[Grabs notepad]
You’re going down, Kasparov!
Becoming competent (to the level where one can exploit a mistake in the opening) is not easy. Even where we are talking about catching a guy in an opening trap, say, the win of a piece, it will still take years (for someone that develops quickly) to reach a level where you will beat a GM from such a position. And it is a trade off, opening preparation vs basic chess knowledge is something chess players need to think about. At lower levels players often hamper their own development by spending too much time on openings, and they still don’t get near the sort of preparation that you would need. (Along with the fact that Kasparov need not play along; he need not play sharp openings, and it is easy enough to deviate, easier still the lower the level of the opponent.)
What some folks don’t understand also about chess is that for most of us there is a ceiling well below what would be required to beat Kasparov 1 out of 100 times. I could study chess forever (and I was seriously into chess for about a three year period) and I am relatively certain I could never get beyond 2200…no matter how much I studied. I simply seem to lack certain capabilities to evaluate chess positions that way. It requires a certain kind of spatial understanding, photographic memory of previous positions, etc. that is beyond 99.9999% of the population. It is the same way I could study physics for a thousand years and never ever be Stephen Hawking.
Seriously, have you ever played chess?
You have completely misunderstood Nigel Short’s quote.
Yes, Grandmasters can now analyse further in the openings using computers. But they are building on their knowledge and understanding of the game. They need to know what to do if their opponent varies at any time from their opening analysis.
You can’t play chess by memorising every possible move in advance!
As I said, how are you going to get any human playing like a computer?
Plus, do you not understand that Kasparov has spent 20 years using computers to build upon his incredible talent?
The one thing that would be in Jordan’s favour is that it’s possible in chess to make a single mistake that immediately loses the game. I can imagine Kasparov blundering into a simple mate once in a million games, or something like that. Even the very best players (very) occasionally have this kind of hallucination. There’s not an equivalent in the basketball game - the worst mistake Jordan could make would just affect a single possession in a game to 11 or 21.
Even with this, though the chances of Kasparov losing are incredibly small. There are famous examples of these kind of amazing mistakes by chess players, but even in those situations Jordan wouldn’t win. Karpov famously lost a piece very early in a game to a simple tactic and resigned, but I don’t think Jordan would win from that piece-up position. Kramnik blundered a mate in 1 against Fritz, but the possibility of this blunder only came up because Fritz is so strong, and had played 30-some moves at a strong GM level.
That’s nonsense. They can recognize player’s tendencies and patterns very well. What makes you think that a computer, which can analyze weather, stocks, etc. cannot figure out something like chess?
The linked article by Kasparov states how good humans working with computers are even better.
How do you think you get into the basketball HOF? It’s not a direct reward yes, but it is a useful proxy for greatness.
Did you note that I said the same thing? Computers alone will not make a great players. However, they provide a mechanical advantage. Coupled with great coaches, Jordan can become BETTER, QUICKER through the use of computers. Which speaks to my original point that a person’s innate predisposition for chess is less at issue in today’s world. In the same way that mental math, while still useful, is not AS useful in a world with calculators. Yes, you still need to understand math on a basic level to use a calculator, but you don’t really need to be intimate acquainted with it in the way people used to. A great sense of numbers is less useful today.
What about that is not true? Of course, the program is complex and difficult to design. Doesn’t change the factual aspect of my statement. If I said computers routinely outperform stockbrokers in picking stocks, would you counter that they are using programs so it doesn’t count?
So that’s what he MEANT huh? Do you think that changed because of the use of computers?
Then why did two grandmasters say basically those exact words? Honestly, if you are gonna try to pull rank, then at least be humble when someone more knowledgeable than you states something fairly equivocally. To quote them again:
[QUOTE= Kasparov]
Although we still require a strong measure of intuition and logic to play well, humans today are starting to play more like computers.
[/QUOTE]
So when Kasparov said humans are starting to play more like computers, he didn’t mean that, right? He meant, whatever you are going to suppose that will support your conclusion here.
[QUOTE=Short]
Short says top players can now spend almost an entire game trading moves that have been scripted by the same program and that such play by rote has removed some of the mystique of chess.
[/QUOTE]
So, its not at least meaningless to two players who know more about the game than you do. I am not here to pretend I am a good player, or that I can explain to you the intricacies of the game. I can’t. What I can do it see how it’s easier for a player to get better these days, and how the role intuition has been minimized due to computers enabling better practices.
I’ll give you another example. Being a great surgeon in some fields used to be as much about knowledge as about being steady, deliberate, and having tremendous dexterity. Now that some surgeries can be done with the assistance of a robot that can often minimize a slight movement or two, that innate steadiness is less of a stumbling block. Now a less steady surgeon can get the same results as a more steady one. Does that mean that I can go knee surgery if I were given a robot? No, but it does mean that if I were born with too shaky a hand, I still might be able to be a surgeon.
More knowledgeable others disagree with you. See above.
True, but that’s not really the issue. While it does mean he is a moving target to some degree, it doesn’t address that there are diminished returns at some point. The leverage he gets is of a smaller relative magnitude than what a very good, but less innately gifted player might.
Depends. If you read the article you would see people are doing it in shorter and shorter periods of time. So the time is highly variable. What is unquestionable is that is it easier now to become great or better in a shorter period of time.
How do you know he is a beginner first of all? Second, I think that would likely depend a great deal on his resources, motivation, and skills. Again, I am not saying Jordan would easily, or even definitely beat Kasparov at some point. What I am saying is that the chance that that would happen is better than the other supposition.
You and glee are talking past each other here. Kasparov is saying that humans’ chess is becoming more computer-like stylistically - more concerned with concrete, tactical considerations and less with strategic ones. As glee is explaining, Kasparov is not saying that the internal mechanism humans use for choosing moves is changing. It continues to be fundamentally different from that of computers.
Kasparov beats Jordan long before Jordan beats Kasparov. All Jordan has to do is get bored, frustrated, injured, and he’s done. Kasparov would only be bored because he’s playing Michael Jordan in chess, and to compensate he could start a game with a real GM while idly beating MJ in game after game in his spare time.
Really, the only question is who gets sick of beating the other game after game earliest, causing one of them to throw a game just to get this damn contest over with.
Even without doing the calculation, I can acknowledge right away that the probability is [del]astronomically[/del] combinatorically small (worse than one in a googol). But my point is just that it’s nonzero, and that it’s therefore not true to say that there’s no luck at all in chess.
And to be fair, that’s assuming that we have a complete chess novice who knows nothing but what the legal moves are, and that in any given position there is only one move that can beat Kasparov. In real play, there are often moves which are so obvious that even an inexperienced player can see them (completing a trade, for instance), and there are usually a fair number of moves that are so bad that an inexperienced player would know not to make them. And if there were always exactly one “correct” move to make that could beat Kasparov, it would imply that every game Kasparov has ever lost would be identical: Rather, there are many valid branch points where multiple moves could be successful.
I agree. Except that if that is what Glee meant, then didn’t read any of my previous responses where I stated that humans are not crunching numbers the same way a computer does. That is pretty obvious.
Regardless, his understanding of what I said in no way refutes the supposition I made that computers can be leveraged by a beginner to get better, faster. They also help codify and simplify tactical aspects of the game that would have required more creativity, intuition (typically innate qualities), or study in the past.
Besides, if I am to be so generous as to say that we are merely talking past one another, then why does continually stating that it’s absurd to say computers routinely beat humans when the common sense says that this a factual and valid way to express that computers have far surpassed the chess skills of humans.
How much would Jordan’s chances improve if he always played white? He would then only have to learn one opening and all of its lines. A formidable task to be sure but far easier than having to learn defenses as well.
I think it depends on how you define the vague nature of the OP.
For example, let’s say we agree to have the two men meet in two competitions, one of chess and one of basketball. I think most people are going to agree Kasparov will win the chess game and Jordan will win the basketball game. In a strict sense then, who beats who first will just depend on which order the games are played.
To avoid the randomness of who wins the coin toss, let’s pretend the two games are being played simultaneously. In that case, I’m giving the advantage to Jordan. It’s true that the average tournament level chess game lasts longer than the average playing time of a basketball game. But these aren’t going to be average games - each will be dominated by one player.
While Jordan may run up a huge score, he won’t officially have won until the forty-eight minute game is completed (which usually takes two to three hours of real time). Kasparov, on the other hand, will have the ability to win the game with a checkmate as soon as he can achieve that.
But Jordan has a key advantage - he controls the duration of his half of the chess game. He can essentially run out the clock. By taking as long as he can on his moves within the time control limits, Jordan can probably avoid being checkmated for at least a couple of hours.
I might make a hash of trying to say this, but what the hell…
If they were equally as good at either endeavor (i.e., Jordan had Kasparov’s knowledge and intelligence in chess, or Kasparov would have Jordan-esque physical skills, sense of timing, and athleticism for basketball) I would still give the eventual edge to Michael Jordan in both.
The reason is personality. Jordan had to win. It was an imperative to the man that he came out on top, and every aspect of his being was to the getting better at whatever he chose to pursue. When he came in as a rookie in 1984, Jordan got his butt kicked at ping-pong by one of the Bulls players (Ron Harper, I think.) Incensed, Jordan bought a ping-pong table and became the best player on the Bulls for the next 13 years.
Same thing with poker. Same thing with golf. Same thing in practice. Same thing when he had the flu. Same thing when he had the chance to win the NBA championship on Fathers Day the year his father was killed. Same thing if the sport were chess and Jordan had the same level of ability. Michael must win.
Facing Kasparov, Jordan would do everything in his power to beat him. Kasparov is facing an opponent that is so tenacious, it is rumored that Jordan befriended Charles Barkley solely because he saw a tendency in Barkley to play softer against guys Barkley was friendly with. Who the fuck does that? A pathological competitor, that’s who.
In an even match of abilities, regardless of sport, I think Mike would just wear the guy down.
Games of one-on-one aren’t timed- that’s the case for most non-organized games. They are usually played to an agreed-upon point value. Like I said earlier, 11 or 21 are the most typical. Sometimes you might see guys play a game to 7 if they are in a hurry or the court is crowded. A 48-minute game with clock stoppages and timeouts and so forth would be superfluous, not to mention boring.
JohnT, you think Kasparov is any less pathologically competitive?
Than Michael Jordan? Yes, however slight the edge is on such rarified levels.
Anyway, it’s an unanswerable question to which one’s opinion is likely swayed by which sport/person we’re most familiar with.
As I said, the OP was pretty vague and we had to fill in the gaps.
But if you substitute a shorter game for a regulation length basketball game, it just makes my overall argument stronger. Jordan will beat Kasparov first because you can hold off an inevitable defeat longer in chess than you can in basketball.
If it’s Jordan’s move, his clock runs. Running out of time means a loss.
I’m not saying he should let the clock run down to nothing on his first move. I’m just saying he should play as slowly as possible.
I think one thing everyone’s neglected so far is that the games are played in sequence. When Kaspy is playing Jordan in basketball, he’s learning how Jordan beats him. But when Jordan plays chess, he’s learning how Kaspy beats him. In effect, Kasparaov is training Jordan with every game that passes. So if they play 100 games together, then Jordan will have seen 100 ways not to play against Garry. In basketball, though, Kaspy can lose the same way over and over and yet not really learn from his mistakes.
As was said in the “GMs behind a curtain” hypothetical, Jordan can just guess what moves the GMs would recommend. He’s unlikely to get them all right, sure, but given enough games (200?), he can try all the testing moves.
So Jordan wins…eventually.
That shouldn’t matter. He can just resign the games a Black and effectively be only playing White.