Bobby Fischer Online? 428
talilee writes "This story from AP (but I found it at SFGate.com) suggests that Bobby Fischer is playing online chess anonymously against champion level players. I'm glad to see that he has an opportunity to express his genius without having to deal with the overwhelming attention (and without exposing his, um, "eccentricities".)" The BBC has a slightly more informative story.
Depressing in a way (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Depressing in a way (Score:5, Insightful)
Regarding the rumor that Bobby is playing chess online, I've heard it before and I think it has been going around for a while. Could be true, but really total speculation.
Re:Depressing in a way (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Depressing in a way (Score:2)
There may be a force of law. He was under a grand jury indictment at one point, and has admitted to tax evasion. I'd be in hiding too,
in some country that does not have an extradition treaty with the USA...
Re:Depressing in a way (Score:2)
I think it's a rumor that pops up every time a grandmaster gets spanked by an anonymous player.
"I just got my ass handed to me by someone named "bob13" it must've been Bobby Fischer..." It's probably just some kid running a copy of chessmaster 3000...
Andrew
Re:Depressing in a way (Score:2)
Kintanon
Re:Depressing in a way (Score:1)
Re:Depressing in a way (Score:5, Funny)
"Rook to rook eight and here's a picture of a goat"
Or
"knight to queens-bish three and here's some ascii art of two people having sex"
And never let AC's play as white - "hah hah! First move!"
Re:Depressing in a way (Score:5, Insightful)
I know very little about Bobby Fischer so I'm speaking in general, not about him in particular.
Intellect can do a lot, but there are other skills that one needs to be successful, especially in the public eye. These are things like stage presence, speaking ability, charisma, style, bearing and common sense, which are only tangentially connected to intelligence. A smart person might be able to develop them faster than your average Joe. On the other hand intelligence might hinder their development, especially if that person is arrogant because of their intelligence.
To take a high profile example, by all accounts Al Gore is a pretty learned guy, but he still hasn't figured out what he wants his appearance to be, and the last election suggests that he has had only mediocre success connecting with the public. The stereotypical closed-in scientist (and I've known a few) can be far worse.
Bobby Fischer is, at least to my limited knowledge, something of a one trick wonder. He is exceptionally good at chess, but clearly doesn't want to be a public figure, and perhaps he wouldn't be very good at it?
The thing I wonder most about is what kind of a life is he living now? Chess isn't easy to make a profession of and it must be nearly impossible if you don't want people to know who you are. So does he program computers by day and trounce chess masters at night, or what?
My name is also Bobby and I'm pleased to hear that Mr. Fischer might be having some fun. For my part I've grown to realize the value of that other skill set, and I'm ever so slowly trying to cultivate it.
Al Gore, an intellect by all accounts? I disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
Frankly, I don't see why certain people choose to ascribe the word intellect to Gore. The man is essentially a geek and not much more. By this I mean, he puts a lot of energy into what he does. He memorizes lots of facts and figures and he's capable of blinding people with bullshit when absolutely necessary. Perhaps this trait impresses some, but not me, I do not call that intellect.
The bottom line is that I see little reason to think of Gore as being any more intelligent or intellectual than what is seen in Washington, company executives, and the like. If there's any good reason to believe otherwise, please point it out to me.
Re:Al Gore, an intellect by all accounts? I disagr (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, yes. My wife's adviser is a conservative southerner from Alabama. Most definitely not a Gore supporter.
You can be quite intelligent and now be an excellent orator. In fact you can be quite intelligent and not be very good at English. Don't put down Gore's intelligence. In fact, all the democrat presidents (and Gore) from the last half century stack up as wonderfully intelligent. However, most of them performed as president very poorly. Intelligence is not strongly correlated with the quality of one's presidency.
Re:Whoops (Score:2)
Perhaps I was just brainwashed by the common media impression and the fact he tries to pursue hard topics. His selection as VP and relative mastery of English when debating Bush do add a suggestion of intelligence.
However, your facts to do appear to be correct as confirmed by this Washington Times Article [freerepublic.com] (reprinted).
Of course, grades aren't everything as Bush will attest.
Re:Depressing in a way (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, the only reason he does not live in the U.S. is because he played in a chess tournament in Yugoslavia in 1992 after President Bush (the elder) said that any U.S. citizen would face criminal charges if they help the Yugoslavia economy, similar to the embargo on Cuba. The only reason Bobby Fischer was gone after was because of his high profile.
Re:Depressing in a way (Score:2, Informative)
Deep Fritz (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I think... (Score:2, Funny)
me: so, Fritz, how are you doing today?
DF: rook 3 to queen's knight 2.
:>
Interesting (Score:1, Interesting)
anybody have more info on what those eccentricities are?
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
I don't know how chess rankings are determined, but I know that in other ranking systems (for online games, for example) the rank is based on playing players of the same caliber or better. In a rudimentary example, if you are ranked 2nd and you beat the player who's ranked 1st, you become 1st.
However, one of the problems of this design is that once someone becomes 1st, they no longer really have to play. Since no one can challenge their ranking, no one else can reach the top spot anymore. I've noticed people doing this in, of all things, Unreal Tournament. The top players win a few key matches against higher players, then sit tight for the rest of their stay at the top. The only thing that prevents them from staying on the top forever is that the records are purged quarterly.
Again, I don't know how chess rankings work, but if they're similar one has to ask whether or not Bobby simply didn't want to play at the risk of losing.
Anonymous Coward Online (Score:2, Offtopic)
proof (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder though if he wouldn't post the move lists the for games. that would tell us something.
sean
Re:proof (Score:1)
This is also the reason I think he might be wrong. My guess is its someone using a very, very good chess program but he needs to pass himself off as someone known, no one could be that could without being known. His only option is someone who is hiding from the public, otherwise the truth would come out rather easily.
Of course there is the chance it could be him. I just don't think so.
I have the movelists (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.chlodwig.com/Fischer/Fi_Games_ICC.ht
This is no computer, NO computer would ever play a game like this.
Maybe it WAS him! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Maybe it WAS him! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Maybe it WAS him! (Score:5, Funny)
Sunday, September 9, 2001
Breaking News Sections
(09-09) 11:06 PDT LONDON (AP) --
A British Linux kernel hacker is convinced that Bill Gates, one of computing's most legendary and elusive figures, is programming again -- anonymously for little-used Linux drivers.
"I am 99 percent sure that I am getting driver submissions from the computing legend," Alan Cox told The Sunday Telegraph. "It's tremendously exciting."
Gates, an American, fascinated the world by winning an epic battle against a Californian, Steve Jobs, in the desktop PC market in 1982. Then he disappeared, only to re-emerge from the Death Star in 1992 for a controversial rematch against Netscape in the Browser Market.
Gates won, and then disappeared again after U.S. authorities accused him of violating sanctions imposed against monopolies by playing the match.
He has remained out of the public eye and his whereabouts are unknown, although the Telegraph said he is believed to be living in cyberspace a la The Lawn Mower Man or Tron. Cox said he does not know where Gates is.
Cox, who unsuccessfully challenged Linus Torvalds for world Linux core kernel functionality control in 1993 in the Klingon ritual of Mauk-to 'Vor, said rumors began circulating last year that the American champion was anonymously authoring Linux drivers in quick, three-line snippets of badly-written Visual Basic code on "alt.binaries.BSOD.screenshots". Cox said he was skeptical, even after his friend, Brazilian Kernel developer Rik Van Riel, claimed to have run a Bill Gates-authored Linux driver.
"I could not help but burst into laughter, much as I would have done had my friend claimed to have seen the Loch Ness monster," Cox wrote in an article for the Sunday newspaper.
A few weeks later, Cox said, he was approached by someone who identified himself as an intermediary for "a very strong Visual Basic programmer
"I thought that this 'intermediary' was almost certainly a fraud or a time-waster
When the prearranged time came, Cox was requested by the anonymous player to sign into "alt.binaries.BSOD.screenshots" anonymously instead of as himself. That way no one would know Cox was submitting, and his drivers would not be put under public scrutiny, as they normally are.
Cox ran eight three-line Linux drivers for little-used peripherals in VB. Cox's machine was crashed.
"I never confronted my submitter with the question, 'Am I using VB code authored by Bill Gates,' " Cox conceded. But during subsequent driver usage, Cox said he noticed comments in the VB code, and the comments all seemed like they could only come from one man.
"He was obviously very familiar in a gossipy way with the major figures in the desktop PC world of the 1980s -- Gate's period of greatest activity," wrote Cox. "He was polite, he was funny, and clearly a Taelon, to judge from his spelling and pattern of conversation."
Cox is convinced that the author of the 8" disk drive Linux driver was the legendary Gates, and he said that he will always treasure the drivers he ran.
"To me, they are what an undiscovered Milli Vanilli symphony would be to a music lover," Cox wrote.
"alt.binaries.BSOD.screenshots", based in Redmond, did not immediately respond to a post seeking comment on Cox's piece Sunday.
Re:Maybe it WAS him! (Score:2)
The problem with online chess, and online games in general, is people with nothing better to do sometimes give themselves ego boosts by using computer programs to trounce their opponents. While I'm not saying somebody out there has a BobbyBot, it is true that many of the "badass" players out there are cheating. Sad, but true.
Re:Maybe it WAS him! (Score:2)
Interesting, hoax or not! (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's an American Fischer fan who learned all the "Fisher-related facts." The only evidence against that is just the quality of play.
Still--can we rule out it was a very powerful experimental chess computer or a very talented and reclusive chess star? Maybe Kramnik or Kasparov has an odd sense of humor and was making all the moves while his American buddy was doing all the typing.
Unless it's one of the current greats incognito, this story is interesting even if the opponent really isn't Fischer. It sounds like there's someone out there with an incredible chess talent!
Re:Interesting, hoax or not! (Score:3, Interesting)
Unlikely it's Kasparov, seeing as Short drew 6-6 against him last time they played Blitz. According to Short, the anonymous player was a lot stronger, although sometimes inclined to make mistakes that a computer program wouldn't.
I read the full article this morning (unfortunately I don't think it's online - but there are quite a few articles *about* the article), and it's really rather convincing - if not conclusive - but then he claims only to be 99% certain.
Short even went so far as to speak about it with Spassky:
Here is another quote from the article, to add a little more perspective:
In all, I think that Short makes a good, if not entirely convincing case. If only he'd recorded the games... I'd have loved to have seen that eight-pawns by one-square game... 8)
Re:Interesting, hoax or not! (Score:2)
On a related note, I just violated the posercomment compression filter. Comment aborted
Re:Interesting, hoax or not! (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably. Many people make the assumption that
the internet chess servers are filled with people who are using chess computers and
software to cheat. They are there, but
they are easy to spot. Very advanced players
can easily tell when they are playing against
a machine, and they can often tell you after
only a few games which one they are playing against. People who try to cheat with computers, are in for a shock when they find out how easily it is detected. Kasparov claimed that Deep Blue was "insightful", but, that machine wouldn't play like Fischer. It may be insightful, but if it has a genuine sense of humor, it might pass the Turing Test... I really don't think a chess computer is going to fool a grandmaster into believing it's Bobby Fischer.
>or a very talented and reclusive chess star?
This isn't the first unconfirmed Fischer sigting. I'd say it is far more likely that a very talented person is out there, than someone has a machine that can fool even a recreational player (let's say 1700 level) into believing he is playing against a human. Whether that person Fischer or not is something we have to decide for ourselves, depending on how romantic we are about the whole thing. Consider there is no evidence presented. Let's see a double blind study, by chess historians and players, and find out if anyone else comes to the same conclusion.
According to Mr. Short's story, that should be possible.
I haven't noticed a ref to the specific games, which had better be recorded or else this is a ufo sighting (without the fuzzy photos even).
I would find it unironic that the least of my lost-in-20-moves games is archived indefinitely on FICS, while Bobby Fischer is playing on some ICC server with no record of the games?!
I hope for the sake of Mr. Short's reputation and his sanity, that he has recorded the moves in these games by the anonymous, enigmatic, ephimeral Bobby Fischer.
One of my books covers all of Fischer's games from 1965 to 1972. In the preface, the author points out that "[Fischer's] carrer is still in its early stages..." Seems I need to add some more annotated games. I'd especially like to see the "odds-all-pawns-to-3" line.
I have often wondered whether Fischer's, a.k.a. Robert D. James' reclusiveness originates not from being a primadonna, but from fear of the
mindless bureaucracy of the US. During a time period when the FBI seemed to take special interest in celebrities, he publicly provoked the State Department by playing in Yugoslavia while US sanctions were in force, and even admitted publicly that he had not paid his income taxes, and wasn't going to.
He is rumored to have had a number of run-ins with the police, and claimed to have been subjected to police brutality in Los Angeles, but that story may also be a hoax. Still, he has a dark enough history with Uncle Sam that maybe it's understandable he would want to live in seclusion, almost certainly outside the United States, its territories, assigns, and protectorates.
As for the chess games he is said to be playing, I'm from Missouri, until the chess moves are shown to the community. If someone claimed to have found a lost Mozart piano concerto, it had damned well better stand up to peer review and the consensus process.
Regards,
James, who is lousy at chess (1300+)
Re:Interesting, hoax or not! (Score:2)
the game mentioned in the BBC piece had the mystery opponent pusing the pawns all forward one row. and then kicking butt on the grand master.
obviously someone of high skill messing with the minds of his opponents.
- - -
Radio Free Nation [radiofreenation.com]
an alternate news site using Slash Code
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"
Shaky Evidence (Score:2, Interesting)
"My unseen opponent began with some highly irregular, if not totally absurd, opening moves - shifting all his pawns forward by one square. These were moves that no Grandmaster(?) would ever play." Short said he immediately suspected a hoax, but became aware there was method in the apparent madness.
If you ask me this evidence is very shaky and In my opinoin the thought of Bobby fisher playing is only a rumor
Re:Shaky Evidence (Score:3, Insightful)
The articles both seem to say Short bases his theory on online conversations with the mysterious player, not on playing style. I'm not saying that makes it less shaky evidence, but let's at least stick to the facts of the article.
Re:Shaky Evidence (Score:2)
I think it is based on both. If the play hadn't been top notch the talk wouldn't have mattered. The quality of the play and talk are both clearly part of it. The odd moves less so.
Re:Shaky Evidence (Score:2)
The odds that there is a world-class player, even speed chess player, that is totally unknown to Nigel Short is quite small. The number of inactive/retired players it could be is also small. Mr. Short may be wrong, but his belief has a lot of support.
I remember running a MUD. We could tell who the PERSON playing was by text message content alone, even when characters and IP addresses changed. It isn't THAT hard to identify individual style. Think about it -- it is not that hard to distinguish a Van Gogh painting from a Picasso. Even if you don't read the signature.
Pawns shifted forward? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any chess experts want to comment on this unconventional play?
Re:Pawns shifted forward? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pawns shifted forward? (Score:2)
Short probably played a standard openning planning for a middle game win, discovered a few moves in that his opponent was doing essentially nothing, but Short hadn't planned for that particular situation, so he essentially got to put his pieces anywhere he wanted on his side of the board before his opponent started playing. It's not like anyone thinks about what they'd do if their opponent plays E3, G3, B3, D3, A3, C3, H3, F3; 3 minutes would probably be long enough to think of something, but if you only figure out what's going on after 4 moves or so, and you don't really know the person will play the next 4, you might not want to spend the time figuring it out, considering that, if you think for 3 minutes and then the person doesn't just move pawns, you won't have time to think later.
I think he didn't exactly give up a dead-easy win, since he didn't know in advance that it would be like that. More that he got a huge positional advantage at the beginning and then lost anyway. I think that's somewhat plausible if he were playing someone as good as Fisher who had thought a lot about playing against a great positional advantage.
I bet Andrei Agassi could beat you in a tennis match even if he just stood there for the first few games. Not that tennis is all that similar, not being positional, but still...
Re:Pawns shifted forward? (Score:5, Informative)
As you can see, he brings his king to the center of his board. Very wierd.
Re:Pawns shifted forward? (Score:2)
Re:Pawns shifted forward? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm also stunned by this. I would have thought such a position was clinically lost. And it probably is in a real game, but in a blitz game Short has too little time to figure out this alien position, while Fisher has probably spent quite some time studying it and is aware of all the quirks of it.
Still, had someone asked me if this was possible, I would have laughed at it. And so would probably Short,.
I suppose it could be a computer or Kasparov on LSD, but it sure smells like Fisher. It's just the kind of thing he would do...
Re:Pawns shifted forward? (Score:2)
> This seems incredible to me, that anyone
>playing someone of the caliber of Short can
>move all his pawns one square forward (giving
>Short 8 moves to develop his attack,
>essentially)---and still win!
ion, it sounds like
I want to see this line. It makes all the difference in the world in what order he moved the pawns, and whether he could do it and win with either side. The loss in tempo and development is pretty obnoxious, but if you knew what to do next with the wall of pawns on the 3rd rank, it might be very interesting. You haven't developed anything, but the pawn moves give the pieces some space. By that time the opponent has utter control of the middle, has both his bishops and both his knights out, and probably has either the queen or a rook developed. But it's not as if you've given up 8 moves! It looks like a really bad position, but it might be salvageable.
Here's Gnuchess getting a draw out of the situation (white opening with each pawn one square from A-H). But if your opponent knows what you're up to, and you open with different pawns at each move different lines of the reply possibilites exist. I really wish we could see and analyze these games.
1. a3 Nc6 2. b3 Nf6 3. c3 e5 4. d3 Be7 5. e3 d5 6. f3 O-O 7. g3 Bf5 8. h3 e4 9. Kf2 Rb8 10. dxe4 dxe4 11. Qxd8 Rfxd8 12. Nd2 Ne5 13. f4 Nd3+ 14. Bxd3 exd3 15. Ngf3 Kf8 16. Bb2 Ra8 17. g4 Bd7 18. Ne5 Be6 19. Kf3 Rd6 20. f5 Nd7 21. c4 Bf62 2. Nxd7+ Bxd7 23. Bxf6 Rxf6 24. e4 Re8 25. g5 Rd6 26. c5 Rd4 27. Rae1 Bc6 28. Rhg1 Re5 29. Ke3 Rd7 30. Rc1 g6 31. f6 h6 32. gxh6 Rh5 33.Rg3 Rxh6 34. a4 Ke8 35. Rc3 Rh5 36. Rf3 Kd8 37. Rg3 Ke8 38. Kf4 Rh4+ 39.Ke3 Rh5
{draw} 1/2-1/2
Re:Pawns shifted forward? (Score:2)
I am by no means a chess expert. My USCF rating is around 1600. I have played white, while my opponent (a similarly rated player) did exactly this. Moved his pawns forward one square until they were all developed into that position.
This is nowehere near "book" opening play, and for me it was very hard to develop a good attack against this opening (and it does have a name).
We played 5 or 6 games in a row like this and I had very little success mounting a quick, early attack, despite the fact that he used this seemingly ridiculous opening.
Rich...
Re:Pawns shifted forward? (Score:3, Funny)
(sigh) Too much Quake this weekend...
Re:I'm no chessplayer, but lemme ask a dumb questi (Score:2)
hmm (Score:2, Funny)
Hilarious, Google Search: bobby fischer [google.com]
Re: Who is Bobby Fischer? (Score:5, Informative)
I find it hard to understand how someone who has been interested in chess for the length of time you claim to have been, can be ignorant of Bobby Fischer [bobbyfischer.net], one of the greatest players of all time.
Bobby was the youngest International Grandmaster ever. He won 8 US Chess Championships, and won basically every game he played between 1962 and 1972.
Unfortunately, he has become a reclusive paranoid schizophrenic who rants about how the Jews and Russians are out to get him (it should be noted that Bobby is half-Jewish).
By the way, in the future, perhaps you should try Google [google.com] for queries [google.com] like this.
Re: Who is Bobby Fischer? (Score:2)
Re: Who is Bobby Fischer? (Score:2)
Yes, but since it frequently doesn't show up until someone is 25 or 30, it's reasonable to think they're "becoming" schizo. You're right though -- more people need to know that this condition is genetic and/or occurs during fetal or early brain development. (We think.)
I openly admit I am schizophrenic... I believe it is benifital far more than detrimental.
Well, duh. You're schizo! Of course you're going to have wacky beliefs like that!
Oh, come on (Score:3, Insightful)
As for this guy being a good chess player - good for him, it doesn't mean he's fischer. I'm sure there are people of world-class quality at chess who choose not to go pro for a variety of reasons - again, it doesn't make them bobby fischer.
Re:Oh, come on (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, come on (Score:2)
Re:Oh, come on (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh, come on (Score:3, Insightful)
This is so utterly wrong it's difficult to explain to a non-chess-player just how wrong it is. It's like saying that there are plenly of basketball players just as good as Michael Jordan who choose not to go pro.
To be world-class at chess requires years of hard work and study that consumes all your time. You cannot be an occasional player and be world class. And your opponents must also be world class. When Korchnoi angered the Russians, Russian grandmasters were instructed not to play him--the lack of world-class competition is probably what prevented him from improving his skills to the level required to be world-champion.
There are probably three people in the world who could beat Short that badly in 3 minute chess; Anand, Kramnik, and Kasparov (and apparently Bobby Fischer). No other person on the planet could do it, unless Short was unconsciously throwing the games.
Of course, chess programs are stronger than humans at fast time limits. Someone with a very good computer and a sense of humor might be able to pull it off, but you can usually tell a program by its playing style; I don't think Short could be fooled
Re:Oh, come on (Score:5, Funny)
Answer enough of these questions and you might not establish yourself to be Woz, but if you don't rule yourself out and show consistency both with your story and with the world as we know it, you COULD be Woz.
In this particular story there is another, unique dimension to it -- the chess play. If you study the styles of the past masters enough, you might be able to look at a game and get a good idea of which players might have played it. For instance, it's been many years but I believe Fischer was partial to the Sicilian Defense. If Short's opponent used the Sicilian, and in particular lines that Fischer was known to favor, that would be yet another indication that he was indeed playing Bobby Fischer.
The only credible alternative explanation I can come up with at the moment is that Short was playing a grandmaster-level player intimately familiar with Fischer's style -- someone perhaps like Larry Evans, who helped Fischer analyze positions during breaks in play. Few people would be able to pull something like that off, though.
You just proved my point (Score:2)
Of course, once we start speculating about intentional imposters as opposed to honest mistake on Short's part, we need to haul out Occam's razor and ask ourselves which is most simple, and therefor most likely:
1.) Fischer is actually playing anonymously over the internet, but it dropping pseudo-subtle hints that he is Fischer to a man he knows would catch on. This is happening after nearly a decade of complete seclusion, and after almost thirty years of "retirement" broken only by a single game.
2. Someone is impersonating Fischer - perhaps a person, perhaps a computer.
3. Someone, quite innocently, has acquired a vast knowledge of chess history and a playing style similar to Fischer's - perhaps by studying his old games simply in an effort to learn from him.
4. Short is just misinterpreting the chess moves and conversation of the anonymous player.
I don't know which of these is the most simple, but I suspect that #1 is not it.
Re:You just proved my point (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not enough to simply acquire a playing style similar to fischer. This is like saying "so and so aquired a playing style similar to Michael Jordan". Sure you can play like him but can you actually go on the basketball court and consistently beat Kobe Bryant?
Whoever this is reoutinely beat the pants off of a grandmaster even after throwing away as many as eight moves. I seriously doubt any computer can do that and whoever did it must be a player of enormous talent not just some shmoe of the street who studies patterns of play.
Really #1 is the most plausable theory. If it's not fischer it's somebody at least as good as him maybe better. I find it hard to believe somebody that good would play anonymously.
Bobby isn't a duck (Score:2)
One knows the lion by the stroke of his paw (Score:2, Insightful)
After looking at some of the games, I, for one, think it's him.
As Bernoulli said on seeing Newton's solution to the falling body problem (in which he also invented the calculus of variations): "On reconnaît le lion à son coup de patte", "One knows the lion by the stroke of his paw." This lion definitely has struck some great players.
Then by all means... (Score:2)
By the way, I'm glad to have to people replying to my comments, both good and bad - and I don't give a rat's ass about karma.
Re:Oh, come on (Score:2)
Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're kidding right? This player beat Short a lot worse than Short has been beaten anyone in the world including Garry Kasparov. The likelihood that there is someone out there able to defeat the best players in the world who happens to be so good he plays up to 8 bad moves at the beginning of the game and still defeats them who has never revealed himself is so unlikely as to be absurd.Maybe you'd feel better if you saw exactly what Short had to say about the incident. [google.com]
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's possible this is Fischer, but probably not. Fischer is a recluse's recluse, he's not dumb enough to give away clues to his identity (eg. speaking in American english) unless he wants his opponent to know who it is.
I used to spend alot of time on ICC before I became aware of their co-opting of GPL'ed software of which they violated the spirit of, if not the letter of the law, using the ASP loophole. After that I stopped playing there.
I did spend about 3 years there as a serious player at the time I was rated around 2200 OTB and significantly higher on ICC (around 2500). Alot of excellent players (GM's/IM's/FM's) play there, also alot of marked computers AND unmarked computers. ICC is and was a haven for troublemakers who liked to run unmarked computers like Fritz and Crafty, and other chess engines against top players for reasons of ego. Sometimes it was obvious, other times less so. Some "cheaters" as they are called on ICC are dumb enough to follow the ICC computer Howto exactly, which involves setting certain variables for computer players. It was also pretty obvious to me, for example, when I got a message from PimpBoy rated 1600 begging me to play him. Immediately after getting beat, you'd get a message from him that said "U R weak". My rating isn't the highest, but I've drawn GM's and beat IM's. It's unlikely that a player rated 1600-ICC (probably 1400-OTB) would be able to beat me. I and any one of thousands of players rated over 2000 could easily play Nigel with a copy of Fritz in the background, make a few ridiculous moves at the start, let Fritz play for awhile and occasionally interrupting Fritz to play a "human" move so that post-game analysis wouldn't make the use of a computer too obvious. The evidence is shakey at best. Nigel probably just wants some attention now that his rating is so low and the chess press no longer reports on his silly little idiosyncracies. Like dying his hair odd colours before matches. Nigel BTW, really dislikes Garry.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:2)
1.e4 e6 2.d4 Ke7 3.Nc3 Ke8 4.Nf3 Ke7 5.Bc4 Ke8
In essense throwing away his first five moves. In those five moves white proceeds to gain what seems like an impressive control of the center of the board. Despite this seemingly overwhelming advantage he loses. If he was me I could understand but he is a grandmaster and I really don't understand that.
Also in the next game playing white our mystery player quits after a few moves when the board does not look that bad to me (not that I would be a keen judge). Considering how he overcame much worse positions to win in earlier games it seems daffy. Certainly not something a computer would do.
Are computers that good that they can beat grandmasters after throwing away five moves?
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:2)
I looked at some of the games and these games are nuts. First of all you have a computer who seems to feel that castling is for wimps, that the king should be moved early as possible so that castling is impossible, that the king ought move towards the center of the board early and then retreat to the sidee of the board when attacked. In one game after eight moves or so all the major pieces were at their starting positions! Only the king had made a move and ended up back where it started. Only the pawns had made any progress whatsoever. He still won!. Whoever this guy is he is most definately not a computer. Did you look at the games? They are insane and brilliant at the same time. No way a computer did that. No way a computer would beat a GM when handicapped to that degree.
anonymous karma whore (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:anonymous karma whore (Score:2)
ishipress (Score:2)
Oh, now I understand (Score:4, Redundant)
0riginal Usenet Post (Score:5, Insightful)
ummmm (Score:3, Funny)
Aptitude vs. Intelligence vs. Effectiveness (Score:5, Interesting)
There's also an interesting analogy in sports. The strongest, fastest player does not necessarily lead to the best player. To be the best, you have to have some natural talent, i.e. aptitude.
Effectiveness, i.e. being really good at something, requires both intelligence and aptitude. Intelligence, of which I'm sure Fischer had his share, helps get you to a certain level, just as being fast and strong helps in sports, but to be truly great requires aptitude, which is altogether different.
By the same token, being really good at something like chess does not necessarily mean you're particularly intelligent. Maybe, but not necessarily.
A problem with the evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
I wanted to test my antagonist further so I thought of a number of tricky questions as we gossiped. For example, I asked him: "Do you know Armando Acevedo?" Senor Acevedo is an obscure Mexican player, not remotely of Grandmaster strength.
My opponent's reply came instantly, if cryptically: "Siegen 1970". Now if you look in the tournament book of the Siegen Chess Olympiad of 1970 you will find that Bobby Fischer played a certain Armando Acevedo in a preliminary round. He was obviously trying to tell me something.
Typing "Fischer Armando Acevedo" into Google turns up a reference to the 1970 Siegen match on the 3rd link. (The 2nd link is a consequence of Short's article.) It's in Spanish, but the exact phase "Siegen, 1970 appears explicity next to the first occurrance of "Fischer". See for yourself. [tripod.com] The point is that one need not have access to a thirty year old tournament book, as Short suggests, to quickly generate the reply that he received. Thus this particular piece of evidence is a lot weaker than it appears.
Extra information (Score:2)
Congratulations to whoever did this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Congratulations to whoever did this (Score:2, Insightful)
Fischer vs. Kasparov? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone know if someone has done any analyses of how Fischer's ability compares to other Grandmasters? If this online Fischer can trounce Short in speed chess whereas Short can hold his own with Kasparov then does this necessarily mean that Fischer can trounce Kasparov?
Also why didn't Fischer play Kasparov back in 1992 and what is Fischer Random play?
Re:Fischer vs. Kasparov? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't believe this. Fischer never spent a long time playing grandmaster level play before he was the best. Its likely Fischer is able to maintain a high level of play without actually playing games. Only playing against himself.
Fischer lives inside the chess board. He remembers every move in every game by every player he ever saw or himself played in. Which makes him able of playing how many current computers play(from GM game database.) as well as applying his extensive theory on the game.
Fischer played Spassky in 1992 because it was a rematch of his classic cold war world championship match. The odds were decidedly in his favour because of spassky's age, the fact that he was always better then spassky to begin with, etc. Also there was a great deal of money offered for the match which its likely fischer needed because i can't see him flipping burgers or working any other job.
Just because one player can beat another doesn't neccessarily mean superiority to all players the other can beat. It depends on the style of play. But it is a very good indicator of the likely outcome.
Kasparov and fischer are both super aggressive. Fischer even more so.
Fischer Random is just that the pieces are placed somewhat randomly on the board as opposed to the usualy mirrored armies setup. This allows you to judge a players actual strategy as opposed to their opening book knowledge. Most beginners can't beat experienced players of equal chess skill just because the experienced player knows the many good beginning moves. Most GM level chess games actually start around move 12 or so because each player has played all moves up to that point from memory.
Fischer vs. The Rest Of the World (Score:2)
He seems to hate being in the limelight, and there's no reason to believe he's no longer active in chess on any level. So why not?
Sounds like an ideal forum for him to play, to me.
If any of you want to learn more about Bobby and his antics, read a book called 'Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest Of The World'. It's genius.
I used to have a local chess club (formed in 1991) called "The Bobby Fischer Memorial Chess Club", but then one year later he re-appeared. But we didn't rename the club since we knew he'd disappear again. The club's motto? "Not dead but what has he done for us lately?"
Rich...
On being a recluse (Score:5, Insightful)
This is from Thomas Pynchon, when CNN tracked him down and filmed him--and maybe, sort of, in a way, "threatened" to show the film.
And this from a reporter who previously stalked him:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/05/pynchon/ [cnn.com]
Just because someone's not in the news, doesn't mean he or she is a shut-in. Of course, this may be different for Bobby Fischer, but it's a perspective we need to keep.
Boris Spassky on Fischer's sanity (Score:2, Interesting)
---
Boris considered it highly probable that I had come up against the elusive genius. When I said that, contrary to popular perception, he didn't sound mad, at all, Boris replied "Of course he isn't."
---
Boris isn't exactly a mental health expert. This is the same Boris Spassky who during the matches in 1972 broke down and accused Fischer of having mind-altering electronics installed in his arm chair.
Turing Test (Score:2)
King movement (Score:3)
Justin Dubs
Hey, my specialty... (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need to be Johnny Cochran to know the difference between concrete and circumstantial evidence, and what we have above is a wheelbarrow full of the latter. Nigel Short, speaking in the Sunday Telegraph Review article that is also devoid of substantiation, says that he is "99 per cent sure" he has "been playing against the chess legend." This is based on four sets of games, none of which are given or commented on, other than to say that Short lost the first set 8-0. (The article also says Short went 6-6 in a blitz match with Kasparov in 1995. From the context of Short's actual words these were apparently casual games.) The Telegraph doesn't call the evidence circumstantial, it calls it "overwhelming." Johnny Cochran would be proud.
Short was also impressed by Mr. X replying "Siegen 1970" when the Englishman asked him if he knew Armando Acevedo. Well, I not only know of him, but I met the simpatico Mexican master in the flesh 10 years ago. But that's another story. Acevedo lost to Fischer in the 1970 Siegen Olympiad. That many a Fischer fan and anyone with a database would also know this seems to have been overlooked in this latest continuation of the rampant desire to believe Fischer is not only alive and well, but just biding his time before coming back to take his rightful crown at the age of 58. (It is not as if the person playing these games, Fischer or not, would be unaware of the intense speculation that has been ongoing in the chess community. Fischer was the only Grandmaster the Mexican faced, at least as far as his published games are concerned.) Who is qualified to ask Fischer a question that only Fischer would know? Not many people, and probably not Nigel Short. (Here's one for Bobby: Buenos Aires, 1996. What did you say Mickey Kantor was too busy doing to protect your rights? The rude comment the interpreter wouldn't translate, but you caught her and repeated it several times? But most people at that press conference would know this one...)
Personally I have no problem at all believing Fischer plays online anonymously. Despite the obvious decline in his mental health, he was still very animated by chess when I met him in 1996. I do not doubt that if he played into shape he would be a tough opponent for the top 10 today and more than a match for Armando Acevedo. But acting as though he would be an invincible demigod after 30 years of almost complete removal from competitive chess is silly. He played a few dozen games against Spassky in 1992 and the rare flashes of brilliance only glimmered brighter due to the thick layers of rust on his game. His knowledge and insight helped Peter Leko several years ago when the two would meet in Hungary, this we know. We cannot imagine a Fischer who has left chess behind.
As I said above, if you have good arguments you don't need junk. A master playing with strong computer assistance would have little trouble demolishing a top GM in blitz, we know this from experience. Even in rapid games humans make too many mistakes to compete successfully against CPU power on a consistent basis. I'm quite willing to believe that Bobby Fischer is "out there" and playing blitz online, but it will take published games, and more than just a few, to make this into anything more than a rumor.
Re:Hey, my specialty... (Score:2, Informative)
KasparovChess article about Fischer online. [kasparovchess.com]
Some serious comments (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, I have been competing in chess for most of my life, so I am a pretty decent player (not a GM or anything). Most of the comments here have clearly been by patzers. Here comes my take on the whole thing.
I played through the alleged Fisher-games against the IMs (unfortunately Short's games are nowhere to be found), I also read the full Google Groups article that someone posted.
The opening moves that "Fischer" used are not a "secret weapon" that he has been working on all these years. They are simply designed to give the opponent an advantage. They are also absurd enough to give quite the psychological advantage if your oponent does not exploit them. Psychology is important in chess. More than most players realize. If you get your ass kicked from some unknown guy who plays such an opening, you are going to be unsure of yourself and play much, much weaker than when you are on a streak. (see for example Kasparov vs Deep Blue)
A computers are notoriously good at shorter timelimits (programmers reading this ought to understand why throwing more time at an exponential problem leads to marginal increase in playing strength). This could very well be some bored IM or something, that is playing some weird moves in the opening and then uses the computer to defend super-humanly, confusing the opponent and finally winning simply because there are so much messy tactics on the board (which a computer will always like).
Fortunately there are good statistical tests, used for checking for people cheating with computers. These are based on the fact that most programs make the same moves in the same position. If Short were to show his games, they could be analyzed by the standard ICC-algorithm.
The knowledge that "Fischer" showed in the chat between the games could have been generated with fast google-searches, as has been previously stated.
However... The games against the IMs are pretty damn impressive. And 8-0 against Short?! A guy manually operating a computer would most likely be too slow to manage that. The improbable thing about this story is not that Fischer plays chess on the internet (why would he not?). The improbable thing is that he would still be that good. I know that he is an american legend, but is it humanly possible? Short gives it a 99% probability because his ego is involved, because he really wants it to be true and because he probably is not aware of how easy it is to use the internet to get information fast (such as the 1970-thing). I just don't know what to think. I think that my final verdict is that Short probably did play Fischer, but that the excitement and psychology of the strange openings made him play less well than he normally would. I cannot believe that Fischer would still be the best chess-player in the world.
How easy is to use the Internet? Try it. (Score:2, Insightful)
We are talking about 3 minutes matches.
Perhaps having a complete database with all the biographic details (all of them including games against unknown players) of Fisher would help, but still, how long does it take you to type "Acevedo Mexico" and copy a meaningful answer to the chat program while at the same time thinking how to defeat a GM that can stand his ground against Kasparov in blitz games???
Urban Legend. (Score:4, Insightful)
Note how he gives an excuse as to why he will not be able to acquire additional evidence in his original article [google.com] because Fischer will probably not play him anymore.
Several times in the article Short teases us with amazing evidence which he wishes he could share with us, but alas
I think Short is having a bit of fun with us, chess GMs can have a sense of humour you know.
Fischer Turning Test (Score:3, Interesting)
> question, "Am I playing Bobby
> Fischer?" I did ask him, however, who was the
> strongest blitz chess-player
> he had ever played. His response was, "If I am
> who you think I am, I would
> answer Mikhail Tal."
New definition of intelligence: can you convince Nigel Short you are Bobby Fischer.
Ken
The games speak for themselves... (Score:2)
I haven't played much chess in a while, but a quick viewing of some of the games posted show that Fischer (let's assume that it's him) exploits two commonly held notions of modern chess: early castling and protecting the king at all costs. It seems (to me) that he assumes that his opponent will castle and builds a pre-determined offense based on which corner his opponent will put the king, perhaps using his "useless" pawn moves watch his opponents strategy build. Common themes include disrupting the side pawns (even sacrificing a knight to do it) and putting bishops on b2 and g2 to control the long diagonals.
He also uses his king as an offensive weapon! Amazing! Instead of locking him in the left or right corner dungeon he freely moves him around the board, protecting him to some degree but using him more as a weapon than a protected piece.
One immediate side affect of the strategy is that all pieces get pushed up. In effect, Fischer builds a fortified position in his opponenet's territory, sometimes leaving a blank row or two on his own end. This not only cramps his opponent, but forces him to attack in unorthodox ways, something he is probably not used to.
Personally, I think it's either insane or brilliant, maybe both. Perhaps when his opponents get used to him moving his king in a circle to taunt them during the first five moves they'll figure out a way to beat him. Or perhaps he's opened a new era of chess strategy. Either way, I'm going to start playing again.
Interesting history... (Score:2)
interesting interviews [f2s.com]. I guess he's a chess outlaw.
Re:Rounders. (Score:5, Insightful)
From bbc :
Despite his misgivings, Short eventually arranged to play the unknown opponent, and in October last year lost the first of their four confrontations 8-0.
Now, my question is, how many people in the world can beat Short 8-0, and who can they be?
Re:Rounders. (Score:2)
Re:Rounders. (Score:2)
Re:Rounders. (Score:3, Informative)
If the opponent WON all 4 games, the score would have been 8-0.
Championship chess normally has lots of draws.
Re:Rounders. (Score:2, Informative)
That's 1 point for a win, 1/2 for a tie, 0 for a loss.
Re:denied the holocaust (Score:2)
The same thing that's wrong with letting it happen again. I'm afraid, however, it's too late for that.
Re:denied the holocaust (Score:2)