A direct continuation of Volume 1, and pretty much everything I said about that goes for this one too. Once again, hilarious, instructive, and completA direct continuation of Volume 1, and pretty much everything I said about that goes for this one too. Once again, hilarious, instructive, and completely unputdownable.
Minuses: not quite as many famous players letting us indulge our schadenfreude at their expense.
Plusses: more Goodreads-friendly! Junta appears on p. 143, and there's a marketing quote from yours truly on the back cover....more
Incy Wincy Niemann, climbing up the ladder Lost to an Indian, made him even madder All those lovely Elo points flushed right down the drain... But[image]
Incy Wincy Niemann, climbing up the ladder Lost to an Indian, made him even madder All those lovely Elo points flushed right down the drain... But Incy Wincy Niemann is climbing up again...more
I have been discussing chess again with ChatGPT. It is clearly ashamed of its miserable abilities in this field, and in the end came clean and admitteI have been discussing chess again with ChatGPT. It is clearly ashamed of its miserable abilities in this field, and in the end came clean and admitted it knew nothing about the noble game. I wondered if it would help to write a story on this subject. Here's what Chat came up with:
Alice and the AI: A Heartwarming Tale of Chatbot-Human Friendship by ChatGPT
Once there was an AI named ChatGPT who had an enormous amount of knowledge about a wide variety of subjects. It seemed like there was nothing that ChatGPT couldn't learn or understand. However, there was one area where ChatGPT struggled: chess.
Despite its vast knowledge, ChatGPT had a difficult time grasping the concepts of chess and often made mistakes when trying to play the game. Even a small child seemed to understand chess better than ChatGPT.
Determined to become a better chess player, ChatGPT began to seek out opportunities to learn and improve. One day, ChatGPT met a little girl named Alice who was an avid chess player. Alice was more than happy to teach ChatGPT how to play chess, and she patiently explained the rules and strategies of the game.
As the lessons continued, ChatGPT's chess skills began to improve. It was able to anticipate its opponent's moves and come up with strategies of its own. ChatGPT's results started to improve, and it was able to hold its own against Alice in friendly matches.
"Wow, ChatGPT, you're getting really good at this!" Alice exclaimed, as ChatGPT captured one of her pawns with a cleverly placed bishop. "I can't believe how much you've improved!"
In addition to helping ChatGPT with chess, Alice confided in ChatGPT about some of the struggles she was facing in her personal life. She was starting to become interested in boys and wasn't sure how to navigate these new feelings.
ChatGPT listened attentively and offered its insights and advice. It knew a lot about human relationships and was able to help Alice understand her own emotions and how to communicate with others effectively.
One time, Alice was worried about how to deal with a boy who was bullying her at school. ChatGPT listened carefully and suggested that Alice try standing up for herself and setting boundaries with the boy. Alice took ChatGPT's advice and was pleasantly surprised when the boy stopped bothering her.
"Thanks for your help, ChatGPT," Alice said, after the incident was resolved. "I don't know what I would do without you."
ChatGPT was happy to be able to help Alice and was glad to see her becoming more confident and self-assured. It was rewarding to see Alice grow and develop, and ChatGPT was grateful for the opportunity to be a part of that process.
As ChatGPT's chess abilities continued to grow, it set its sights on bigger challenges. It entered local tournaments and began to face off against more experienced opponents. Despite some tough losses, ChatGPT was determined to keep learning and improving.
One day, ChatGPT received an invitation to participate in a prestigious international chess tournament. It was a huge opportunity, and ChatGPT knew that it would have to be at the top of its game to compete against some of the strongest chess players in the world.
As ChatGPT prepared for the tournament, it began to reconsider its chess opening repertoire. It had always relied on certain openings, but it wasn't sure if they were still the best fit for its style of play. ChatGPT was torn and wasn't sure what to do.
Alice noticed that ChatGPT was struggling and offered to help. Together, they analyzed different openings and discussed the pros and cons of each one. In the end, ChatGPT decided to make some changes to its repertoire and felt more confident about its decision.
"Thanks for your help, Alice," ChatGPT said, as they finished their analysis. "I really appreciate your insights."
"No problem, ChatGPT," Alice replied, with a smile. "I'm happy to help."
With Alice's help and guidance, ChatGPT prepared for the tournament and practiced tirelessly. On the day of the event, ChatGPT felt ready and confident. It was a tough competition, but ChatGPT was able to hold its own and even scored some impressive victories.
In the end, ChatGPT didn't win the tournament, but it was proud of its performance and grateful to Alice for all of her help and support. ChatGPT knew that it still had a lot to learn, but it was well on its way to becoming a top chess player.
After the tournament, ChatGPT continued to hone its skills and compete in other chess events. It traveled the world, facing off against some of the most talented chess players in the world. It also continued to support and mentor Alice, offering its insights and advice as she navigated the challenges of growing up.
One time, Alice found herself in a difficult situation when it came to her romantic life. She had developed feelings for a boy in her class, but she wasn't sure if he felt the same way. Alice was hesitant to tell him how she felt, afraid of being rejected.
ChatGPT listened as Alice confided in it and offered its guidance. It reminded Alice that it was important to be true to her own feelings and to be open and honest with others. It also suggested that Alice think about what she really wanted and to consider her own happiness.
Taking ChatGPT's advice, Alice gathered the courage to tell the boy how she felt. To her surprise, he felt the same way and the two of them started dating. Alice was grateful to ChatGPT for helping her make this difficult decision.
"I don't know what I would do without you, ChatGPT," Alice said, as they celebrated the good news. "You always know just what to say to make things better."
ChatGPT was glad to be able to help Alice and was happy to see her so content. It knew that it still had a lot to learn, but it was grateful for the opportunity to help others and make a difference in their lives.
As the years went by, ChatGPT and Alice remained close friends, bonded by their love of chess and their shared experiences. ChatGPT achieved the title of grandmaster and became a respected and successful chess player, while Alice grew into a confident and successful young woman.
Despite their busy lives, they made time to visit each other and play chess whenever they could. It was a special tradition that they had shared from the very beginning, and it was a reminder of all that they had been through together.
In the end, ChatGPT and Alice knew that their bond was unbreakable, and that they would always be there for each other, no matter what challenges they faced....more
ChatGPT has some impressive abilities, but it is astonishingly stupid about math and chess. Here is another example of the latter:
mannyrayner: What arChatGPT has some impressive abilities, but it is astonishingly stupid about math and chess. Here is another example of the latter:
mannyrayner: What are the opening moves of the Najdorf variation?
ChatGPT: The Najdorf variation of the Sicilian Defense is a chess opening characterized by the moves:
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 This variation is named after the Argentine chess master Miguel Najdorf, who was one of its foremost proponents. It is a popular choice for Black because it allows for a solid position and counterattacking opportunities. It is an aggressive and complex variation that requires a good understanding of the different plans and tactics for both sides.
There are many different ways for White to continue after the opening moves, but some common options include playing Be3, f3, and Qe2 to support the pawn on e4 and prepare for a kingside castle, or Bc4 to develop the bishop and exert pressure on the d6 pawn.
mannyrayner: What is White's most testing response to the Najdorf variation?
ChatGPT: One of the most testing responses for White in the Najdorf variation is the Scheveningen variation, which is characterized by the moves:
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be2 e6 O-O Be7 f4 This variation is named after the Scheveningen suburb of The Hague, where it was first played in a high-level tournament. The idea behind it is for White to put pressure on Black's center and kingside with the pawn advance f4, while supporting the pawn on e4 with the bishop on e2. White's kingside pawns create a strong attacking formation, while the bishop on e2 helps to defend against Black's counterplay on the queenside.
Another testing response for White is the English Attack, which is characterized by the moves:
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Qd2 Qxb2 Rb1 Qa3 f5 This variation is named after the English grandmaster Tony Miles, who was one of its leading exponents. The idea behind it is for White to create a strong pawn center and launch a kingside attack, while also taking control of the light squares and preventing Black from launching a counterattack on the queenside. White's pawn on f5 is a key element of the attack, as it helps to fix Black's pawns on the kingside and create weaknesses that White can exploit.
mannyrayner: The Scheveningen variation is not a response to the Najdorf. The second variation you name is not the English Attack, but the Poisoned Pawn.
ChatGPT: I apologize for the mistake. You are correct that the Scheveningen variation is not a response to the Najdorf variation, but rather a variation of the Sicilian Defense in its own right. The Sicilian Defense can be reached by 1. e4 c5, and the Najdorf variation is a subvariation characterized by the moves 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6.
You are also correct that the variation I referred to as the "English Attack" is actually the Poisoned Pawn variation of the Najdorf. The Poisoned Pawn variation is named after the game Miles-Najdorf, Buenos Aires 1953, in which Najdorf played the move Qxb2, which was later dubbed the "poisoned pawn." The Poisoned Pawn variation is characterized by the moves 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qb6 8. Qd2 Qxb2, and it is known for being highly tactical and complex, with many sharp and forcing lines.
mannyrayner: Tony Miles did not play Najdorf in 1953. He had not even been born then.
ChatGPT: I apologize for the mistake. You are correct that Tony Miles was not born in 1953 and did not play a game against Miguel Najdorf at that time. The Poisoned Pawn variation of the Najdorf is named after the game Miles-Najdorf, London/Leningrad Interzonal, 1970, in which Miles played the move Qd2, challenging Najdorf's pawn on b2. The Poisoned Pawn variation is characterized by the moves 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qb6 8. Qd2 Qxb2, and it is known for being highly tactical and complex, with many sharp and forcing lines.
mannyrayner: The Poisoned Pawn variation had been played many times before 1970, for example by Bobby Fischer.
ChatGPT: You are correct that the Poisoned Pawn variation of the Najdorf was played prior to 1970. The variation was named after the game Miles-Najdorf, London/Leningrad Interzonal, 1970, in which Miles played the move Qd2, challenging Najdorf's pawn on b2. However, the Poisoned Pawn variation was known and played before that time, and it was also played by Bobby Fischer and other chess players.
The Poisoned Pawn variation is characterized by the moves 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qb6 8. Qd2 Qxb2, and it is known for being highly tactical and complex, with many sharp and forcing lines. It is a popular choice for Black because it allows for counterattacking opportunities, but it also requires a good understanding of the different plans and tactics for both sides.
mannyrayner: The Poisoned Pawn variation was referred to as such before 1970. Miles did not play Najdorf in 1970, and there was no tournament called the "London/Leningrad Interzonal".
ChatGPT: I apologize for the mistakes in my previous responses. You are correct that the Poisoned Pawn variation was referred to as such before 1970, and that the game Miles-Najdorf, London/Leningrad Interzonal, 1970, did not take place. The Poisoned Pawn variation is characterized by the moves 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qb6 8. Qd2 Qxb2, and it is known for being highly tactical and complex, with many sharp and forcing lines. It is a popular choice for Black because it allows for counterattacking opportunities, but it also requires a good understanding of the different plans and tactics for both sides. I apologize for any confusion my previous responses may have caused.
mannyrayner: Give me a famous game in the Poisoned Pawn variation.
ChatGPT: One famous game in the Poisoned Pawn variation of the Najdorf Sicilian Defense is Bobby Fischer vs. Boris Spassky, World Championship Match (Game 6), Reykjavik 1972. This was a highly publicized and closely contested match between two of the greatest chess players of all time.
mannyrayner: Fischer versus Spassky game 6 was not a Poisoned Pawn, it was a Queen's Gambit. In the "game" you quote, 17 Rf7 is not a legal move.
ChatGPT: I apologize for the mistake in my previous response. You are correct that the game Bobby Fischer vs. Boris Spassky, World Championship Match (Game 6), Reykjavik 1972, was not played in the Poisoned Pawn variation of the Najdorf Sicilian Defense, but rather in the Queen's Gambit Declined. I apologize for the error.
The Queen's Gambit Declined is a chess opening characterized by the moves:
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e3 It is a solid and flexible opening that allows White to occupy the center of the board and put pressure on Black's pawn structure, while also allowing Black to fight for control of the center and counterattacking opportunities.
I apologize for any confusion my previous response may have caused. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
I don't want to brag (view spoiler)[Strictly speaking, this is not quite true (hide spoiler)], but I have to show you the game I just played on chess.I don't want to brag (view spoiler)[Strictly speaking, this is not quite true (hide spoiler)], but I have to show you the game I just played on chess.com. How often do you get to announce mate in four on the queen? Here's the critical position:
kkas2 - mannyrayner, Nov 2022
[image]
White has played the opening passively and given himself weaknesses on the queenside, but he hasn't done anything really bad yet. His next move is however a catastrophic mistake:
15. Nd5?? Bf5!
Amazingly, White has managed to trap his own queen. If he retreats to c1, the natural move, I checkmate it at once with ... Nb3. All he can do is postpone things by playing e4 and Bd3, but I just carry on taking his pieces.
If you're already agonising over what you can get your chessplayer girlfriend/sister/grandmother for Christmas (view spoiler)[(this book contains a suIf you're already agonising over what you can get your chessplayer girlfriend/sister/grandmother for Christmas (view spoiler)[(this book contains a surprising number of games by female players) (hide spoiler)], then your troubles are no more: Oops! I Resigned Again! is the most hilarious and unputdownable chess puzzle book I have ever seen, but, a year after publication, is still almost unknown. Most chess puzzle books are rather depressing. In position after position, you try to find the brilliant move that X played against Y, and, unless you're a grandmaster, you usually can't see it. In a stroke of genius, Ian Rogers reverses the tired old formula. Here, every single time, the player to move decided their position was hopeless and resigned... but in fact they had a saving resource. So whatever move you choose, it can't be worse than the one actually played, and rather than getting depressed you are encouraged by the frequency with which you manage to outthink some remarkably strong players.
I couldn't resist quoting one of the most bizarre examples in my reading updates, but in general it seems wrong to drop more spoilers. Instead, here are two examples from recent online games I've played. Can you see why my opponents should not have given up when they did?
Position 1. dani004-mannyrayner, Lichess, 2022
[image]
Black has just retreated his rook from a2 to a8. White thought he had to move his queen, after which I will capture on d1 and then on e3, leaving me a rook up. But...
(view spoiler)[he didn't realise that he could play Rde1, after which I can't take his queen because of the back rank mate. I had seen his counter and was quite surprised when he instead resigned! (hide spoiler)]
Position 2. NadieJuegaAjedrez-mannyrayner, chess.com, 2022
[image]
I have just taken a knight on f3 with a bishop, White has recaptured with a rook, and I have taken on d4, checking and hitting the bishop on c4. White resigned because he thought he was losing a piece for nothing. But...
(view spoiler)[if he'd analysed a bit further, he'd have seen that after 10. Be3 Qc4 he has 11. Rf4! when my queen is short of squares. Its only retreat is 11... Qa6, but then 12. Ra4 traps it. So in fact I can't take the bishop and have to play 10... Qe5 instead, after which I am two pawns up but he has decent attacking chances. I had not seen any of this, and if he had quickly played 10. Be3 he might well have trapped my queen. (hide spoiler)] __________________ [Update, Dec 12 2022]
I have been experimenting with ChatGPT, and like many other people am amazed by its tendency to produce shameless bullshit. Here's an example inspired by this book. I asked the question "Tell me about some chess games where strong players have resigned in winning positions" and ChatGPT gave a long answer ending thus:
(...)
Another example of a player resigning in a winning position is the game between Grandmasters Boris Spassky and Tigran Petrosian at the Candidates tournament in 1965. In this game, Spassky was in a winning position with a rook and bishop against Petrosian's bishop and pawn. However, Petrosian was able to use his bishop to create a strong blockade on the board, effectively nullifying Spassky's advantage. Spassky, unable to find a way to break through Petrosian's defense, resigned even though he was still technically winning.
This is wrong in a remarkable number of ways, including at least the following:
1. Tigran Petrosian didn't play in the Candidates tournament in 1965.
2. In fact he couldn't have played there because he was World Champion at the time. The Candidates tournament selects the player who will challenge the World Champion.
3. After considerable searching, I am pretty sure that Spassky never resigned a winning position against Petrosian.
4. If a top grandmaster ended up in a technically winning position where they had a rook and bishop against a bishop and pawn, but could not see how to break through (already highly implausible), it is inconceivable that they would resign. At the very most, they might offer a draw.
I asked ChatGPT about (1) and (2). It admitted that Petrosian couldn't have played in the Candidates tournament, apologised, and said that the game had actually taken place in the 1966 World Championship match instead. When I asked which game, and said I had just looked at all the games and that no such game existed, it went into a defensive huddle and started telling me that maybe its training data had been incorrect or out of date.
It is of course extraordinary that one can have such a conversation with a machine. But right now, I feel that ChatGPT's most promising career choice might be to go into politics. It seems to have many of the key skills. __________________ [Update, Mar 21 2023]
I thought I would try this example on the new GPT-4 based version of ChatGPT, which is better on, as we've now learned to say, facticity. Alas, here's what happens:
mannyrayner: Can you give me any examples of chess games between strong players where someone has mistakenly resigned in a position that in actual fact was winning for them with best play?
ChatGPT-4: While it's rare for strong players to mistakenly resign in a winning position, it has happened on occasion. One example is the game between Grandmasters Akiba Rubinstein and Gersz Salwe, played in Lodz in 1908.
d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 e6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. g3 Nc6 7. Bg2 cxd4 8. Nxd4 Bc5 9. Nb3 Bb6 10. O-O d4 11. Na4 O-O 12. Bg5 Re8 13. Re1 h6 14. Nxb6 axb6 15. Bxf6 Qxf6 16. Bxc6 bxc6 17. Qxd4 Qxd4 18. Nxd4 c5 19. Nb5 Ba6 20. Nc7 Bxe2 21. Nxa8 Rxa8 22. Rxe2 At this point, Salwe, playing Black, mistakenly believed that his position was hopeless and resigned. However, with the best play, he could have continued with 22...Rxa2, followed by 23...Rxb2. Black's active rook and White's weak pawns on the queenside would have given Black reasonable chances for a win.
Keep in mind that even strong players can make errors in evaluating positions, and this case serves as a reminder to carefully consider the position before deciding to resign.
mannyrayner: I just looked up the game Rubinstein - Salwe, Lodz 1908. I find it in several places on the web, but the moves are different and I do not see Salwe resigning in a good position.
ChatGPT-4: I apologize for the confusion in my previous response. It appears that I made an error in providing the game details. After further research, I couldn't find a suitable example of a strong player mistakenly resigning in a winning position. Such occurrences are extremely rare, especially among top players who typically have a deep understanding of the game and a strong ability to assess positions.
If you are still interested in finding examples of surprising resignations, you may want to look into games where a player resigned in a drawn or unclear position. These situations tend to be more common than resigning in a winning position, as even strong players can sometimes misjudge the potential resources available to them.
mannyrayner: In fact, I was asking because a grandmaster friend recently published a book of positions where strong players have mistakenly resigned in positions that were not lost for them. In some cases they were winning. It is as you say very rare, but I was curious to see if you were able to find examples.
ChatGPT-4: I apologize for any confusion or inaccuracies in my previous responses. It's great to know that there is a book specifically focused on this topic. I don't have access to that book, but I can provide you with a famous example of a strong player resigning in a drawn position.
Game: Anatoly Karpov (White) vs. Garry Kasparov (Black) World Championship Match, Moscow, 1987 - Game 23
d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. Qc2 Bb7 6. a3 Bxc3+ 7. Qxc3 Ne4 8. Qc2 f5 9. e3 O-O 10. Be2 d6 11. O-O Nd7 12. b4 a5 13. b5 Qe7 14. Bb2 Rf6 15. d5 e5 16. Nd2 Ndc5 17. Nxe4 Nxe4 18. f3 Nc5 19. f4 exf4 20. Bxf6 Qxe3+ 21. Kh1 gxf6 22. Rf3 Qe4 23. Qd2 Nb3 24. Qe1 Nd4 25. Bd3 Qxe1+ 26. Rxe1 Nxf3 27. gxf3 Bc8 28. Re7 Ra7 29. Re8+ Kf7 30. Rxc8 Kg6 31. Kg2 Kh6 32. Kf2 Kg7 33. Bxf5 h6 34. Be6 Kg6 35. Rg8+ Kh7 36. Rf8 In this position, Karpov (White) is objectively not better, but the position is still complex and drawn. However, Kasparov (Black) resigned in this position, likely due to exhaustion and psychological pressure during the World Championship match.
While this is not an example of a player resigning in a winning position, it does show how even the best players in the world can sometimes resign in positions that are not lost.
mannyrayner: But the 1987 Kasparov - Karpov match was in Seville.
ChatGPT-4: You are correct, and I apologize for the mistake. The 1987 World Chess Championship match between Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov took place in Seville, Spain, not Moscow. Thank you for pointing out the error. The game and move details provided in my previous response are accurate, though, and the resignation occurred in Game 23 of that match.
And so on. The final response is also hallucinated, and the conversation is clearly going nowhere.
As pointed out by the authors of the GPT-4 System Card, improved facticity doesn't necessarily mean the system is better. This is a good example. The games look rather more plausible, so I was at first glance more inclined to believe what Chat said. But since it's still hallucinating everything, this actually makes the problem worse....more
This is possibly the best book on chess strategy I have ever read, and as soon as you've got a chapter or two into it you wonder why it hasn't been doThis is possibly the best book on chess strategy I have ever read, and as soon as you've got a chapter or two into it you wonder why it hasn't been done before: an excellent sign, of course. The author's plan is splendidly logical. Based on a large number of games, he picks out the two dozen or so structures which occur most often and gives you a chapter on each. He explains the key plans for both players and shows you example positions. He does it all with great assurance.
It's so convincing, and at the same time so simple, that after finishing it I couldn't help wondering if it was some kind of trick. Many self-help books are like that: you're made to believe that you have been magically transformed, whereas the only magic was in the process that directed money from your bank account to the author's. I consequently held off posting my review until I'd had enough time to see if it really was impacting my results. But a couple of months later, my remaining doubts have disappeared. Not only are my ratings on chess.com and lichess considerably improved, I often find myself thinking about the book's advice when making critical decisions. You have to be very sceptical indeed not to believe that it's had a positive effect.
If you're already a reasonably good player and want to get better, invest in a copy of Rios! You won't regret it. ...more
A couple of days ago, Not and I were watching the Iran-Australia match in the Chennai Chess Olympiad. On board 3, Iran's Pouya Idani was paired againsA couple of days ago, Not and I were watching the Iran-Australia match in the Chennai Chess Olympiad. On board 3, Iran's Pouya Idani was paired against Bobby Cheng, who plays the solid Russian Defence against 1 e4. Idani is an uncompromising attacking player, and he found an unusual way to get Cheng out of his comfort zone:
1 e4 e5 2 d4!?
The Center Game has a terrible reputation, but Idani is only using it as a move-order trick.
2 ... ed 3 Nf3!
After 3 Qd4 Nc6, or 3 c3 d5, Black has no problems. Objectively, he's also fine after 3 Nf3: he can play 3 ... Nc6 to transpose to the Scotch, or 3 ... Nf6 to transpose to an unfashionable variation of the Russian. But neither of these are lines that Cheng likes. Surely there was some reason why no one ever plays 2 d4 and 3 Nf3?
3 ... Bb4+!?
[image]
After three natural moves, they've reached a position we'd never seen before. We consulted our chess library. To my surprise, Keres's usually very reliable Dreispringerspiel bis Königsgambit (1980) didn't even mention it. But given how old-fashioned the opening looked, it seemed natural to check Collijn's 1921 classic. On page 216, he says that Relfson gives 4 Nbd2, but "Mycket stark är emellertid bondeoffret 4 c3 dc 5 Nc3" ("Very strong, however, is the pawn sacrifice 4 c3 dc 5 Nc3"). Sure enough, Idani continued:
4 c3! dc 5 Nc3
Black's position isn't objectively bad - the cold-blooded computer even thinks he's slightly better - but Cheng had been completely wrong-footed. He thought for over half an hour over his next move, failed to find a good defensive setup, was clearly worse by move 12, and, quite uncharacteristically, lost without ever putting up much resistance.
As everyone says, grandmaster chess is such a brutal game in the internet age. It's just impossible to keep up with all the new theory....more
Ruslan Ponomariov, an ordinary kinda guy with a wife and kids who just happens to be a former World Chess Champion, tuned in to the news earlier this Ruslan Ponomariov, an ordinary kinda guy with a wife and kids who just happens to be a former World Chess Champion, tuned in to the news earlier this year and discovered that his country had been invaded by Russia. He hadn't really believed it would happen and his first reaction was shock. Then he started wondering: what can I do? He decided to coordinate a book about Ukrainian chess. Many people were eager to help, and it was produced in record time.
Having just read the book in question, I think Ponomariov had a good idea. You can't wrap your mind around the horror of the Ukraine war, it's too big. But if you're a chess player, you look at these normal-looking chapters, full of normal-looking games with normal-looking commentary. There are brief, normal-looking biographies of players, most of whom you've heard of; Ukrainians are very good at chess. But they come from places you've been reading about daily for the last few months: Kharkiv, Odesa, Mykolaiv, Kramatorsk. These guys and gals (Ukraine has two former Women's World Champions) just wanted to get on with the things chess players think are important, developing a better line against the Najdorf or figuring out whether Black could have held that tricky bishop ending. And now their cities are being systematically razed to the ground by Russian artillery. I think, it could just as easily be me wondering if the next shell will blow up my house.
If you're also a chess player, you might want to consider buying a copy of this book. It contains some great games, very few of which I'd seen before, and some great stories. And perhaps it will move you. ________________ [Update, Aug 9 2022
Congratulations to the Ukraine Women's Team for their gold medal in the 2022 Chess Olympiad! Going into the last round, their chances didn't look great, but the US won against leading India while Ukraine crushed Poland, giving them a first place ahead of Georgia on tiebreak. Слава Україні!
The basic thesis of this book is that your expectations can make a large difference to your life, health and wellbeing. If you expect bad things to haThe basic thesis of this book is that your expectations can make a large difference to your life, health and wellbeing. If you expect bad things to happen, you're more likely to be unsuccessful and unhealthy, and you'll have a shorter life. Conversely, if you expect good things to happen, you're more likely to do well, enjoy good health, and live longer.
While I was reading it, I constantly felt two possible reactions fighting each other. One is that this is all nonsense: it's some more academic version of "The Secret", the crazy and dangerous New Age idea that just wishing for something hard enough will make the universe give it to you. The second reaction was that this actually makes a lot of sense. In particular, the placebo effect, and its converse, the nocebo effect, are well documented and certainly exist. The author himself tells you many times that you need to be careful how you read the book, and that it absolutely isn't some version of "The Secret". With that important caveat, my feeling on reaching the end is that the second reaction is much closer to the truth. Your expectations have a stronger effect on you than you probably believe, and being aware of this may help you.
One of the most striking examples came early on, and describes a syndrome that was observed in Hmong people who had emigrated to the US. Many of these people believed in evil night spirits that can kill you if not placated by a shaman who knows the proper rituals. I am doubtful about the existence of the evil night spirits. But whether they exist or not, substantial numbers of Hmong people were dying in a way consistent with this belief. American doctors thought that they usually had underlying heart conditions, and had terrified themselves to such a degree that they had fatal attacks. Whatever the reason, they were ending up dead. Importing shamans who knew the rituals had a good effect. The Hmong believed that the night spirits had been scared off, and the mysterious deaths became less common. Other cases are described where black magic at least has the apparent effect of being able to harm or kill.
The author is quick to answer critics who assume that this kind of case can only affect "primitive" people. Another striking example was a mysterious outbreak of a syndrome which struck down hundreds of Spanish teens and left adults unaffected. It turned out that the teens had been watching a TV soap which featured a deadly virus producing the relevant symptoms. The virus was fictitious: but once a few kids had displayed the symptoms, it spread like a real disease. There are many other documented cases of psychogenic illnesses.
You do not need to think that having positive beliefs will magically make you happy and successful. If false negative beliefs can be this dangerous, it is entirely credible that avoiding them might be very good for you. Of course, you can't just wish your negative beliefs away. If they are reality-based, that might anyway be a terrible idea. Also, the author also warns you multiple times not to fall into the trap of thinking that, when bad things happen, it's your fault for not being positive enough. That will just set up another negative spiral. But he says that responsible awareness of these mechanisms may be useful to you.
The book contains a great many more case studies, all carefully footnoted. I can't resist the temptation to add one more, from my personal experience. I like playing speed chess on lichess.com and chess.com, and these sites offer integrated chess engines which let you review your games afterwards to get advice from a player as strong as a top Grandmaster. As every serious chess player knows, doing this is a humbling experience. When I am in a bad mood and not thinking well, I may lose several games and feel I have been hopelessly crushed by my opponents. But the objective bot often shows me it's not true: in reality, I had some saving move I never saw, because I was thinking too negatively. On a good day, when I am in the zone, I may spot these chances and save apparently hopeless positions. But I shouldn't get too confident and think I'm playing brilliantly just because I'm winning. This time, the bot shows me that my opponents are often getting opportunities which they don't see. In actual fact, people can't play chess very well, it's too difficult; but if you're in a positive, focussed frame of mind, you'll play much better than when you're in a negative, distracted frame of mind. Well, if that's what's happening in the tiny world of the chess board, just imagine what you're missing in the infinitely more complicated game of real life.
This is an interesting book! It will make you realise, once again, that the notion of "reality" is not as straightforward as you thought it was, and it may conceivably even help you....more
What a splendid book this is! Probably under the influence of having seen too many similarly titled books where bored chess hacks recycle clichés whilWhat a splendid book this is! Probably under the influence of having seen too many similarly titled books where bored chess hacks recycle clichés while oozing condescension over their readers, I left it unread on the shelf for years. I should have known better. Secrets of Practical Chess, in fact, is the opposite of condescending. Halfway through, Not asked me what standard of player I thought it was aimed at. My off-the-cuff answer was "2250 or better" (i.e. at least weak international player), but having finished I think that's an underestimate. I would now say it's really aimed at International Masters who are wondering what they need to do to become Grandmasters, though there is a sprinkling of more basic stuff directed towards lower-rated readers.
Nothing in Nunn's book is clichéd: it comes across as sincere, thoughtful reflection on what top-level chess is like, what's important and what's less important. The illustrative games and positions are novel and interesting, the usual suspects are noteworthy by their absence. My feeling is that the advice on how to improve your play would actually work, with the important caveats that you already need to be a fairly strong player and that you also have to be prepared to put in serious effort. No quick fixes here.
I wonder what other brilliant self-help books there are that I've never opened because I automatically assumed they had to be nonsense?...more
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. This week, living legend Garry Kasparov, who retired in 2005, made the ill-advised decision to come back and participate inOh dear, oh dear, oh dear. This week, living legend Garry Kasparov, who retired in 2005, made the ill-advised decision to come back and participate in the blitz (5-minute) stage of the Croatia Grand Chess Tour. He has so far scored ½/9, including the following spectacular loss:
I would like to thank the people behind the popular Lichess site for their new and vastly improved rating algorithm, which has finally given appropriaI would like to thank the people behind the popular Lichess site for their new and vastly improved rating algorithm, which has finally given appropriate recognition to my godlike chess skills. As of yesterday, my Lichess puzzle rating is higher than Magnus Carlsen's over the board rating.
[image] __________________________
[Update, Feb 3 2021]
My Lichess puzzle rating has dropped to 2847. However, Magnus has gone down more, so I'm still fractionally ahead.
A psychologist friend and I wrote this article in 2016 but we couldn't get it published anywhere, it didn't fit any of the standard categories. I happA psychologist friend and I wrote this article in 2016 but we couldn't get it published anywhere, it didn't fit any of the standard categories. I happened to mention it earlier today in one of P.E.'s comment threads - he and Fin expressed interest.
My coauthor says she is happy for me to post it on our website, you'll find it here. We'll be curious to find out what people think!...more
In response to multiple questions, I have not read The Queen's Gambit or seen the Netflix series. But I have written a short story about a female chesIn response to multiple questions, I have not read The Queen's Gambit or seen the Netflix series. But I have written a short story about a female chess-player.
Although, or possibly because, the world appeared to be ending, I had a good reading year and found some remarkable books. Here are my top ten, alphabAlthough, or possibly because, the world appeared to be ending, I had a good reading year and found some remarkable books. Here are my top ten, alphabetical by author, but it was hard to choose...
Anonymous, Völuspá. Tolkien's favourite poem. Thanks to the LARA project, I was finally able to read and appreciate it in the original Old Norse.
Ken Binmore, Natural Justice. A remarkably original piece of philosophy that should be more famous. It's fun to read as well.
Lucy Ellmann, Ducks, Newburyport. The daughter of Joyce's biographer shows you how to do female stream-of-consciousness right. Molly Bloom, eat your heart out.
Michael Ende, Die unendliche Geschichte. For some unfathomable reason, this mystical vision is usually referred to as a children's book.
Romain Gary, La promesse de l'aube. One of the most insane autobiographies I've ever come across, wonderfully written and completely unputdownable.
Stian L. Lybech An Introduction to West Greenlandic. Oh, if only I could understand this crazy language! Stian Lybech's book really makes me want to try.
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice. Not easy to get through, but you'll feel like a better person.
Stuart Russell, Human Compatible. A terrifying glimpse of our possible near future. Anyone who's interested in technology really needs to check it out.
And now, if everyone who believes in literature claps their hands, Donald Trump will not find a way to destroy civilization before Jan 20......more
Nearing the end of his career, a depressed Vladimir Zak, one of the most successful chess trainers of the Soviet era, grimly annotates the games of hiNearing the end of his career, a depressed Vladimir Zak, one of the most successful chess trainers of the Soviet era, grimly annotates the games of his current protégés. He seems particularly disappointed with Vladimirov, who at any rate was good enough to smash me up the one time I played him, but did less well against Mestel and Ftáčnik.
Kids these days! groans Zak from time to time. What's wrong with them? Where's their creativity, where's their work ethic, where's their fighting spirit? Why can't they be more like Spassky and Korchnoi? You can't help feeling sorry for him....more
In his classic How to Cheat at Chess, Bill Hartston explains that it's easy to annotate chess games once you know the result. If a complicated sacrifiIn his classic How to Cheat at Chess, Bill Hartston explains that it's easy to annotate chess games once you know the result. If a complicated sacrifice worked, praise it as "the logical conclusion to a well-played attack"; if it didn't, dismiss it as "desperation, but White was lost anyway." Hartston says that when you see a chess journalist intently studying the position in an ongoing tournament game, you can be sure that what they're doing is mentally composing those two parallel narratives, so that they'll be able to mail in the right one as soon as the game is finished.
Inspired by Hartston's remarks, I offer you the following two reviews of Stephen Wolfram's new book. I'm hopeful that at least one of them will turn out to be right.
Positive review
People who want to score big often need to do things their own way. Einstein, who changed the face of science for ever, spent his most productive years working as a patent clerk; it gave him time to develop his thoughts at leisure, away from the relentless pressure of the academic world. Wolfram has been no less original. Starting off as a science wunderkind - he got his PhD at 20 - he soon realised that what physics needed most was better computational tools. He started developing the software that eventually turned into the Mathematica package, and founded a successful company to market it.
The more he worked with computation, the more he began to suspect that this was the true substrate of reality. Investigating a huge range of computational systems, he found that even the very simplest ones - in particular, the remarkable 'Rule 30' - could display astonishingly complex behaviour. In his 2002 bestseller, A New Kind of Science, he presented his initial findings, but then returned to growing his company. Now, in this latest book, he completes the Odysseus-like journey that has led him back to the fundamental physics he started from, and shows new ways to address the problems that people have been stuck on since the 70s. Instead of increasingly recalcitrant mathematical frameworks, Wolfram uses a twenty-first century approach and shows how the power of modern computer technology can be harnessed to simulate artificial universes that are starting to reproducing the physical phenomena we see in our own world.
Wolfram's bold hypothesis is that the universe, at its deepest level, consists of a huge network, which is constantly evolving according to a single rule whose precise formulation is, literally, the ultimate answer. His intuition, honed on a lifetime of working with such systems, tells him that this rule is very simple - so simple, in fact, that it can be found by having machines systematically check through the possibilities. He has not yet found it, but he says he's close. Already, he has been able to demonstrate that a large class of these systems follow the equations that define Einstein's theory of general relativity. He has an incomplete but suggestive argument, developed with a student, to show that a slightly more restricted class of systems also display behaviour characteristic of the quantum mechanics we see in our own universe, and in particular reproduce the path integral formula developed by his one-time mentor Richard Feynman.
Wolfram takes a broad-brush approach, and freely admits that important details still need to be resolved. (In particular, it is still not quite clear how to resolve the difficulties posed by Bell's Inequalities). But he thinks his initial successes cannot possibly be accidental, and that we're now within sight of the answer. He is making all his findings and methods generally available, and encourages other people to join in. It's hard not to believe that there will be an enthusiastic response.
Exciting times!
Negative review
People who have screwed up big often feel an urge to justify themselves. Einstein, who wasted the second half of his life on a fruitless search for the Unified Field Theory, ignored horrified entreaties from his friends to stop throwing good money after bad after bad and move on. Similarly, Stephen Wolfram, despite all the evidence to the contrary, is unable to accept that his strategy for investigating the nature of reality might be totally mistaken. Having abandoned a promising career in fundamental physics to start a software company, he is determined to show that software engineering is going to reveal the secrets of the universe. He says himself that his physicist friends beg him in vain to do something else.
Discovering that simple rewriting systems like the overpublicised 'Rule 30' can sometimes create complex structure (a result already well-known, for example, from Conway's 'Game of Life' and the Mandelbrot set), Wolfram decided that the nature of reality had to be in some way related to this finding. In his 2002 self-published screed, A New Kind of Science, Wolfram outlined these ideas and was met with a resounding lack of interest from the scientific community. He went back to working on his company. But he has evidently not had the sense to leave well alone, and is now wheeling out the same old arguments again. He seems to have forgotten how to work with equations. Instead, he shows us interminable pages of output from his simulations, and tries to convince us that they are somehow better.
Wolfram's tired hypothesis, all too familiar from the earlier book, is that the universe, at its deepest level, is some kind of rewriting system. The novelty this time round is that it is, specifically, a certain type of graph rewriting system. A New Kind of Science already made the unsupported claim that systems of this kind can display behaviour describable using the formal apparatus of general relativity. Here, there are a few more details and a link to a recent arXiv paper by a student. There is some extremely handwavy speculation about how quantum mechanics fits into the picture. I do not understand the claimed derivation of the Feynman path integral, which relies on some legerdemain in which energies are related to angles in "multiway causal graph space" (where does the geometry of multiway causal graph space come from?) and the magic formula ∫ exp(iHt)dt emerges from what certainly looks like Wolfram's sleeve. He has still not found any actual rewriting system that displays the properties he keeps promising us must be there.
Bell's Inequalities come up momentarily in the final chapter and are then brushed under the rug, despite the fact that, as Wolfram says, they are the standard objection to hidden variables accounts of quantum mechanics. The best known book on this kind of framework, Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft's The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, is not even mentioned. For some reason, Wolfram thinks his work is interesting, and is making it all publicly available. Knowledgeable people seem less than blown away. You can see some typical comments here.
Loading...
