It is Saturday Open Forum! Feel free to bring up interesting topics or issues for discussion. Just remember to keep it clean please 🙂
For USCF issues and the upcoming USCF election, please feel free to check out www.USChess.blogspot.com. This is a blog that is dedicated to those issues.
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Hi Susan,
Are Tom and Leeam better than u or Judith at the sames ages ?. I know better means nothing, it is depending of time we spent in chess. What is your feeling ?.
Judit, Sofia and I were all much more advanced. The reason is I had 2 supportive parents.
My children unfortunately do not.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
Susan what you wrote is very touching.. But you are doing great ! As a mother, as a player, as a proffessional ! Best luck, best wishes !
Montrealer
It doesn’t matter who is more advanced at what age! It’s not about getting BEST and FASTEST and HIGHEST RATING and all!!!!
It’s all about enjoying what you do and enjoying the game 🙂 It’s still a game. It should be fun for kids!!!
No matter if Polgar sisters were more advanced at that age! If Tommy and Leeam keep playing chess, they are grandmasters in 10-15 years, for sure! Or at least IMs or so….It doesn’t matter! What matters is that they enjoy the game, no? 🙂
But interesting question anyway…. What Polgar sisters did at a young age will not easily be surpassed! Especially not by girls!
Look at what level Judit now still has!!! She is a top10 class player! (among men) She is rocksolid!
Chess should be fun in the first place! 🙂
greets,
Theo
We know the Australian Open gets the least amount of attention of the 4 major tennis tournaments, but how about giving us your picks Susan?
I say Federer and Petrova!
I read from another poster earlier in the week about Fischer Random Chess and if it can be implemented as an alternative Tournament possibility. Is FRC much harder than normal chess? I have only played blitz games on ICC never a slow game. When you played Fischer, what was the time control? That yearly tournament they have (960) shows this is a viable format. What are your thoughts? Would you have an exhibition match in FRC format? On another matter, will you be in Las Vegas for National Open this year? Take care and thanx for your efforts, simply amazing.
I have to like Federer and Mauresmo.
However, I would not be shocked if Roddick and Sharapova will win.
Mayan, I prefer FRC. I am not into 30 moves deep opening theories. I prefer using your own talent and understand of chess rather than memorizations of lines.
Yes, I will be in LV. I may do some events with Korchnoi.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
Some days ago I tried to explain the basic concepts about programming a computer to play chess… thinking on it, I made it as an engineer and maybe I was not understood.
I want to share a text of Dr.Marsland,professor in the university of Alberta (Canada). It is a little long, but it explains the things very clearly.The title is Anatomy of chess programs.I hope you like it:
“Logically, chess is a trivial game: at every move, simply follow through each possible reply and its consequences until either a mate or a draw position is reached. In practical terms, however, this strategy is not workable, since an astronomically large number of chess positions would have to be examined. Thus both human players and computers rely on simplification to build an approximate model of the game. Human players have centuries of tradition and at least two hundred years of chess literature to draw on in building their personal model, but computer chess is less than sixty years old. Significant among the early ideas in computer chess is Claude Shannon’s 1949-50 distinction between a brute force (type-A) strategy for looking at every combination of moves, and the use of chess knowledge to select and examine only a subset of the available moves (type-B strategy). Although some electro-mechanical systems to play a subset of chess had been built prior to Shannon’s work, it was the programming of his ideas that led to the development of today’s computer chess machines.”
So Shannon is the father of our chess programs,Fritz included…
“Current chess programs view the game as a tree search in which each position corresponds to a node in the game-tree, and each move is a branch (a transition from one node to the next). Thus the tree is made up of alternating layers or levels of moves for each side. (The term “ply” is used to denote each layer, and refers to one move by one player.) A three-stage tree model is popular with computer chess programmers. The first stage uses a brute force (Shannon type-A) approach, the second a selective (type-B) search, and the third a strategy known as a quiescence search, designed to resolve the problems and conflicts that remain. In this final stage the program evaluates sequences of capturing moves, assesses pawn promotion potentials, examines checking sequences and considers other highly constrained tactical issues. All programs use the same underlying depth-first alpha-beta search algorithm. What varies from program to program is the length (or “depth”, to keep the layer analogy) of search assigned to each of these stages. Ultimately the stage length is not fixed, but varies by small amounts depending on the current sequence of moves being examined. For example, a search path may be locally lengthened because one side has at tacked the King (given check), leaving the opponent with only a few alternatives to consider. There are so many options here that even programs using the same basic model can achieve a radically different style and speed of play.”
“While the human method of analyzing alternatives seems to involve selecting a few promising lines of play and exploring them, computers are necessarily exhaustive rather than selective, so refinement techniques have been developed. In a technique called “iterative deepening”, instead of embarking on a single search of a certain ply (which might not be completed in the given time) the computer performs a series of increasingly deeper searches (N-ply, then N+1, then N+2, etc.) until the allotted time runs out. Thus it is able to produce the best move that the time constraint allows–a computer-chess situation that has many parallels in real-time applications. The computer can combine iterative deepening with various memory functions, particularly refutation and transposition tables, to reorder moves, so that at the next iteration its selected “principal variation” (best sequence of moves found during the previous iteration) is explored first. Another move-reordering technique is to keep a short list of “killer” moves, which are tried first. Killer moves are those that have successfully “cut off” or pruned the search elsewhere. Often these killer moves are captures, so a simplification involves considering capture moves before all others. This technique is nicely generalized in the “history heuristic table” that many programs use. In its most elementary form a history table has 64×64 entries, each containing a value that measures the frequency with which the corresponding possible move has recently pruned the search”
“Move-reordering mechanisms enhance the efficiency of the depth-first alpha-beta search algorithm. Three other improvements–Pearl’s Scout algorithm and the related NegaScout and Principal Variation Search (PVS) methods–share a common theme: once a principal variation has been found it is sufficient to show that each alternative is inferior. Any that is not inferior must be re-searched, since it now constitutes the preferred path. Another technique for curtailing the search is called aspiration alpha-beta search. In this approach the value of the tree from the current position is estimated and a narrow search window (customarily plus and minus the value of half a pawn around that estimate) is used. Aspiration searching is a popular and better understood alternative to the Principal Variation Search method, although not as efficient”
“It is difficult to be precise about the advantages that more searching provides. The size of the chess tree for any position is highly variable. In many endgames there are only about 8 moves for each side, while in complex middle game positions each side might have close to 80 moves. With today’s technology, programs exhaustively search 7 to 10 ply in the middle game, while at least one programmer claims to extend searches selectively to 40 ply! Selective extensions are based on heuristics devised by individual programmers to explore the sphere of influence associated with a key move: to examine the moves that might defend against a mate threat, or that might provide a counter attack and thus indirectly avoid some imminent loss. Selective extensions are not to be confused with singular extensions. The latter technique re-examines any move that looks singularly good relative to the others. The search depth is increased to determine whether the singular move remains best. In some sense this is a way of extending the principal variation in the small. It is a potentially costly but interesting method.
More popular and more widely used is the null move heuristic, where one side provisionally makes two successive moves. If the value of the position remains poor even with the benefit of two moves in a row, then the line of play is abandoned. This is one way to identify situations where an inevitable loss is otherwise being pushed out of sight beyond the search horizon. While many forward pruning methods fail too often to be useful, null move forward pruning is usually beneficial”
“A transposition table serves as a cache memory and is used to store information about positions that have been visited before, usually during an earlier part of an iterative deepening search. It is so called because it can be used to recognize transpositions in the order of moves. Stored in the entry associated with a position are important items like the “value” of the position, the best move from there, and the length of the previous search. “Value” is computed by applying an evaluation function at the terminal nodes of the tree (the nodes on the horizon where the search is stopping). This evaluation function often includes a quiescent search to help resolve existing capture sequences and other uncertainties in the position, such as pending pawn promotions. Transposition tables are also invaluable as a means of extending search in the endgame, where only a few new moves emerge at each node, the others leading through transposition to positions that have been seen before. These tables do not increase program size or complexity, since the total space allocated to them is simply a matter of cost. Each transposition-table entry requires about 10 bytes of memory, and most programs have tables in the range from 32 thousand to 1 million entries, though in 1993 one Supercomputer program boasted a table with a 1,000 million entries! This wide range simply reflects the memory available to the programmer.”
“Despite the underlying similarity in methods there is wide variation in performance among the programs, even in machines using identical hardware. In some cases this merely reflects the effort put into the program’s development. For example, although every program has an opening book, there is no basic book for them to use. Each team develops its own. Conversely, only a few people use Ken Thompson’s CD-ROM database of 5 and 6-piece endgames. This is partly for technical reasons related to relatively slow access to the database, but also because most games finish before reaching these known endings. Perhaps programmers are just being realistic about how to spend their time!
When it comes to speed of execution. Big differences in speed exist even for programs using identical machines. There are many explanations. Those who program in assembler tend to have faster programs, but even for the same programming language, not all compilers (translators) produce equally fast executable code. Much depends too on the relative sizes of the brute force, the selective and the quiescent search stages. Extra time is required in the selective stage to assess and identify which moves will be examined. The extent of this slow, knowledge-based process accounts for much of the speed difference. One other factor that influences the speed and strength of a program is the size of its transposition table.
Although many chess programs are similar to each other, their relative playing strength can still differ greatly. Determining that strength is no easy matter, since programs can be tuned to perform well on any standard test suite. All commercially available programs continually and automatically play games against each other, leading to hundreds of statistically valid results. From these data an ELO rating is computed, much like the rating system used for chess-players in America and elsewhere. In the US the aver – age player has a rating over 1500, while experts are in the range 2000-2200 and masters are rated 2200-2400. Above that come the super elite players called Grand Masters, of whom about 1000 are active worldwide. The current computers rating list is published in each issue of the International Computer Chess Association Journal.”
For more information about chess programs is a good idea to visit this association web site.Enjoy!
GM Susan Polgar…I just read your comment that you prefer FRC. This is a tremendous advertisement for FRC. I loved reading it.
I also loved your comment you don’t agree with learning 30 move depth opening theories.
I hope once you’re elected to the USCF board…your views on FRC becomes open for discussion. We need this.
I do have an interesting suggestion. If you get elected to the USCF…could you find sponsors willing to foot the bill for a match between your sister Judit and Vladimir Kramnik using FRC? This would be a tremendous way of showing the world that FRC deserves serious mention and consideration.
If I’m not mistaken…your sister Judit has NEVER beaten Vladimir Kramnik officially OTB in all the databases I’ve been able to search through. I’m willing to bet right now…if your sister GM Judit Polgar had the chance to play Vladimir Kramnik in FRC…she would beat him. I’m also of the opinion GM Judit Polgar would have nothing to lose by accepting such a challenge. I also see nothing wrong for WC Vladimir Kramnik in accepting such a FRC challenge.
Would it be worth while to try for something like this?
Thanks.
A very interesting forum today – thanks everyone.
There has been a lot of talk about a “World Chess Championship” battle of the genders – and I think of all the possible formats, man v woman will always develop the most publicity. And, without being too sexist, especially when the female (Be it Susan or Judit) is so wonderfully photogenic.
So lets keep our fingers crossed for such an event this year!
Susan, a while back (October time?) you blogged about starting online lessons in the new year, depending on feedback and cost. Is there an update on this, as I would be interested to find out whether lessons would benefit me or whether they are really only useful for the younger players here.
Tennis – I agree that Federer will probably win, and I really hope that Kim Clijsters is triumphant, in her final year before retirement. Especially as my favourite player Anastasia Myskina is sadly injured
Best wishes
Trefor
Wake-up Call!
That is a good lesson in parenting. How much can be accomplished with two supportive parents who share a common goal and desire and what happens when the opposite occurs.
Thanks for sharing…
Good afternoon Susan,
It seems that you had many role models in the world of chess when you were young. In your opinion, who was the best gentlemen and or lady role model that you ran across, and, what did lessons did you learn from them?
What do you think of Beckham coming to play for the MLS?
Things like this give me ultimate hope that American Chess will see better days.
I remember as a youth, just 20 years ago, soccer was nearly non-existance here. Then after Pele came to the US and later the ’84 World Cup, things changed.
For years now I’ve compared chess to soccer here in America. I see many similarites.
The growth of soccer can show us what can come of small things, when people put effort into it.
Now here we are paying a Fifa
player of the year 250 million.
Gregory, I grew up in the Karpov era. Many of the top legends were / have been very nice and respectful to me (Tal, Karpov, Korchnoi, Kasparov, Anand, and many more).
Jerry, that is great. Sometimes a sport needs one big name and he may give the US a needed jolt.
Now if I can get rid of the problems and start to fix the USCF, we can start some real work promoting chess.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
About David Beckham:
He actually is in Real Madrid,one of the top soccer teams in the world..then Why is he moving to USA, with a league weaker than spanish league of stars?
There are two main reasons:
1)He is getting old and is not playing.He is the third option of our coach Fabio Capello.He plays 20 minutes from time to time.
2)The american pay less than us but he is going to have 100% of his image sponsors(here just 50%).
His salary here is 6 million euros per year(after taxes) and earns 15 millions more with sponsors and publicity.
I know he is going to earn in USA just 2 million euros per year,but 30 million euros un publicity.
Summary: He is unhappy here becuase he is not playing and in USA he can earn 11 millions euros more per year.It is a good move, i give him two !!.
I am thrilled to see people expressing interest in FRC. I am all for it. I wish there were small scale FRC tournaments (with regular classical time control) in my local area(Washington DC/VA).
Rgds Manoj.
About Fischer Random Chess:
Well, I use to play FRC and really is funny to try to discover new ideas in a position that I have never seen before.
Fun and fresh ideas are some good points for FRC.
And now the bad points:
1)You cannot use your experience in openings because every game is different, then we need new opening theory or really we are playing just middlegames and endgames in FRC
2)If you have the idea that FRC give us a better chance against computers,you are wrong.They excel in complex middlegames.Kramnik can hold and do 4-2 against Fritz 10, but against the same program playing FRC i predict 6-0 for the machine.
3)It is very difficult to draw or to win against a master.I am an strong amateur(2150), and i do it just two or three times per year(and i play a lot of championships, tomorrow i have one),but in FRC(really more complex of far)probably is going to be near impossible do something good, playing against a master. In FRC an amateur has not chances against a master.
These are the points,but think that the chess rules were the same in the last five centuries, and the game survived.
As always,just think about that.
About chess960 (formerly FRC), Jose A Delgado said…
{
I use to play FRC and really is funny to try to discover new ideas …
And now the bad points:
1)You cannot use your experience in openings because every game is different, then we need new opening theory or really we are playing just middlegames and endgames in FRC
}
If more money were in chess960, entirely new types of “opening theory” would be developed.
Humanity has a narrow and brittle concept of opening theory, stunted by our endless repeats of the same one start position. There is much about chess principles that we will never learn from traditional “chess1”, but that chess960 can teach us.
Human’s mistakenly think things that change very slowly are not changing.
People think the rules of chess are not changing. I say this view is not only wrong it is backwards: the rate of chess rule changes has been increasing.
Since all the huge rule changes between 1400-1425, the mainstream chess1 rules have varied around such things as:
* castling
* stalemate definition
* pawn promotion
* pawn capture in-passing
* color to move first (as recently as 1840’s with H.Staunton)
* draw odds (Armageddon for tie-break in WCChamp match)
* minimum number of required plies before draws allowed (“Sofia” rule)
* time controls
* and more (such as what positions constitute a forcibly declare-able draw).
Other rule changes are enjoying occasional high level exposure and respect. The huge chess960 event held in Mainz Germany every August changes only the initial start position rule. The BAP scoring system is another form of draw odds. Both of these rules have been accepted for limited use by major grandmasters playing serious chess.
History shows that chess rule changes are often made to fix problems in the game. FRC or chess960 is just the latest step in that on-going tradition. Chess960 can fix several problems in chess (too much to detail here in blog, click to see my chess960 book).
[R1] Around 1400 the bishop was upgraded to its current freedom of movement and capture. Decades later the pawn was given the right to advance two squares on its first move: why? The common lazy answer is “they wanted to speed up the game”: I strongly doubt that was the reason. Rather they were trying to fix the excessive dominance of B-N5 pins of knights (such as Bc1g5 and Bf8b4). This dominance was warping and harming the game. Now with the new pawn movement rule, pins could be challenged with pawn moves like h76 then g75.
[R2] R1 reduced one problem but it created another. Pawns became able to scoot passed the enemy pawns. The only reason this is bad is because it warps the proper interplay of forces in chess. So the in-passing pawn capture rule was added several decades later.
*** RIVALRY SELLS ***
The ChessTigers.de chess960 event in Mainz Germany every August crowns its own event champion.
IF any USA chess960 event crowned its own champion, then perhaps a media event could be promoted for a rivarly match between the two champions. The match could be 4 G/60 games spread over two days. Small scale stuff I know, but it is juicy low hanging fruit. It gives the media an angle to make chess interesting to the public.
Gene Milener
http://CastleLong.com/
Susan do you support US troop in Iraq?
or do you like Mr bush junior very much as person n politician?
Hey, Kuku man,
Doesn’t Susan have enough trouble already? I just have to chuckle at the thought of what would happen to her if she answered your question. All of her enemies would suddenly discover a political affiliation real fast.
If she supported Bush, they would become such Democrats, so fast! And if she came out against Bush, those same people would become the most die-hard Republicans you ever saw. Pat Robertson, move over!
So pick your poison, Susan: warmonger or peacenik? 🙂