It has long been thought that chess was probably invented in the fifth century in northern India and came to Europe in the 12th century. At least that is what scientists have assumed. Now a team of British archaeologists has unearthed evidence in the ancient city of Butrint suggesting that Europeans were playing chess as early as the sixth century!
Very interesting indeed! :eek:
Ancient Chess piece discovered
…In unrelated Chess news, those of you who think Bobby Fischer has been logging on to ICC with ‘Guest’ accounts and destroying any and all takers, think again! It’s a computer program! This is still somewhat debatable, but since today’s top chess programs (even one’s running on standard PC’s) run at a mid 2700 rating (a very strong GM rating), it seems likely that it is a computer program, and not Fischer.
Moderator’s Note: There doesn’t appear to be a debate here; this appears to be a “Huh! Isn’t this interesting?” thread. “Huh! Isn’t this interesting?” threads belong in our MPSIMS forum; I’ll move this over there now.
Fingolfin, interesting Fischer article.
I don’t agree with the analysis, however.
“As a chessplayer, Fischer was always a gentleman. The real Fischer would not insult his opponents with ridiculous openings.”
Being a gentleman has nothing to do with what moves you choose for the opening. I suppose one could argue that attempting a fool’s mate is insulting the intelligence of your opponent. But if you win the game in 4 moves you are no longer insulting your opponent’s intelligence. Instead, they have proven just how badly they play.
Fischer, or whomever guest71 is, WON those games. The opening is irrelevant. The opponent lost. That’s not being ungentlemanly, that’s the object of the game.
Enderw24, I’m not sure that I agree. To play a bizarre line like 1.f3 e5 2.Kf2 demonstrates contempt for his opponents’ abilties: “Hah! I can play an inferior opening and still beat you, 'cause I’m so much better at the midgame and endgame than you are.”
Of course, this argument falls apart if the f3 line is in fact a vast untapped strategical reservior that no one’s bothered with because it looks so fuggin’ stupid. The alternative is that Fischer (or the computer/human duo masquerading as Fischer) is deliberately taking a handicap and winning anyway, which shows that he’s a lot better than his opponents…and that he knows it. And that he wants you to know it.
My money’s on the “bored guy with a strong computer screwing around” theory, though.
Note to the Moderator: There is actually two debates going on here.
1)When did Chess come to Europe from India? Some say 12th Century. Some say 10th Century. Some are not sure. Now there is strong evidence to suggest that it was the 6th Century, but it is still debatable.
2)Is Bobby Fischer playing on the ICC with Guest accounts? Some say Yes. Some say No. Some are not sure. It’s debatable!
Still, no matter.
The article puts forth a pretty strong argument that is a software program making those moves.
The following seals it for me:
*guest71 never took more than 3 seconds for any move in that game, but 28.Bxc4 cost him 12 seconds."
Interesting. That means that he was probably using Deep Fritz in multi-variation mode, and paused to think about the options available at move 28. He may have even played through a few moves and decided that there were greater pitfalls after 28.Bxc4. Or he may have simply run through the first line to see the full draw (28.Qxb5 Qa1+ 29.Kc2 Qa2+ 30.Kc3 Qd2+ 31.Kxc4 Qxe2+ 32.Kb4 Qb2+ 33.Kc4 =), before deciding to go for the"other drawing line".*
