You did not even mention AlphaZero! Definitely worth looking up.
I don't think chess will ever be "solved" by a computer. There are two many variations and yes maybe the computer might "know" all of them but by "solved" are you sure you know what it means? It means that you lose when you make the first move because all moves have been figured out and no matter what you do there is always a winning line for your opponent. I don't think this is the way it will turn out. There will always be choices and variations and even if it does work out that way it doesn't matter because the chess people want to watch is between people and people can't memorise that amount of information.
Even then what is not focused on enough in your article is that it doesn't matter that computers are better at chess than humans as they generally don't play against each other anymore and the Computer World Chess Championship has a small following of very technical people. Computers are used to help professionals and amateurs in their analysis and training and yes, sometimes for cheating. But the cheating is a lot less than what the media makes it out to be. With all the thousands of chess tournaments every month between tens of thousands of participants, an enormous amount of games, the number of chess cheats in any tournament higher than a local chess club game can be counted on one hand, over a period of a decade. It really is a minor blip in the whole chess world, but of course the details are just too salacious and the stories too lurid for the media to ignore.
Very interesting. The speed of sound is about 343 meters per second, so in 0.01 seconds, the sound of the gun would travel 3.43 meters. If the gun (or speaker, if it is playing back a recorded sound of a gunshot) is at least 3.43 meters (11.25 feet) from the racers' positions at the starting line, which seems plausible, then they shouldn't be able to hear the sound for at least 0.01 seconds after firing. That said, the duration of the gunshot sound is certainly longer than 0.01 second and when during that time the clock actually starts is unclear, but should be taken into account. Also the positioning of the gun relative to the racers could give the racer nearest to the gun a slight advantage, as the racers at the innermost and outermost lanes on the track are probably about 11 to 15 feet apart. This advantage would be minimized if the gun or speaker was placed directly in front or behind the middle racer, and the greater the distance, the lesser the advantage; but the greater the distance, the greater the time it would take for the sound to reach the racers.
Well, it is in fact true that it is neurologically-neuromuscularly-muscularly impossible for a human to initiate, and accomplish a significant amount of, movement in their leg muscles within 0.1 second of hearing a stimulus – *as a reaction to the stimulus*. It's not impossible to do it by chance or luck.
What must have happened in Devon Allen's case is that he either guessed/gambled on when the gun would sound or nervously jumped the gun. If there is a time interval after the gun that must not be encroached on, then it is statistically inevitable that some gamblers or twitchers will start non-reactively just outside this interval and be considered to have started fairly despite jumping the gun.
If there is to be such an interval, then it's illogical to grouse that someone was unfairly DQ'd for infringing on it because the infringement was *so tiny* that it should be overlooked. What is the maximum infraction that should be overlooked? OK, that's a new rule then, which will draw complaints when someone infringes on IT by the same tiny amount, and so it goes.
The question is: Given that it is a statistical inevitability that there will be "fair false starts" that lie in the zone between the minimum allowable time after the gun and the minimum possible human reaction time, whatever that is, does it make sense to disallow ANY starts that occur after the gun just because the start came too soon? Fair false starts will occur whatever the interval is set to be, so why have an interval at all?
The ultimate in applying technology to track events would be to allow any start that occurred after the gun and determine the interval between first push on the block and crossing the line for each individual runner, with the win going to the fair starter who had the shortest time, not necessarily the one who broke the tape. This would eliminate the advantage for those who successfully gamble or twitch.
I heard maybe he deflated the bishop or had his wingman band on a can in the next room.
I believe all replays in every sport should take place at actual speed, and if the original decision is not determined to be wrong in 1 minute, the call stands.
Fifty years ago I had a friend who cheated at chess. He used my name to enter local tournaments so he could compete in a different category from where his own ranking would have placed him. I recall he made several hundred dollars this way. Eventually I was ranked something like the 150th best chess player in the US and it no longer worked for him to play under my name.
I don't mean to be vulgar, but there were some...ahem...interesting theories about where Niemann may have been hiding a buzzer. That is all I'll say on the matter!
That false start ruling is the worst ever. They even admit that he DIDN’T actually false start, he just anticipated the gun really well. It’s like penalizing a hitter for correctly guessing fastball and hitting a homer.
Was looking forward to this article, as I am also a fan of chess. I also don't get how he could have cheated, and if Carlsen or Nakamura have concrete evidence, why don't they present it? To me it sounds more like bad losers.
Anyway, Joe, do you stick with Chess.com? Or are you in the boycotting crowd and move to Lichess or somewhere else?
True. I would like to see how this plays out. In general I have been a big fan of Carlsen as he is very much outside the control of the chess federation which has been a problem in the past where World Champions have been pawns of FIDE. He is also very different from past Champions. This is the first time I have seen him doing something that isn't that sensible and seems sketchy. I hope he makes an apology and a retraction. If he is unable to present evidence then he has no place besmirching someone else's reputation. That is really unacceptable.
Really enjoyed the article - I'm one of those 0.3%.
Actually, it really is possible to cheat without detection by building some special electronic inserts that are put into a player's shoes which then advise the player as to the best move. Just such a proof of concept device, called Sockfish, was recently built.
You don't seem to be aware of the screening that players go through in top tournaments and in lower tournaments cheating at that level isn't really worth it. A proof of concept and an actual working electronic device to work under these conditions are worlds apart.
Thanks for covering chess Joe! I started playing obsessively online during the pandemic and then began following the top-level competitive chess scene. If you have the opportunity, watch one of the live YouTube broadcasts with Peter Leko’s commentary on Chess24--he’s one of the most lovable, engaging, and brilliant commentators I’ve come across in any context.
The game Ponomariov – Fritz, Bilbao 2005, is the last loss of a chess engine against a human in a game played under classical tournament conditions.
So yeah, it's been almost a generation now since humans were as good as machines. In that generation computer AI has also over taken humans in other even more complex games like Go.
There is now a new generation of AI that's dedicated to winning at any game (google AlphaZero) without even knowing the rules. It just plays and plays and learns playing tens of millions of games. After 24 hrs training it was able to beat the best dedicated Chess engines (it had better computer equipment) and it's learned how to play old Atari video games etc.
Minor correction:
"Kasparov did win the overall match 4-2, but he lost a couple of games, which was pretty astonishing at the time."
Those 2 points for Deep Blue were for 1 win and 2 draws, so Kasparov only lost 1 game in the match.
What a weird turn this story took.
https://www.avclub.com/hans-niemann-anal-beads-chess-grandmaster-cam-site-1849545231?authId=1*19bigaq*_a*S3lGZFhweHRnZnhFUXl3QW1aa3l4QzlZQ2d3UGNvelVsa1RKRndRTHZTMnFWWEI1LVZRbENvWk1MVzlsTjkxWg..
Typo alert: there's a big difference between 0.99 seconds and 0.099 seconds ;-)
You did not even mention AlphaZero! Definitely worth looking up.
I don't think chess will ever be "solved" by a computer. There are two many variations and yes maybe the computer might "know" all of them but by "solved" are you sure you know what it means? It means that you lose when you make the first move because all moves have been figured out and no matter what you do there is always a winning line for your opponent. I don't think this is the way it will turn out. There will always be choices and variations and even if it does work out that way it doesn't matter because the chess people want to watch is between people and people can't memorise that amount of information.
Even then what is not focused on enough in your article is that it doesn't matter that computers are better at chess than humans as they generally don't play against each other anymore and the Computer World Chess Championship has a small following of very technical people. Computers are used to help professionals and amateurs in their analysis and training and yes, sometimes for cheating. But the cheating is a lot less than what the media makes it out to be. With all the thousands of chess tournaments every month between tens of thousands of participants, an enormous amount of games, the number of chess cheats in any tournament higher than a local chess club game can be counted on one hand, over a period of a decade. It really is a minor blip in the whole chess world, but of course the details are just too salacious and the stories too lurid for the media to ignore.
Very interesting. The speed of sound is about 343 meters per second, so in 0.01 seconds, the sound of the gun would travel 3.43 meters. If the gun (or speaker, if it is playing back a recorded sound of a gunshot) is at least 3.43 meters (11.25 feet) from the racers' positions at the starting line, which seems plausible, then they shouldn't be able to hear the sound for at least 0.01 seconds after firing. That said, the duration of the gunshot sound is certainly longer than 0.01 second and when during that time the clock actually starts is unclear, but should be taken into account. Also the positioning of the gun relative to the racers could give the racer nearest to the gun a slight advantage, as the racers at the innermost and outermost lanes on the track are probably about 11 to 15 feet apart. This advantage would be minimized if the gun or speaker was placed directly in front or behind the middle racer, and the greater the distance, the lesser the advantage; but the greater the distance, the greater the time it would take for the sound to reach the racers.
I believe the “gun” sound actually comes from speakers located equidistant behind each runner to eliminate the advantage of being closest to the gun.
Well, that makes sense. Never mind then.
Well, it is in fact true that it is neurologically-neuromuscularly-muscularly impossible for a human to initiate, and accomplish a significant amount of, movement in their leg muscles within 0.1 second of hearing a stimulus – *as a reaction to the stimulus*. It's not impossible to do it by chance or luck.
What must have happened in Devon Allen's case is that he either guessed/gambled on when the gun would sound or nervously jumped the gun. If there is a time interval after the gun that must not be encroached on, then it is statistically inevitable that some gamblers or twitchers will start non-reactively just outside this interval and be considered to have started fairly despite jumping the gun.
If there is to be such an interval, then it's illogical to grouse that someone was unfairly DQ'd for infringing on it because the infringement was *so tiny* that it should be overlooked. What is the maximum infraction that should be overlooked? OK, that's a new rule then, which will draw complaints when someone infringes on IT by the same tiny amount, and so it goes.
The question is: Given that it is a statistical inevitability that there will be "fair false starts" that lie in the zone between the minimum allowable time after the gun and the minimum possible human reaction time, whatever that is, does it make sense to disallow ANY starts that occur after the gun just because the start came too soon? Fair false starts will occur whatever the interval is set to be, so why have an interval at all?
The ultimate in applying technology to track events would be to allow any start that occurred after the gun and determine the interval between first push on the block and crossing the line for each individual runner, with the win going to the fair starter who had the shortest time, not necessarily the one who broke the tape. This would eliminate the advantage for those who successfully gamble or twitch.
Glaring error, Joe. It's .099 seconds.
I heard maybe he deflated the bishop or had his wingman band on a can in the next room.
I believe all replays in every sport should take place at actual speed, and if the original decision is not determined to be wrong in 1 minute, the call stands.
First, they came for baseball. Now analytics have ruined chess!!
Fifty years ago I had a friend who cheated at chess. He used my name to enter local tournaments so he could compete in a different category from where his own ranking would have placed him. I recall he made several hundred dollars this way. Eventually I was ranked something like the 150th best chess player in the US and it no longer worked for him to play under my name.
That is a great story. You're a chess legend!
I don't mean to be vulgar, but there were some...ahem...interesting theories about where Niemann may have been hiding a buzzer. That is all I'll say on the matter!
(It's almost certainly not true, but it is funny)
That false start ruling is the worst ever. They even admit that he DIDN’T actually false start, he just anticipated the gun really well. It’s like penalizing a hitter for correctly guessing fastball and hitting a homer.
Was looking forward to this article, as I am also a fan of chess. I also don't get how he could have cheated, and if Carlsen or Nakamura have concrete evidence, why don't they present it? To me it sounds more like bad losers.
Anyway, Joe, do you stick with Chess.com? Or are you in the boycotting crowd and move to Lichess or somewhere else?
True. I would like to see how this plays out. In general I have been a big fan of Carlsen as he is very much outside the control of the chess federation which has been a problem in the past where World Champions have been pawns of FIDE. He is also very different from past Champions. This is the first time I have seen him doing something that isn't that sensible and seems sketchy. I hope he makes an apology and a retraction. If he is unable to present evidence then he has no place besmirching someone else's reputation. That is really unacceptable.
Really enjoyed the article - I'm one of those 0.3%.
Actually, it really is possible to cheat without detection by building some special electronic inserts that are put into a player's shoes which then advise the player as to the best move. Just such a proof of concept device, called Sockfish, was recently built.
https://hackaday.com/2022/09/07/how-to-be-a-stinkin-chess-cheat-sockfish/
You don't seem to be aware of the screening that players go through in top tournaments and in lower tournaments cheating at that level isn't really worth it. A proof of concept and an actual working electronic device to work under these conditions are worlds apart.
Thanks for covering chess Joe! I started playing obsessively online during the pandemic and then began following the top-level competitive chess scene. If you have the opportunity, watch one of the live YouTube broadcasts with Peter Leko’s commentary on Chess24--he’s one of the most lovable, engaging, and brilliant commentators I’ve come across in any context.
The game Ponomariov – Fritz, Bilbao 2005, is the last loss of a chess engine against a human in a game played under classical tournament conditions.
So yeah, it's been almost a generation now since humans were as good as machines. In that generation computer AI has also over taken humans in other even more complex games like Go.
There is now a new generation of AI that's dedicated to winning at any game (google AlphaZero) without even knowing the rules. It just plays and plays and learns playing tens of millions of games. After 24 hrs training it was able to beat the best dedicated Chess engines (it had better computer equipment) and it's learned how to play old Atari video games etc.