Computer chess to go

Here's a web application that allows you to play against Shredder using your iPhone (it works perfectly well in a regular browser as well). Use the menu button to choose your color, set the program's playing strength and takeback your move after Shredder shows you the folly of your play.

Hat Tip: Gila Chess Patzer

Tipping Technology

1. A chess playing robot - Hat Tip: Affairs of Chess
   
   
2. A chess clock for your iPhone - Hat Tip: Greenpoint Chess and Go Club
   
   
3. A how-to on Chessbase's "Repertoire Database" Feature (Part 1, Part 2) - Hat Tip: chess improvement
   

Gata Unplugged

Here are a few interesting moments from an interview with Gata Kamsky posted at Schachblog. First, a comment from the interviewer when the two are discussing the impact of computers on chess:

Interviewer: In the early days of ... artificial intelligence the programmers tried [to] understand the grandmaster, now it's the grandmaster who tries to understand the programme.

...a view consistent with J'adoube's, I think.

Next, is Kamsky's response to a question about whether he is satisfied with his progress since making his chess comeback:

Kamsky: It's not easy to make the Top Ten. If it would be easy everybody would be there.

OK, I suppose, but then I imagine they wouldn't call it the Top Ten anymore?

Finally, there's this testy exchange when the interviewer asks about past incidents involving Gata's father:

Interviewer: There was open hostility by some players and in some press articles against you. Did you suffer from this at the time?

Kamsky: I don't like these questions. You are digging in the past. I think you should leave the past alone. It's a good time to forget about it and think about the future. I don't want to talk about my father. He's following my progress and that's all that matters.

Interviewer: Nigel Short recently refused to shake hands with you at the tournament in Montreal.

Kamsky: I don't want to talk about it.

Value of Theory?

Friends:

I'm curious what folks think about the new article on USChess.org by Joel Benjamin. The topic is computers and the relative value of theory. (see below)

My position is that theory is overrated, and that many strong American players give too much weight to this aspect of the game. Further, even with best play theory gives weaker players (such as myself) an advantage that practically speaking has little meaning.

I'm more of a believer in Rowson's idea that for adult players to improve you have to increase skill.

Thoughts?

Carey Theil

http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/askGM_24_67.php

Ask GM Joel

Question: Dear Joel, Your June 4 column addressed a question about humans vs. computers in Fischer Random chess, concluding that, "So Fischer Random chess actually eliminates human advantages and accentuates computer strengths!" What about computers playing normal chess but without an opening book? It seems to me that top-level humans would have a significant advantage since opening theory imparts the "wisdom" of massive experience to the human.

By Jim Eoff 2007-08-18

GM Joel responds: At one time, computers couldn’t play the opening at all without an opening book. Their evaluation functions were poorly developed and calculating powers not strong enough to avoid typical traps. Now that computers are acknowledged to be stronger than even the best grandmasters, I’m not sure computers need an opening book.

Human opening knowledge uses assumptions based on past experience. We know that theory is fallible—how else could players constantly find “improvements” on established theory? Computers may not always find better moves, but they may choose perfectly acceptable ones that have been overlooked or discarded for no good reason.

Even when a computer plays an opening move which is apparently inferior, it can still put the human out of his comfort zone. Since people know openings so well, every move that is still in the grandmaster’s opening “book” is an opportunity for him to use that knowledge. By leaving theoretical territory, the computer, as the stronger player, should be better suited to handle the situation.

In its match with Kramnik, Fritz played an unusual maneuver with Re1-e3. Despite its weird appearance, the move still contained a drop of poison and Kramnik was fairly befuddled about how to deal with it.

The need for an opening book was put to the test in a recent match between GM Jaan Ehlvest and Rybka, generally acknowledged to be the world’s strongest computer. Rybka was allowed only a few moves of book before it had to play completely on its own. Ehlvest was given White in each game, and more time on the clock as well.

Rybka scored three wins and three draws. The results are open to interpretation. Rybka won handily, but perhaps it would have won by a greater margin with book openings? Ehlvest was also pressing in a number of games and could well have scored some wins.

In August I played a match with Rybka (ending 4.5-3.5 in Rybka's favor) where I received a pawn handicap in all eight games, as Ehlvest had in a match back in March. With the pawn missing, the games in its opening database simply don't register. Some of its opening moves seemed a bit strange, though perhaps not objectively weaker under the circumstances.

I would say that the absence of an opening book imparts a slight handicap to a computer, but not enough in itself to enable grandmasters to beat the top programs.

Dam!

Not one, but two items involving beavers and chess:

• "CBS Cancels Plans for Series on Chess Playing Beaver"
  
  
• Our friends from Rozerem, makers of a highly publicized prescription sleep medication, have put together a website where you can play chess against their spokesbeaver. During the game, the beaver will harangue you for moving too slowly and offer you congratulations when you make good moves. I particularly like it when you win material and the beaver says, "oh, didn't see that coming." Unfortunately, even in advanced mode, the beaver is a fish; so while it might be fun to crush him a few times while practicing your new tactical skills, the experience is ultimately rather boring. Then again, maybe that's the idea -- to help put you to sleep. (Hat Tip: Chess Corner)
  

Stream of Blogiousness

• It's nice to see that disgraced talk show host Don Imus has landed a new gig -- involving chess, no less.
  
  
• Ben is back! Thanks to a post on Heather Swan's Blog, I found IM Ben Finegold's new blog.
  
  
• Having caught a bit of the poker bug myself, I found this Chess Vibes' post on the attractiveness of poker to chess players quite interesting -- until they spoiled it at the end with an advertising pitch.
  
  
• Steve Eddins offered a thoughtful and thought-provoking response to Patrick's Chess For Blood closing post.
  
  
• I've finally decided to throw in the towel on Nezha. I must admit that I actually enjoy reading his posts on the trials and tribulations of job hunting in Japan. However, interview tactics and chess tactics are not one in the same. You can now find his blog listed in the Kibitzers section.
  
  
• Alec is giving up on online chess playing due to the prevalence of cheating opponents and other bad behavior.
  
  
• The Washington Post has annointed GM Alexei Shirov the Don Quixote of Chess. Those of us who know the original, realize that the prestigous newspaper has been duped by an imposter.
  

Toilet Training

GM Jaan Ehlvest covered his match with Rybka on this Wordpress blog. I'm not going to add it to the listings since I assume it will end with the completion of the match.

The best part so far is about two-thirds of the way down the page where Jaan after losing the first two games posts photographs of himself entering the bathroom. Not surprisingly, his results improved later in the match.

The rest of the story

Like About Chess, I too have noticed a recent trend of defections from the chess blogosphere:

• Temposhlucker's decision to go on (permanent?) hiatus from the ranks of the Knights Errant is a monumental loss, perhaps second only to the day that Don Q did the same.


• Losing Goran at Chess News & Events was tempered by the fact that he continues to post at Chess Strategy. Since then, things have improved further with a new blogger taking over the reins of the original blog.


• Patrick at Chess For Blood has decided that he is "due for a break from chess and chess blogging for awhile" and the Underpromoted Knight has decided to make school a priority over chess.
  

Then there is the case of Strong In Mind's Fierabras. About Chess gave you the facts, but only here will you find the story behind the story (thanks to a tip from an unnamed Knight).

As many of you may be aware, J'adoube has been advocating the somewhat provocative position that endeavoring to play moves highly rated by top chess computers (specifically Rybka in his case) is a good path to improvement. This has resulted in some healthy and spirited debate across several posts. However, it seems that somewhere along the way Fierabras' and J'adoube's point counter-point turned heated, personal and anything but healthy. Shortly thereafter Fierabras announced his intent to leave the Knights. It isn't too hard to connect the dots.

Now, I'm certainly not here to point a finger of blame at anyone. You can read the thread and draw your own conclusions. In fact, I believe that a bit of controversy can often be a good thing in terms of generating interest and readership. Nevertheless, as a general rule it would be hard to go wrong taking to heart Sancho's previous "Can't we all just get along" appeal.

Update (3/7): Comment threads at J'adoube's blog are not currently no longer available.

On the chess frontier

At Sentient Developments, George Dvorsky takes the topics of chess computers, cheating and doping to the next level:

What will happen when the first genetically modified competitors emerge? Will there be a stratification of competitions, ones featuring unaugmented players and ones featuring those with genetic mods? Thinking more philosophically, what is the qualitative difference between an unmodified player who was born with a genetic advantage versus a player who had that advantage given to them via assistive reprotech?

The life and times of chess computers

What did Deep Fritz do after winning its match with Kramnik?

Initial reports suggest that the chess-playing computer went on a massive drugs&sex&booze session to celebrate.... Onlookers were amazed to see Fritz (or "the Fritz-Meister General" as he prefers to be called) totally off his face in the bar of his hotel just hours after his marathon chess challenge.

Read "Deep Fritz goes on 5 day bender after claiming chess crown" from Robots Will Take Over!

Visual representation of a computer playing chess

Thinking machine 4 - its chess playing is average, but it is often artistic in graphically representing all the alternatives it is evaluating.

(hat tip: Soap Box Blog)