|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Aug-30-17
 | | HeMateMe: I think I saw a reprint of that, in a regional newspaper. Byre's column would sometimes appear in smaller papers, if it was a big happening, like a wc match or maybe deep blue vs Kasparov, that kind of thing. |
|
| Jul-28-18 | | hdcc: <HeHateMe> "Fischer was probably gifted a few $thousand dollars to do this [...]" It's far more likely that he was given a few $thousand dollars... |
|
| Jul-28-18 | | diceman: <HeMateMe:
Maybe Fischer was quietly developing a little respect for the computers as analysis partners.> ...or maybe the first chess computer was getting old. |
|
| Nov-26-19 | | oolalimk1: ba7 was condemed as bad 14 years ago. your computer picked it today.time to upgrade ?. |
|
Nov-13-21
| | HeMateMe: My college calculus professor was telling the group about an experience he had with early chess programs. He was a strong player, around 2300 (early 1980s). IBM had a program and hardware probably similar to Greenblatt, perhaps a little bit of an upgrade. They were looking for a GM to sic their beast on, had a few $thousand offered, as an incentive. Somehow the name Walter Browne, an inveterate gambler, came to them. Not sure where Browne actually was, but the IBMers set up their hardware at this professor's house. The game was conducted by phone or by modem. He said that a tricky ending was drawn by repetition, I think Q vs. R, no pawns on the board. Browne wanted to be paid and he put forth a quickly typed up analysis showing how he could win the final position on the board in less than 50 moves. The IBM reps decided to allow this and Browne won the wager. He was only going to get paid if he won. |
|
Nov-13-21
 | | Teyss: We have to appreciate the programmers' sense of irony. "We'll set up the computer so the B gets trapped on the penultimate rank asap." Even if it didn't get caught, it mobilised the WQ for a few moves.
click for larger view"Rings a bell, Bobby?" Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 As said above, terrible play by the machine. Could have resigned before the end as they do now, but then they played until mate probably because assessments were not evolved enough. For info here are the two other games Bobby vs Scrap Iron.
Fischer vs Greenblatt, 1977
Greenblatt vs Fischer, 1977 The pun, is it just a reference to the video game Cyberpunk 2077 or is there more? Had to google it. |
|
Nov-13-21
 | | MissScarlett: <The pun, is it just a reference to the video game Cyberpunk 2077 or is there more?> Who needs more? Fischer launched the punk revolution in 1975 with <Anarchy in the FIDE>. |
|
Nov-13-21
 | | FSR: <HeMateMe> Your professor's account is incorrect. Here is what actually happened: <In 1977 [Ken] Thompson's Belle chess machine used the endgame tablebase for a king and rook against king and queen and was able to draw that theoretically lost ending against several masters (see Philidor position#Queen versus rook). This was despite not following the usual strategy to delay defeat by keeping the defending king and rook close together for as long as possible. Asked to explain the reasons behind some of the program's moves, Thompson was unable to do so beyond saying the program's database simply returned the best moves.Most grandmasters declined to play against the computer in the queen versus rook endgame, but Walter Browne accepted the challenge. A queen versus rook position was set up in which the queen can win in thirty moves, with perfect play. Browne was allowed 2½ hours to play fifty moves, otherwise a draw would be claimed under the fifty-move rule. After forty-five moves, Browne agreed to a draw, being unable to force checkmate or win the rook within the next five moves. In the final position, Browne was still seventeen moves away from checkmate, but not quite that far away from winning the rook. [Browne vs Belle, 1978 ] Browne studied the endgame, and played the computer again a week later in a different position in which the queen can win in thirty moves. This time, he captured the rook on the fiftieth move, giving him a winning position (Levy & Newborn 1991:144–48), (Nunn 2002:49).> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compu... |
|
Nov-13-21
| | FSR: Ah, the good old days when computers were horrible. I love how the machine trolled Fischer with the absurd 17.Ba7, cruelly reminding him of his equally ludicrous Bxh2?? against Spassky. |
|
| Nov-13-21 | | Messiah: Extremely bad pun. |
|
Nov-13-21
| | FSR: <HeMateMe>, commenting on Browne vs Belle, 1978 13 years ago, gave a somewhat different, but equally bogus, account: <Feb-23-08 Premium Chessgames Member HeMateMe: I was a college student in Minnesota, and our calculus professor said that he was part of a group who set up the exhibition where Browne played these 50 movers against computer programs. The instructor spoke to the computer people and said "Which GM would we ask to do this? Well, we thought, Which GM likes to gamble? And we thought of Browne. According to the calculus guy, Browne was offered a sum of money if he could win in 50 moves or less. Although he didn't beat the 50 move limit, he was able to demonstrate a winning varation that would have won, a few moves later. So they gave him all of the prize money that had been wagered. I don't know if there was a seperate appearance fee of sorts just for showing up.> <Sisyphus> demonstrated the same day that this was untrue, quoting the same Wikipedia article I just cited. |
|
| Nov-13-21 | | Cheapo by the Dozen: I played against the Greenblatt program back in the day. It was terrible. I no longer am sure of the when and where, but at a guess it was at a school I last attended in 1972. |
|
| Nov-13-21 | | Cheapo by the Dozen: And yes -- early chess programs would typically play reasonably for a while and then fall apart, just as happened in this game. |
|
| Nov-13-21 | | Z truth 000000001: <Cheapo> due to getting out of book play, maybe? |
|
Nov-13-21
| | MissScarlett: You guys are being a bit harsh on <NoMatesHe>. He got the player, the type of ending and the number of moves involved correct; the rest is mere detail. |
|
Nov-13-21
| | HeMateMe: Well, it was an off hand conversation with someone from 40 years ago. I'm sure you could go call the academic up and yell at him, but he's long dead. Or, more likely, he explained correctly that it was a proposition bet and not an actual game but i remembered the moment differenty. I hope this hasnt caused you two dummies too much pain, scarred your lives in some way... |
|
Nov-13-21
| | FSR: <HeMateMe> We're the dummies? You're the guy who keeps spouting bullcrap after people point out to you that it's bullcrap. You once also claimed that I was an anti-Semite, an utterly baseless claim that you pulled out of your ass and refused to retract after its baselessness was pointed out to you. Stop lying. |
|
Nov-13-21
| | MissScarlett: Wait till your hear what he said about <John Bonham>. |
|
Nov-13-21
| | HeMateMe: <You're the guy who keeps spouting bullcrap after people point out to you that it's bullcrap...> Damn, <FSR> you're a miserable person. Why don't you switch to the decaf and get a life? Forty years ago I had a college professor speak to his class for two minutes about an event that occurred in his life regarding computer chess. So I don't remember the conversation word for word....What the hell is wrong with you? |
|
Nov-14-21
| | FSR: <HeMateMe> In 2013, <Sisyphus> pointed out to you that your statement was untrue. But eight years later, you're still spouting lies. |
|
| Nov-18-21 | | diceman: <FSR: <HeMateMe> Your professor's account is incorrect. Here is what actually happened:> Even the Wiki is somewhat inaccurate.
I'll clear this up when I get a chance.
I knew Ken Thompson.
Played Belle many times, at both Ken's home, and Bell Labs. I was there when Browne played the Queen vs Rook ending. |
|
| Dec-07-21 | | rwbean: SF051221 - 12. c4 is +1.02 (48 ply) ... great work getting to such a big plus score so far out of the book against Fischer. 9. ♕d3 is a very rare move (12 games) on FICS opening explorer, but then gradually transposes back to a popular line, 11... ♗xd5 with 649 games and 11... ♖c8 with 17 games. White scores 58% with 12. c4 (12 games). Then just throws it away in the next few moves. e.g. 14... d4 15. ♗g5 h6 16. ♗h4 ♖c3! (-2.14, 44 ply) |
|
| Oct-29-24 | | generror: Nice game by Fischer, and Ba7 is really funny XD As GM Finegold pointed out in his recent lecture, Fischer trapped the knight, because: "That's better than being psychologically crushed." BTW I keep reading even in respectable sources that Fischer said he could give the program a queen and a rook, but he was actually talking about the "Chess Challenger", the first commercial chess computer and truly legendarily bad. I have the first issue of the Computer Chess Newletter, and in his letter, he says at all nothing about the playing strength of MacHack/Greenblatt, mostly ranting about the deficiencies of Chess Challenger. But I guess someone didn't read it too closely, then others copied what that someone wrote. Sigh. (And yes, I have the PDF of the newsletter open right before me, because never trust a chess "historian" aka mythologist.) Of course, I guess Fischer would be able to win against MacHack too, down a queen and a rook, the program got a USCF rating of about 1200. |
|
Oct-29-24
| | MissScarlett: <I keep reading even in respectable sources that Fischer said he could give the program a queen and a rook, but he was actually talking about the "Chess Challenger", the first commercial chess computer and truly legendarily bad.> Please reveal these sources.
<I have the first issue of the Computer Chess Newletter, and in his letter, he says at all nothing about the playing strength of MacHack/Greenblatt, mostly ranting about the deficiencies of Chess Challenger. But I guess someone didn't read it too closely, then others copied what that someone wrote.> <cg> is entirely blameless, of course: Fischer vs Mac Hack VI, 1977 (kibitz #104) |
|
| Nov-27-24 | | generror: <Please reveal these sources.> You mean those claiming Fischer dissed MacHack? Unfortunately I don't remember, but IIRC it was a (1990s?) book about computer chees. <<cg> is entirely blameless, of course> Haha, I would never consider CG a respectable source xD No but seriously, I'm on this site because people like you make it the most reliable source for accurate obscure historical chess details -- once you're willing to sift through the 90% of people bitching about each other AND the 90% who just repeat some fantastic fairy tales that someone once wrote. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 34...Bg4