
The Bobby Fischer Defense, by Garry Kasparov - michael_nielsen
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/bobby-fischer-defense/?pagination=false
======
te_platt
Addressing the theory that Fischer was afraid to play again after becoming
world champion Kasparov writes:

"Brady’s dismissal of this theory misses the point: 'What everyone seemed to
overlook was that at the board Bobby feared no one.' Yes, once at the board he
was fine! Where Fischer had his greatest crisis of confidence was always
before getting to the board, before getting on the plane. Fischer’s
perfectionism, his absolute belief that he could not fail, did not allow him
to put that perfection at risk."

That applies to much more than just chess. In fact I found the whole article
not just very well written but poignant on many levels.

------
gjm11
In case anyone's wondering about the title (the article is about Fischer, but
not about anyone defending him from anything, nor about any chess opening that
bears his name, nor about how he defended in a difficult chess position), I'm
pretty sure it's an allusion to Nabokov's novel "Luzhin's Defense" (the
English translation is simply titled "The Defense"), about a gifted chess
player who gradually falls into insanity as the novel progresses.

(It doesn't entirely fit Fischer, who seems to have done most of his going-mad
after retiring from his chess career rather than during it, but never mind.)

------
stcredzero
_In his play, Fischer was amazingly objective, long before computers stripped
away so many of the dogmas and assumptions humans have used to navigate the
game for centuries. Positions that had been long considered inferior were
revitalized by Fischer’s ability to look at everything afresh...

...Fischer’s modern interpretation of “victory through clarity” was a
revelation. His fresh dynamism started a revolution; the period from 1972 to
1975, when Fischer was already in self-exile as a player, was more fruitful in
chess evolution than the entire preceding decade._

We need some more of this objectivity in programming. The programming domain
is so complex, it's easy for people to create dogmas and defend them with
verbal salad. Some more "victory through clarity" would be beneficial.

~~~
thaumaturgy
I've been thinking about this in recent months, because I've had the good
fortune to have worked with some great programmers in the past -- and they
didn't read or write blogs or magazine articles or anything of the like. They
instead simply showed up to work, treated it like a job, did it, and went
home. They didn't care what language they worked with. And, often, they wrote
extremely clear, good code, on a foundation of simple concepts -- the kind of
concepts which get argued back-and-forth to death on the internet every day.

I've believed for years that most of our great programming talent is
completely unknown and completely unheard-of, working on antiquated database
systems for some company somewhere.

Programming "culture", so much as it has one, could benefit a lot from arguing
less and doing more.

~~~
stcredzero
_Programming "culture", so much as it has one, could benefit a lot from
arguing less and doing more._

Unless we share data about what we're doing, there's no way to grow this
"culture." A way of arguing less and accomplishing more would be to share more
objective data.

------
Jun8
I liked this insightful comment:

"Then on January 17, 2008, he died in Reykjavík after a long illness for which
he had refused treatment. Even this was somehow typical of Fischer, who grew
up playing chess against himself since he had no one else to play. He had
fought to the end and proven himself to be his most dangerous opponent."

It seems like Fischer was playing against himself all his life. That being
said, I don't think today's cold, database driven world of chess (e.g. see
[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/03/21/110321fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/03/21/110321fa_fact_max))
would have had much use for his individuality, had he stayed the course. He
probably would have lost to the new breed of players.

Good for him, then, to stay a legend, albeit a disturbing one.

~~~
jonnathanson
There was a great New Yorker piece a few months back about the new generation
of computer-raised chess players, typified by present-day wunderkind Magnus
Carlsen. The piece is concerned primarily with Carlsen and his rise to fame in
the chess world -- but, being a New Yorker article, it's also quite discursive
and takes a few fun tangents along the way. One of which is a dissection of
computer-age chess players _and_ chess-playing computer algorithms.

The general consensus among chess grandmasters is that the best algorithms out
there are undeniably impossible for a human to defeat -- but yet, they play
"ugly" chess. They're using a brute-force style of AI and can beat a human
player down through sheer speed of calculation, and/or perfect recall of vast
databases of former games. Someone like Kasparov would argue that a computer
chess master is no more the intellectual superior of a human master than a
calculator is the intellectual superior of a human mathematics PhD.

Finally, the article did confirm a suspicion held among some AI theorists and
neuroscientists these days, which is that a combined human/AI "team" can
defeat any lone human or lone AI. In the case of folks like Carlsen, the
thinking is that this new generation will soar to new heights precisely
because it has trained with and against computers, thus piecing together a
best-of-both-worlds approach.

~~~
gnosis
_"Someone like Kasparov would argue that a computer chess master is no more
the intellectual superior of a human master than a calculator is the
intellectual superior of a human mathematics PhD."_

Except that there's a lot more to being good at math than just being good at
calculation and memorization; not so in chess (at least not against
computers).

Computers have proven that they've got what it takes to win the game. And,
ultimately, that's all that really matters in chess as it is presently
designed.

Of course, there are plenty of chess variants (not to mention games like Go)
which are a lot harder for computers to play well. It is quite likely that
that's where most serious chess players will migrate to over time.

In fact, for the last decades of his life, Bobby Fischer himself refused to
play anything but Fischer Random Chess (also known as Chess 960), a variant
which made it practically impossible to memorize a significant portion of
opening theory, since in this variant there is not just a single opening
position as in regular chess, but 960 of them.

~~~
geebee
Do you think chess players will migrate to Go because they don't like playing
a game that they can't win against a computer?

I'm nowhere near good enough to pretend to understand the motivations of a
chess master, but this does kind of make sense to me. Somehow, it kills the
vibe to know that computers will always win.

Funny, humans still enjoy sports even though a human sprinter will never run
as fast as a motorcycle. Maybe it's because we've always been physically less
capable than animals, maybe it hurts more to be bested intellectually. Horses
have always run faster than us, so we're primed to see the motorcycle as a
tool rather than a challenge. In sports, maybe we're better at celebrating
human achievement without comparing it to something else.

Like most people, I don't actually think humans really were bested by
computers in chess. There is a huge difference, of course - the computers are
winning by following a completely different "thought" process than a human.
It's an astoundingly impressive accomplishment to build a program that can
beat chess masters, but because the way a human plays is so different, I think
that I understand what the calculator analogy is getting at. In some ways, the
"victory" shows the severe limitations of computers - a human chess
grandmaster, capable of holding and evaluating maybe a dozen positions, is
capable of playing evenly with a computer that evaluates hundreds of millions
of positions a second. And in Go, that dozen or so positions combined with
intuition, strategy, and other mental processes we consider almost subjective
is so effective that a billions of positions a second computer can't even come
close to winning.

If go eventually falls because computers are now capable of evaluating
trillions of moves per second, but the approach is still essentially number
crunching, well that's an impressive engineering feat, but "human
intelligence" won't be any more defeated than it was the first time, with
chess.

Now, if a computer can beat a human by evaluating _fewer_ moves, ok, maybe
then we've been bested.

~~~
gnosis
_"Do you think chess players will migrate to Go because they don't like
playing a game that they can't win against a computer?"_

I don't think most chess players will migrate to Go. It's the serious chess
players which will probably migrate, and they'll probably migrate to a variant
of chess rather than to Go.

Go is just too different for most players who are fascinated with chess to
switch to (though they might appreciate both).

Many chess variants, on the other hand, tend to be similar in many ways to
regular chess. So if you enjoy playing regular chess, you'll likely enjoy
playing a variant just as much (maybe even more).

In fact, "regular chess" is itself actually a chess variant, as the rules of
chess have changed over the centuries. What we call "chess" today differs in
some ways from what was known as "chess" even just a couple of hundred years
ago. And the further back in time you go, the more differences there are.

Chess is not a game whose rules are set in stone for all time. It changes and
develops with the demands and interests of the ages. And it seems likely that
the demands of our age will change it once again.

 _"I'm nowhere near good enough to pretend to understand the motivations of a
chess master, but this does kind of make sense to me. Somehow, it kills the
vibe to know that computers will always win._ "

It's not so much that humans somehow resent the dominance of the machines in
chess, but that computers (and the study of chess in general) have radically
transformed the game in a direction that many players are unhappy with.

For instance, it used to be that if a tournament game lasted too long, it
would be adjourned (ie. the players would take a break for a while) until the
game could be resumed. In the meantime they could think over the adjourned
position and use what they thought up when the game resumed. Because of
computers, that's no longer done.

The problem is that either player could now secretly use a computer to analyze
the adjourned position for him, and from that point on the result of the game
becomes more of a matter of who has the strongest chess computer rather than
of which human is the strongest chess player.

Another problem that computers (and the study of chess) have brought about is
that the memorization of previously analyzed moves has become a major part of
the game (especially at the more competitive levels). This was true even in
Fischer's day, before chess computers were useful, but is much more true
today.

The consequence of this is that the person who's memorized the most chess
moves can have a great advantage (though this is a bit of an
oversimplification, as many other factors enter in to play as well). Many
people are really not very fond of playing against what amounts to a database
of chess moves rather than against another human being.

That's why chess variants like Fischer Random Chess are appealing: to a very
large extent, they take away the usefulness of memorizing chess moves.

Of course, one of the advantages that computers have over humans is that they
have a "perfect memory" (though not a limitless one). So when playing a chess
variant like Fischer Random Chess, the playing field is leveled against
computers as well.

Another problem that computers have brought to chess is the possibility of
cheating using computers. Accusations of cheating with computers have plagued
even the highest levels of chess, and certain types of chess ("postal chess"
and internet chess in particular, where you can't see who you're really
playing against) are very vulnerable to such cheating.

Playing a variant of chess that's harder for computers to win would solve this
problem as well.

 _"Funny, humans still enjoy sports even though a human sprinter will never
run as fast as a motorcycle."_

Well, the thing is that a motorcycle doesn't actually run.

It'll be interesting to see what happens to sports like sprinting and boxing
when humanoid robots get advanced enough to be able to actually compete in
these sports.

I don't think they'll be quite as catastrophically affected as chess has been,
since study with the robots isn't likely to give nearly as much of an
advantage to players in those sports as studying with chess computers has
given to chess players. But it'll still be interesting to see how they react
once robots can actually beat them at their game.

------
Isofarro
There's an interesting piece about the potential Fischer-Karpov match where
Kasparov notes: "This includes testimony by Karpov himself, who said Fischer
was the favorite and later put his own chances of victory at 40 percent."

This is the same Karpov that a few matches earlier ceded that Spassky would
win that current candidates cycle, and then Karpov goes on to beat Spassky
quite comfortably in the semi-final match.

I think this speaks for Karpov's public-facing modesty and pragmatism, rather
than an objective examination of playing strengths.

But still, a Fischer-Karpov match could have been absolutely epic, perhaps
potentially surpassing the previous Spassky-Fischer match.

------
btilly
It is worth noting that the USA has produced two world champion chess players,
both abandoned the game and went crazy. (The other was Paul Morphy: see
<http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/Morphygoescrazy.html> for one contemporary
report of his insanity.)

Actually Kasparov's grasp of reality is somewhat questionable. For instance
read <http://www.revisedhistory.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm> where he
demonstrates an astonishing lack of understanding of basic history. (For the
first major mistake, see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agricultural_Revolution> for why his
naive projections of population growth are clearly wrong.)

~~~
barrkel
A lack of knowledge of British history is hardly grounds for questioning
someone's grasp on reality.

~~~
btilly
I'm questioning his grasp of reality because he believes that about a thousand
years of recorded history didn't happen, and there is some plot among
historians to cover this up.

In this particular case a lack of knowledge of British history is a lack of
knowledge of world history. The British Agricultural Revolution resulted in
major increases in food supply, that allowed populations to grow rapidly. What
Britain discovered got exported to the rest of Europe, and European colonies.
The result was a greatly expanded carrying capacity for the human population,
which enabled a world-wide population explosion.

Now granted, most people don't know about this. But if you're curious about
the history of population growth in Europe, it really is easy to find out what
historians have to say about it. And when you do so you should run across this
fairly quickly.

~~~
hugh3
I do agree, that article is slightly nutty. It has the usual air of a very
smart guy getting outside his area of expertise -- one simple observation plus
one leap to a rather world-shattering conclusion minus a few key pieces of
knowledge which anyone in the actual field should know about.

It's not quite the same thing as having a tenuous grasp on reality. It's more
like listening to Einstein (or Chomsky) on politics -- very good in one field,
rather over-confident in another.

~~~
singular
> It's more like listening to Einstein (or Chomsky) on politics -- very good
> in one field, rather over-confident in another.

Chomsky is very careful to heavily reference and back up his political
opinions, so I'm a little confused as to how he is over-confident in the
field? I assume you simply disagree with him?

~~~
gaius
It must be noted that what Chomsky is famous for, his deep grammar, has never
been shown to be anything more than a particularly elegant theory, not
representative of actual real linguistics - and that is what he is good at,
assembling beautiful arguments ultimately based on nothing. He's an extremely
skillful rhetoritician and orator - but the acid test is, _does this work?_

~~~
singular
I'm not informed enough about linguistics to be able to determine whether what
you say is true or not, but it is certainly irrelevant to what we're actually
discussing - Chomsky _does_ supply evidence to back up his political claims.

~~~
gaius
Mmm yes, like I say, he's very good at _being convincing_ and selective use of
references is a part of that, but his conclusions are reheated anarcho-
syndicalism, a system that was tried and failed in the 1930s. It doesn't
matter how elegant your theories are - what matters is what actually happens
when the rubber hits the road.

Just like a good (in the sense of skill) salesman can sell you a product you
don't actually want by producing all the evidence you need...

------
rrrazdan
Here is a link to the famous 'Game of the Century' by Bobby.
<http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008361>

------
nicetryguy
Kasparov is a surprisingly eloquent writer

~~~
gaius
Why surprising? Because he's Russian?

~~~
nicetryguy
Pleasantly surprising. I wouldn't naturally associate a smooth pen and lingual
beauty with a chess champion

------
comatose_kid
Really great: "The ability to put in those hours of work is in itself an
innate gift. Hard work is a talent."

------
rohwer
As an addendum, the final round of the current world championship candidates
matches are starting. See <http://kazan2011.fide.com/> or This Week In Chess
<http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/>

------
iamgoat
Once it hits video I highly recommend watching Bobby Fischer Against the
World. I'll have to read this book even though the author of the article
points out that he wishes there was more meat on the early life of Bobby.

In the movie, his life was pretty depressing to see. Much like other child
prodigies who have a great beginning, years down the road you're wondering
what ever happened to them.

His awkwardness and ignorance had to have a great affect. I imagine a lot of
it came from not having a father figure (or guidance in general) and becoming
entirely consumed by chess at such a young age. He really closed himself off
in his own world.

------
petegrif
Great article. I am always amazed by how well K writes.

