2023-05-31
2023-05-27
2023-05-25
2023-05-21
Carlsen: Haven’t Studied Chess Recently; It Showed.
Paul Morphy was considerably better than his contemporaries. So was Bobby Fischer. Neither benefited from computers, databases, or modern opening theory. For this reason, it is harder to compare the skill level of their play with the level of the top current players.
Gary Kasparov was only a bit better than his contemporaries but remained World Champion for 15 years.
Magnus Carlsen is the closest thing to a perfect human chess player. He knows more about chess than anyone ever. He definitely would lose to a computer, but that would be like a math contest against a scientific calculator, or a boxing match with a brick wall. Computers really are perfect, or at least close enough that we can't tell the difference, whereas all humans make mistakes, including Magnus.
As good as Magnus is, he is only a bit better than his contemporaries. There are a number of players who are not far behind.
Bobby Fischer reportedly had an IQ of 180. He was incredibly brilliant. I have heard that Magnus Carlsen has an IQ of 190. He is also incredibly brilliant. I don't know how one quantifies the difference between 180 and 190, especially half a century apart.
Magnus Carlsen once admitted that he had to drink less to play chess well. I have seen him play speed chess online while apparently drunk but he still won because he can play intuitively almost perfect chess. I've seen Russian Grandmasters also win while drunk. So, therefore, I've been wondering if Magnus Carsen is an alcoholic.
In this interview, he looks more disheveled than usual. It is also a bit odd that he decided not to participate in the World Chess Championship, giving up the World Chess Champion title that he has held for ten years.
2023-05-19
Testing old chess computers through emulation
In the days before everyone had computers, if you wanted to play chess, your only option was to play with another person. In the late 1970's Fidelity introduced a series of electronic computer chess games. These early models played rather poorly, but I knew people who bought them just to be able to play and practice whenever they wanted. I managed to borrow a few of these so that I could get a feel for how well they played.
Although the early machines did not play well, things started to improve in the 1980s. There was a golden age of dedicated chess computers that went from 1983 to about 1993. In 1984, I purchased the Novag Super Constellation electronic chess game for what I think was $200, which was quite a bit of money in 1984. The U.S. Chess Federation had given it a rating of 2018, which is better than at least 90% of all adult tournament players. Any rating between 2000 and 2199 is considered to be the skill level of "Expert" and a higher rating of 2200 is considered to be "Master."
Although I am currently rated 2016, at the time I bought the
Novag Super Constellation I was rated just a little over 1700. In a few months, I would reach a rating of 1800 which is considered to be "Class A." Nevertheless, what I remember about the Novag Super Constellation is that it played better than me, which is surprising since it only contains an 8-bit processor running at just 4 MHZ. That is not very fast compared to modern 64-bit processors with multiple cores running at gigahertz speeds.
Over time, I bought a couple of better chess-playing computers and I have fond memories of practicing with all of them. I sold all these machines when I got a desktop computer in the mid-'90s, but I kind of regret it because they all were fun to play with it.
This became an issue when I was researching these old chess-playing computers where I saw many online claims that these computers were not as good as the ratings that had been assigned to them. For example, I saw the claim that the Novag Super Constellation was only about 1750 strength, and two other computers that I owned rated 2100 and 2265 were also claimed to be weaker than their advertised ratings. None of these claims match my experience, since all of the computers played better than I did.
I was so curious about this that I wanted to get my hands on one of the old chess computers, assuming that one can be found, however unlikely, and see how it compares to my current chess ability. Fortunately, I found software that allows me to emulate dozens of old chess computers on my Windows PC.
In my first game against the emulated Novag Super Constellation on level 1, the lowest level, I was able to win by only the slimmest of margins. I tried the same thing on the Fidelity Designer 2100, a slightly better machine, and I lost. I have no doubt that the other computer I owned, the stronger Fidelity Designer 2265, would stomp me like it used to when I played it 30 years ago. I will confirm this eventually.
So I tested a variety of chess computers with a somewhat difficult chess problem..
Based upon my testing, this is how long various chess computers take to solve this chess problem...
| # | Model | Year | Processor | Speed | ROM | Time | Depth | Nodes/S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
It is noteworthy that the Super Constellation solved the problem in roughly 2 minutes, which is within tournament time controls. I am disappointed in Chessmaster on the Super Nintendo because it failed to achieve this. It is running on a similar processor, and it is a port of Chessmaster 2000 written by Dave Kittinger, who also wrote the Super Constellation program!
* The second version of the Constellation 3.6 solves this problem on its top two tournament levels, but the first version moves too quickly to see the answer. It can only solve the problem on its infinite level, even though it takes about the same amount of time to see the solution. The second ROM set is based upon the Novag Expert program.
Super Constellation game #1.2023-05-17
2023-05-09
Magnus Carlsen - Wikiquote
"I think in general the future of classical chess as it is now is a little bit dubious. I would love to see more Fischer [Random] Chess being played over-the-board in a classical format. That would be very interesting to me, because I feel that that particular format is pretty well suited to classical chess as basically you need a lot of time in order to be able to play the game even remotely decently. And you can see that in the way that Fischer [Random] Chess is being played now when it is played in a rapid format. The quality of the games isn't very high because we make such fundamental mistakes in the opening. We don't understand it nearly enough and I think that would increase a lot if we were given a classical time control there. So I would definitely hope for that." — November 2020 [1]
"I'm certainly somebody who hopes for more 960 in classical format because I feel like 960 is not that suited to rapid and blitz because you're just gonna play too poorly. You're just gonna have absolutely no clue, but if you actually have time to sit down and think for half an hour on your first five moves, then maybe you can get some more understanding of the game."— in a stream with Eric Hansen, April 2021 [2] 53:29 - 54:36 [3]
"I'm certainly somebody who hopes for more 960 in classical format because I feel like 960 is not that suited to rapid and blitz because you're just gonna play too poorly. You're just gonna have absolutely no clue, but if you actually have time to sit down and think for half an hour on your first five moves, then maybe you can get some more understanding of the game."— in a stream with Eric Hansen, April 2021 [2] 53:29 - 54:36 [3]
Quotes about Carlsen
You could say that both Fischer and Carlsen had or have the ability to let chess look simple. – Viswanathan Anand
Chessdom - Anand about Chess Classics and his games with Carlsen
In six months of working with Magnus I have seen in him many of the qualities of the great champions. – Garry Kasparov
ChessBase.com - Breaking news Carlsen and Kasparov join forces, 7 September 2009
ChessBase.com - Breaking news Carlsen and Kasparov join forces, 7 September 2009
2023-05-08
2023-05-06
2023-05-05
2023-05-03
2023-04-30
2023-04-28
Chess Game
[Event "Casual G/10"]
[Site "Columbus Indiana Chess Club"]
[Date "2023.04.27"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Makita, Omar"]
[Black "Coffey, John"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A20"]
[BlackElo "2016"]
[PlyCount "64"]
[EventType "blitz"]
1. c4 e5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 c6 4. Nc3 d5 5. cxd5 cxd5 6. d4 exd4 7. Qxd4 Nc6 8.
Qa4 Be7 9. Nf3 O-O 10. O-O Be6 11. Rd1 Qb6 12. Ng5 Rfd8 13. b3 Ng4 14. Nxd5
Bxd5 (14... Qxf2+ 15. Kh1 Bxd5 16. e4 Bxe4 17. Rxd8+ Rxd8 18. Qxe4 Rd1+) 15.
Qxg4 Bxg2 16. Rxd8+ Rxd8 17. Kxg2 Qd4 18. Qxd4 Nxd4 19. Ne4 Nc2 20. Rb1 Rd1 21.
Nc3 Rd7 22. e3 Ne1+ 23. Kf1 Nf3 24. Kg2 Ne1+ 25. Kh3 Nd3 26. Ne4 f5 27. Nd2
Nxc1 28. Rxc1 Rxd2 29. Rc8+ Kf7 30. Rc7 Rxa2 31. Kg2 b5 32. Rb7 b4 0-1
[Site "Columbus Indiana Chess Club"]
[Date "2023.04.27"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Makita, Omar"]
[Black "Coffey, John"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A20"]
[BlackElo "2016"]
[PlyCount "64"]
[EventType "blitz"]
1. c4 e5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 c6 4. Nc3 d5 5. cxd5 cxd5 6. d4 exd4 7. Qxd4 Nc6 8.
Qa4 Be7 9. Nf3 O-O 10. O-O Be6 11. Rd1 Qb6 12. Ng5 Rfd8 13. b3 Ng4 14. Nxd5
Bxd5 (14... Qxf2+ 15. Kh1 Bxd5 16. e4 Bxe4 17. Rxd8+ Rxd8 18. Qxe4 Rd1+) 15.
Qxg4 Bxg2 16. Rxd8+ Rxd8 17. Kxg2 Qd4 18. Qxd4 Nxd4 19. Ne4 Nc2 20. Rb1 Rd1 21.
Nc3 Rd7 22. e3 Ne1+ 23. Kf1 Nf3 24. Kg2 Ne1+ 25. Kh3 Nd3 26. Ne4 f5 27. Nd2
Nxc1 28. Rxc1 Rxd2 29. Rc8+ Kf7 30. Rc7 Rxa2 31. Kg2 b5 32. Rb7 b4 0-1
Omar is a new player at the Columbus Chess Club who I think plays close to my level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)