL players of a generation ago other than Bobby Fischer and Anatoly Karpov? That is saying a great deal.
I recall GM Andy Soltis writing a column whereby he went back a century and compared the moves of the greats of that era with the players of today and found that the old masters made more blunders, and, frankly, I would tend to put more credence in what a HUMAN GM has to say than a COMPUTER.
I cannot help but wonder what a computer analysis of USCF ratings would conclude. Has there been inflation, or deflation? Back in the 70's the average ratting of a tournament player in the USCF was around 1500, give or take. (I believe that was where Prof Elo based his 'average') Today the average rating is around 900. I submit to you that the 'average' player of the 70's was vastly superior to the 'average' player of today. Most players knew then that, if a player made class 'B', he had stopped dropping pieces and could play a decent game of chess. In the first round of the 1980 US Open in Atlanta, a class'B' player upset GM John Fedorowicz in the first round. Consider this game played by two players in the top half of all USCF rated players at a G/30 played here in Louisville at the Monday night tournament where the score is not kept and the game is played without a clock. One of the players is my student. I will not say which to protect the guilty... 1 e4 e5 2 d4 f6? 3 d5?! I will spare you the rest...
I tied for first in the Atlanta Championship in 1974 with a score of 4-1 as a class 'B' player. It was said at the time by many that, "We have a 'B' player as champion!" At the time I was playing actively and working on my game, which needed much work, let me tell you! Although an adult, I was one of those players whose rating had not caught up with with his strength. I won the 1976 Atlanta Championship with a score of 5-0 as a low 'A' player. At that time ratings were not as up to date as they are today. One time the rating system went down for almost a year. There usd to be something called 'bonus points', then they were elimanated. I recall crossing the expert line, 2000, during a time of no bonus points, and my friend, the Legendary Georgia Ironman, Tim Brookshear, took the time to figure what my rating would have been if the bonus points were still being awarded. He came to the conclusion I would have obtained a rating of over 2100. "And you did this while swimming against the tide!" he said. I mention this to give some perspective and to say that, as good as I was, I was nowhere near the level of the top players of today, such as Georgia champions NM Richard Francisco, NM Damir Studen, and FM Kazim Gulamali. At that time I was maybe 500 or 600 points higher rated than the 'average' player. A player today rated 500 or 600 points higher than the 'average' USCF player would be rated 1400 or 1500! What does that say about the current rating pool?
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Columbia Open
There is a chess tournament being held this weekend in the city of Columbia, in the Great state of South Carolina. You can read all about it here: http://www.scchess.org/
GM Ftacnik is playing in the event as he has for several years now. Checking the crosstable I did not see the Legendary Georgia Ironman. Two years in a row Tim was paired with the GM in the very first round.
The site says: Representatives from Monroi are at the tournament and are also broadcasting some of the games live at: Monroi
Earlier today I went to www.monroi.com and found this position: W) Kg5; Rb7, Rf6; P's a5,c4,d3,e4,f2
B) Kg3;Qg4; P's a6,c5,e5
The last move according to the yellow boxes on the diagram was White playing e2-e4. The game was between Zelner, David & White, Laurence
The game ended 1-0! That's right folks, White WON! At least according to Monroi...So I clicked on the scoresheet, which is actually the best feacture of Monroi. Not this time, unfortunately. I noticed question marks where moves should have been and clicked off. Monroi has been around for YEARS! Seems they would have corrected the problems by now. Anyone know how to get in touch with the DeBugger Busters?
The top two boards are being broadcast live. They must not read Chessbase down in South Carolina! Although one can click on 'standings', the only round posted is the first one, so I have no idea how the tournament is going. How about this for a last round game. IM Alexander Matros() vs LM Chris Mabe() 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Bf4 dxc4 4.e3 b5 5.a4 Nf6 6.Nc3 b4 7.Nb1 Ba6 8.Nf3 Nd5 9.Be2 1/2-1/2
Proving you do not have to be a Grandmaster to make a GM draw!
GM Ftacnik is playing in the event as he has for several years now. Checking the crosstable I did not see the Legendary Georgia Ironman. Two years in a row Tim was paired with the GM in the very first round.
The site says: Representatives from Monroi are at the tournament and are also broadcasting some of the games live at: Monroi
Earlier today I went to www.monroi.com and found this position: W) Kg5; Rb7, Rf6; P's a5,c4,d3,e4,f2
B) Kg3;Qg4; P's a6,c5,e5
The last move according to the yellow boxes on the diagram was White playing e2-e4. The game was between Zelner, David & White, Laurence
The game ended 1-0! That's right folks, White WON! At least according to Monroi...So I clicked on the scoresheet, which is actually the best feacture of Monroi. Not this time, unfortunately. I noticed question marks where moves should have been and clicked off. Monroi has been around for YEARS! Seems they would have corrected the problems by now. Anyone know how to get in touch with the DeBugger Busters?
The top two boards are being broadcast live. They must not read Chessbase down in South Carolina! Although one can click on 'standings', the only round posted is the first one, so I have no idea how the tournament is going. How about this for a last round game. IM Alexander Matros() vs LM Chris Mabe() 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Bf4 dxc4 4.e3 b5 5.a4 Nf6 6.Nc3 b4 7.Nb1 Ba6 8.Nf3 Nd5 9.Be2 1/2-1/2
Proving you do not have to be a Grandmaster to make a GM draw!
Feng Shui Chess
GM Nigel Davies in his online column The Chess Improver writes on the most esoteric subjects. His latest is: The Feng Shui Of Competitive Chess. (http://chessimprover.com/?p=1061).
It brought back memories of the jockeying for postion at the Atlanta Chess Center, aka, the House of Pain. In the upstairs room where the top players played the preferred position was all the way to the right with your back to the wall. One time David Vest, aka the High Plains Drifter, arrived early one Sunday morning and staked out his claim. "There's no place I'd rather be than on board one in round four with my back to the wall!" he said, grinning. It was more than a little obvious that the Drifter felt most comfortable there.
I played in a tournament upon first moving to Louisville, which I wrote about on the BaconLOG, posted Wednesday, November 11,2009. (http://baconlog.blogspot.com/2009/11/louisville-chess.html)
I never felt 'comfortable' at that event. Read the post and you will understand why. I recall asking the TD, Alan Priest, who is now on the policy board of the USCF, if I could move closer to the window, since there was very little light emanating due to a power failure. He brusquely walked over to where my opponent and I were to play and grabbed the table, and moved it toward the window. The table was now out of line with every other table and when anyone needed to walk by our table, they would have to make a special effort to avoid it. Some were unable to negotiate the gauntlet and would bump into the table. This happened all during the game. Although I wanted to bring it to the TD's attention, I decided against it and decided to 'suck it up'. It could be because, upon learning the power was partially out, I had asked the TD if and when the lights would be coming on full strength. He said he had no idea if they would come back on, so I mentioned that I may not play. "What?", he asked, "Are you some kind of complainer?" Can I be blamed for staying put?
I had a beer with Ron Gross at the US Senior in 2002. After seeing the inadequate lighting, he had decided to not participate. Much easier to do when one lives in the state. I was from 2500 miles away and decided to play, much to my regret.
It brought back memories of the jockeying for postion at the Atlanta Chess Center, aka, the House of Pain. In the upstairs room where the top players played the preferred position was all the way to the right with your back to the wall. One time David Vest, aka the High Plains Drifter, arrived early one Sunday morning and staked out his claim. "There's no place I'd rather be than on board one in round four with my back to the wall!" he said, grinning. It was more than a little obvious that the Drifter felt most comfortable there.
I played in a tournament upon first moving to Louisville, which I wrote about on the BaconLOG, posted Wednesday, November 11,2009. (http://baconlog.blogspot.com/2009/11/louisville-chess.html)
I never felt 'comfortable' at that event. Read the post and you will understand why. I recall asking the TD, Alan Priest, who is now on the policy board of the USCF, if I could move closer to the window, since there was very little light emanating due to a power failure. He brusquely walked over to where my opponent and I were to play and grabbed the table, and moved it toward the window. The table was now out of line with every other table and when anyone needed to walk by our table, they would have to make a special effort to avoid it. Some were unable to negotiate the gauntlet and would bump into the table. This happened all during the game. Although I wanted to bring it to the TD's attention, I decided against it and decided to 'suck it up'. It could be because, upon learning the power was partially out, I had asked the TD if and when the lights would be coming on full strength. He said he had no idea if they would come back on, so I mentioned that I may not play. "What?", he asked, "Are you some kind of complainer?" Can I be blamed for staying put?
I had a beer with Ron Gross at the US Senior in 2002. After seeing the inadequate lighting, he had decided to not participate. Much easier to do when one lives in the state. I was from 2500 miles away and decided to play, much to my regret.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)