Kasparov King No More

soccerdad writes: "After 15 years as world champion, Garry Kasparov has been beaten by Vladimir Kramnik. Kasparov is generally acknowledged as the greatest chess player of all time, but he was unable to beat Kramnik in the 16-game match. Kramnik won twice as white. Kasparov needed to win the final two games to come out 8-8 (which would have retained the title). However, he agreed to a draw in the 39th move of game 15, giving the championship to Kramnik. For detailed match information, check out FT.com Match Centre."

What's next

Of course, now we must see if this Vladimir Kramnik fellow can beat Deep Blue...

I saw this story on ABC News today...

It was sad. :( I saw Kasparov getting frustrated in this one move. I heard that he was having personal problems with his life. ABC News.com [go.com] has the full story and the video (not sure if it is the same one on TV) as well.

Greatest of all time?

Let's see:

Kasparov was beaten by a computer...

then he was beaten by a human...

How would he fare against infinite monkeys?

Or better yet, if Kasparov was so good, imagine... a Beowulf cluster of him...

Or... if Kasparov linked to a commercial library, would RMS approve?

(doh)

Nintendo Joystick?!?

Representing this story with the Nintendo Joystick is just WRONG :)

deep blue

In regards to the computer comments, I don't think it's a big deal that he was beaten by a computer; it's just a matter of raw computational power, like being beaten in the 100 meter dash by a car. It's too his credit that he could give it a good run for it's money; GNUchess trounces me quite easily.
--

OK, I understand...

That chess holds interest for many people much smarter than myself, but did you guys read the link? This statement is just too funny...

this is Malcolm Pein at the London Chess Center - getting my breathe back after all the excitement - thanks for joining me today

And this -

There'll be dancing in the streets of Tuapse tonight!

Umm... Please dear god, as long as I love - never let me see a bunch of chess fans 'dancing' for any reason...

More Backround Information

In case anyone wanted more information about the backround behind this, The New York Times Online has an informative article about it here [nytimes.com] (free reg. req.). It turns out that Vladimir Kramnik, the winner of this match, was taken on as a student at the age of 11 by Mr. Kasparov at his elite chess school in Moscow. I still think that Kasparov is the best player out there right now, though. He may have lost this one championship match but being the champion for 15 years allows for a few mistakes. Still, I think that it was very impressive that Kramnik was able to defeat him, where no one else had been.

Greatest?

Perhaps, but Kasparov has some pretty good competition for that title: Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine. For his time, Paul Morphy was great and he had a very major impact on chess. Jose Capablanca was noted for his brilliant attacks. Alexander Alkehine was a long time champ noted for his defense and tactics, who surplanted Capablanca as world champion. And finally, Emanuel Lasker was a long time champ (and also a mathematican).

The title of greatest does not always go to the latest great player. IMHO, one must also keep in mind the historical perspective. I view greatest as someone that had a major impact on his/her field, and one that set a relative standard that must be met.

Kasparov not world champ

When I wrote this slashdot article [slashdot.org] I called Kasparov the "de jure" world champion and the "world's highest rated player".

Kasparov hasn't been the official FIDE [fide.com] world chess federation champion since 1993, when he broke with FIDE to play against the legitimate challenger Nigel Short. [mark-weeks.com]

Karpov regained the FIDE title in a 1993 match [mark-weeks.com] and lost it by not playing in the 1999 FIDE world championship. [about.com] This matter is currently under legal dispute. [gzdaily.com]

Kasparov did not play his legitimate challenger, Alexei Shirov, [chessbase.com] and attempted to set up a "championship" match with another leading player, Viswanathan Anand [ishipress.com] of India before hand-picking Kramnik as his challenger here.

However Kramnik is number 3 on the FIDE rating list [fide.com] and so was a worthy challenger, just not the man who deserved the match, Shirov.

It is sad...

but not unexpected. He may be the greatest chess player of all time but I don't think he could maintain that level of playing forever. People seem to become less able to perform intellectual feats as they get older. Kasparov beat Karpov when Karpov was 34. Kasparov is about 37 now. He's getting close to that age where one is no longer so sharp. Here's a good article on aging from Feed [feedmag.com].

I have a *Star Trek* 3D Chess set...

I got it for Christmas many years ago, when I was still into tournament chess. Not that I was a great tournament player--I could never break a 1600 rating, which if you know about tournament chess isn't a very good rating at all--but I enjoyed it a lot. Of course, I was about 13 at the time, and unless you're a prodigy you're not going to be great at chess that young; so that might be a good excuse to use for my poor rating. :-)

Anyway, the set I got for Christmas and still have was, I think, made by The Franklin Mint as an authorized *Star Trek* item. It was very attractive, made from clear and blue glass, with gold-plated pieces. It came with some detailed and cumbersome rules. We played it a few times, but it proved rather uninteresting compared to real chess.

See, the reality is that chess doesn't need to be "improved." It can't be "improved," and more variety would be a detriment instead of an improvement. As it stands, chess is complicated enough that you'll probably never play the same game twice in your life, even if you play in tournaments every week. I've known plenty of people with Master and International Grand Master ratings who've been playing chess their whole lives and are never bored with it. It's just not repetitious; there's practically infinite variety.

There are so many practical and useful variations just of the opening moves, that chess is incredibly interesting and never truly mastered. Tournament players usually have two or three openings that they use most of the time and study extensively, but they'll try new things whenever they feel like it or when an opponent's unusual strategies force them into something different.

Chess also has such a rich history and wonderful traditions that it could never be replaced by anything new. There have been many, many, many variations on chess created in the last century; the reason you've never heard of them is that chess players view them as a curiosity and distraction, but not as anything useful. After all, regular chess is complicated enough for people to devote their whole lives learning about it and still not master it; things like four-player chess, three-dimensional chess, etc., just distract from those studies.

One of my favorite things about chess is its history--dating back a thousand years in the Middle East for early variations, modern chess was codified in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and in the nineteenth century it became the first real international sport. Most people today don't consider it a sport, but before the modern Olymics, before baseball and basketball and football and soccer were even invented, there was a structure in place for the best international players to compete with one another.

One of my favorite bits of chess lore is of one of the greatest players of all time, a very rough-and-tumble English gentleman. In the 19th century the world chess championship was set distinctly apart from the rest of the chess world; the title holder could see fit to accept or decline any challengers to his title, as he saw fit, and if the challenge was accepted the champion could decide the time and place. Unlike the timed matches common today, championship matches in the 19th century could last for days or weeks, with the players working for ten to eighteen hours straight before breaking for the night, even having their meals at the board. It's been a long time since I heard this story, so some of the details may be lacking, but on the whole it's a fairly accurate account...So anyway, this particular Englishman decided that the championship match would be held...in his favorite pub, during the busiest time of the evening when people would be laughing and singing and getting ever more drunk around them. The challenger arrives, and takes his seat across from the vaunted champion, a man who he's been warned is very, very intimidating, with an intensely jovial Falstaffian presence. They make some small talk, and the challenger notices the empty glasses in front of the champ. The champ calls the serving girl over and orders another, and the challenger orders a drink as well. They get the board and pieces set up, and they're settling in for a long night when the serving girl brings their drinks. The champion, seizing the opportunity to further intimidate this challenger who's awed in the presence of the storied world champ, grabs both drinks from the serving girl's tray and drinks them both voraciously, slams the glasses down, and proclaims in chess-speak: "You left your drink *en pris*, so I took it *en passant*!" The challenger was so intimidated that he resigned immediately.

Now, who would want to mess with a sport so ancient, noble, and complex, as chess?

Re:the greatest human player

Bagh, Kasporav is a young whippersnapper that deserved to get beat by that computing machine.

Back in my day, everyone knew who the real chess champion was. Capablanca was he! Capablanca didn't study fancy schmancy hyper-modern openings. He just say down and beat anyone he played, for 8 full years, he didn't lose a game! Until some young mathematician whippersnapper named Reti came along and hosed him with that fancy schmancy hyper-modern hogwash.

I may be an angry old man who rambles too much, but you need to understand that real chess players use the King's gambit and occupy hte center with their pieces.

Thank you, I need to go to bed.

My confession

Last time (2 years ago)

I join yahoo.com 's games & play chess.
& then i choose somebody & play with him.

what i do is, run xboard ppl versus computer.
Then copy his step, as my step on my xboard.
Then what xboard run, i copy as my step agaisnt
people at yahoo.

I win :)
hahahahaha

p/s: I'm using dual CPU 200Mhz pentium PRO.

Khalifman is world champion

There is an established international federation that deals with the ratings, and runs the international tournatments, FIDE. The FIDE world championship is a big tournament, no mumber 1 contender stuff, anyone can play. It starts with local tournaments, then tournaments like the british championships, then on to a zonal tournament and interzonal tournaments. Eventually you are at the knockout stage and most non GMs are out already. Finally they battle there way down till one is left - he then plays the current champion. In short, the FIDE world championship is a monster of a competition and anyone who wins this is a very worthy champion.

The current FIDE world champion is Alexander Khalifman, who won in Las Vegas last year. Kasparov did not play as he has set up his own chess organisation (the name escapes me, PCA or something) a few years back whilst have huge disagreements with FIDE. Basically a lot of other top GMs followed Kasparov to this new organisation with the promise of more money, less FIDE bullshit etc.(leaving Khalifman who is a good player, but not the best in the world) as world champion.

My view is that if there is a problem with the main organisational body, fix it, dont just ignore it and form your own body to satisfy the control freak inside you. The situation is akin to Michael Jonson saying he does not like the Olympic Committee and so running the "Michael Johnson Olympics", where he chooses his opponents, and indeed chooses the number 2 contender rather than the number 1 contender to race against.

In any case, he is almost certainly the strongest player of all time, and I would not be surprised if he won "Gary Kasparov's World Championship" back next time. As for the real world champion, who knows.

Not only that but...

Vladimir Kramnik was Kasparov advisor in many previouse matches, including the one against Deep Blue, and therfore had a unique, and powerfull insite into the mind of the Champion.

It may be that Kramnik beat Kasparov, but can/could (have) Kramnik beat all of Kasparov's previouse oponents?

If Kasparov does not retire, there is a good chance that he will be champion again. Even if Kramnik is never defeated by Kasparov, others might beat him, and Kasparov might beat them.

As has been said, Kramnik had a unique advantage.

Thad

Re:game theory: Go

There are a few good reasons why Go is computationally so much harder than chess:

1) There are many more possible moves in every position. Something like 300 (vs 30 in chess).

2) A game of Go lasts much longer than a game of chess, typically around 300 moves (150 ply).

3) There is no simple way to estimate the value of a given position. It needs to be analyzed carefully. Some pieces may be an asset (alive) or a liability (dead). Sizes of loosely defined territories are hard to estimate. All this depends on the configurations the pieces can achieve.

4) There is no clearly defined winning position (checkmate). Instead you need to secure more territory than your opponent.

5) The game consists of several almost independent battles which anyway affect each other.

6) It is all a matter of balance: Greed vs security; actual territory vs potential; possibilities of future gains... All these are difficult to define so that a program understands them.

So, the huge branching factor and expensive evaluation makes the game hard for computers, while humans are strong in isolating local fights, balancing things, and keeping a strategical overview.

GnuGo is one of the stronger programs, and I can beat it with maximum handicap. I am just a middle-level club player (5 kyu). I do not expect go programs to beat me within the next 5 years, maybe 10.

Re:Greatest of all time?

I actually take issue with your first comment. Kasparov was denied a fair chance against Deep Blue the second time around.

The first time that IBM challenged him they provided him with the transcripts of DB's chess matches to date. Kasparov was able to study the patterns of the machine just like he would have been able to for a human opponent.

Kasparov was denied access to the transcripts of the new DB, because IBM realized that in doing so they were increasing their odds of victory. So the new DB had an advantage, it knew every match that Kasparov had played, and he was fighting blind.

IBM even refused to enter the machine in a tournament, as they knew that by the time it reached the finals against Kasparov he would have seen too much and it would have been a fair match.