Digital Chess

Clocks in chess

nsomova — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:50:38 +0000

I’ve heard some legends about very fast chess players before and about a month ago I got a chance to see how Mamedyarov (the number 19 in the world rating list) was playing against very strong audience of international masters and even grandmasters, giving them 3 minutes against 30 seconds or 1 minute against 15 seconds… For me it was difficult just to follow the moves, sometimes he was making 5-10 moves in 1 second… and in the beginning of the games – good moves… I was asking myself: is it possible? Just to move his hands so fast? Of course the endings weren’t so good quality… when he had less than 5 seconds, the shortest and the closest move to the clocks was the best one, or even a sacrifice of all pieces could make an opponent to loose on time. Was it still about chess? I’d say it was a show, the show, that couldn’t be possible without such a small thing that digital chess clocks.
Now it`s hard to imagine that in the middle of 19th century chess players weren’t using clocks, an average game lasted for about 9 hours, some very slow players could spend an hour thinking on one move. This slowness was very annoying for the judges and others players, slowcoaches were criticized but there was no rule that restricted them in time. In 1851 one player proposed to use a three-hour sandglass beside of a player and to turn it horizontally when the move is passed to his opponent. This idea was caught and developed into mechanical chess clocks in 1883. It consisted of two pendulum clocks set on opposite ends of a balance beam, when the move was made, a player moved his clocks into a position that stopped his pendulum and started opponent’s. The clocks brought competitiveness and pressure on the chessboard and made the game much more spectacular for a public. Chess took their place in sport games.
Today mechanical chess clocks are living theirs` last days, digital ones are displacing them inevitably. Even the official FIDE time control (90 minutes for 40 moves + 30 minutes till the end + 30 seconds per move) couldn’t be possible with old clocks. In many tournaments organizers experiment with time control trying time with addition or reduction per move. The good thing about digital clocks is that a time control can make a game much fairer if someone is a queen behind but tries to win on time. However, from the other hand such controls as 1 minute for the game – 1 second per move make the game of chess in the game of clocks that develop mostly muscles than brains.
What prompted me to write this post? The advertisement of a chess clocks that can generate 960 starting positions (you can find it there ) and that are not really clocks in my point of view, but small computers… so what will be next?

Some rules from the past

nsomova — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:05:07 +0000

A year ago when I moved to England the second task for me was to find a chess club after finding an accommodation. I joined the club and for a couple of month was discovering very weird things that survived probably only in this part of the chess world. Playing for a team I faced with a rule of 40 moves: when 40 moves are made players have two options – to add 15 minutes for each player till the end of the game and continue playing or another variant: one of players could offer a draw and if his opponent doesn’t agree, the game will be sent to a team of masters and grandmasters who will determine the result. This Rybka`s decision (everyone understands that masters will support “little fish’s” verdict) will cost 5 pounds to the team which will loose in a bet. I hoped this case will never affect me until I was offered a draw with 2 pawns in advantage. I refused and thought that it is not fair for those who want to win, but couldn’t manage it in 40 moves.

Another strange habit that I came across taking a part in the club’s tournaments was a sealed move. After the move 40 player can seal his next move and continue the game when they arrange a new meeting.

In a pre-computer era some long games could start one day and finish in another. In a break between two parts of the game player and his assistants were analyzing position, and thinking out a plan. In 1975 for the first time grandmaster consulted with a machine to finish the game, since then players began to ask for help their electronic friends more often and deferments were abolished.

Thus, computers made impossible delays of the chess games and I was really surprised that somewhere people still practice it and even I have joined them.

…and there’s the other part

nsomova — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:36:56 +0000

Last weekends I and my friend went to the tournament in Daugavpils (a city in Latvia). There is a quite big chess club for such a small city and we are in a very good relationships with the director. The games were playing in a friendly climate, where the result wasn’t the main target but the process of thinking and socialising was. In the last game the computer’s joke put me against my friend. We were counting on some not big, but money prizes, so we decided to wait until the games on the highest boards will be finished and we’ll know what to do to gain more money and split them between us. The problem is that two hours last much longer when you have to wait and even more longer if you are hungry… and my friend was. The judge who also is the president of the chess club invited us to drink a coffee with him while playing, so we went to his room, we talked, used his computer to check our emails, then I left my friend thinking on her move for half an hour when I went to the hostel, took my wallet, went to the supermarket, bought a sandwich for her and returned to our board.
This tournament was only one of hundreds or thousands played that day with the similar players` behaviour control, but the prizes in some of them can be much more tempting to cheat. Just usage of a laptop for a couple of minutes in a toilet gives you the same advantage as a trampoline in the jumping competition. So what about honesty? This concept is useless when the deal is about good money, when the cheating is so simple and won’t be proved. Of course, as a game chess will survive, but as a sport – we’ll see…

Digital cheating

nsomova — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:51:22 +0000

Cheating in chess appeared together with the game hundreds years ago. First it expressed by stealing pieces for novices, asking coaches` advices while playing the game for intermediate players, using extrasensory individuals in the auditory or developing special signs to send and receive the moves for professionals. Nowadays the computer can replace all these old methods independently of player’s level.
“During the game my opponent went out of the playing hall after each move, took his coat and withdrew himself on the toilet. After suspicion of unfair play on move 14 I offered a draw, he refused. We quickly played 11 moves; on the 12th move I played a move which confused my opponent. The next moves from him were given as first choice by Rybka, which quickly allowed him to win the game.”
This is a part from the letter where the top Aeroflot Open seed Shakhriyar Mamedyarov accused his opponent in cheating. After this game in protest Mamedyarov left the tournament.
Today such occasions happen more and more often, almost every big tournament is followed with suspicions against some players. The technological progress made possible to hide a small computer device everywhere on the body and to raise the cheater’s rating for 500 points in a year. However, people rated in top 100 in most cases only suspect each other, but don’t really cheat – the reputation will cost them much more than one victory. Thus, these scandals between the highest level players are mostly myths, but this is only the top part of the iceberg…

Why footballer is cleverer than chess player?

nsomova — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:45:59 +0000

Recently I’ve discovered that every year there’re happening football championships between robots. Public delights with robots` skills when they successfully hit a ball and smiles all the rest of time looking at what a funny and embarrassed movements they make (there’s a very cute example of what it is ). The paradox is that now computer chess programmes can beat any human player, whereas according to the predictions robots-footballers could be able to compete against a team of people not earlier than in 50 years.
We used to think that footballer doesn’t have to be very smart to play the game, however it seems that computers require much more artificial intelligence to imitate footballer’s brain’s work than chess player’s. So how it can be explained? Everyone understands that chess require some deep thinking and use of intelligence from human, but does it require the same thing from an iron player? The methods used by chess programmes to search the best move resemble more mathematical calculations to compare as much positions as possible in the minimum amount of time. Whereas a human player uses his intuition, understanding, experience and knowledge to analyse one useful position in a couple of seconds instead of millions but meaningless.
Thus, maybe in 50 years, when human will be beaten in football, a one-year-old child could be considered as a most clever creature in the world whose behaviour no one computer will be able to simulate and whose game no one will be able to win because of its unpredictability.

The Solution

nsomova — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:45:10 +0000

Joke told from Jose Raul Capablanca’s perspective:

“I was playing in a tournament in germany one year when a man approached me. Thinking he just wanted an autograph, I reached for my pen, when the man made a startling announcement. ‘I’ve solved chess!’ I sensibly started to back away, in case the man was dangerous as well as insane, but the man continued: ‘I’ll bet you 1000 marks that if you come back to my hotel room I can prove it to you.’ Well, 1000 marks was 1000 marks, so I humored the fellow and accompanied him to his room.”

“Back at the room, we sat down at his chess board. ‘I’ve worked it all out, white mates in 12 no matter what.’ I played black with perhaps a bit incautiously, but I found to my horror that white’s pieces coordinated very strangely, and that I was going to be mated on the 12th move!”

“I tried again, and I played a completely different opening that couldn’t possibly result in such a position, but after a series of very queer-looking moves, once again I found my king surrounded, with mate to fall on the 12th move. I asked the man to wait while I ran downstairs and fetched Emmanuel Lasker, who was world champion before me. He was extremely skeptical, but agreed to at least come and play. Along the way we snagged Alekhine, who was then world champion, and the three of us ran back up to the room.”

“Lasker took no chances, but played as cautiously as could be, yet after a bizarre, pointless-looking series of maneuvers, found himself hemmed in a mating net from which there was no escape. Alekhine tried his hand, too, but all to no avail.”

“It was awful! Here we were, the finest players in the world, men who had devoted our very lives to the game, and it was all over! The tournaments, the matches, everything – chess had been solved, white wins.”

About this time Capa’s friends would break in, saying “Wait a minute, I never heard anything about all this! What happened?”

“Why, we killed him, of course.”

Recently I`ve found this joke that made me think “is it time to kill computer chess programming? But how possible is to stop this machines` race and to let human to decide what move to make?”