
Kasparov versus the World - CraneWorm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasparov_versus_the_World
======
Someone
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasparov_versus_the_World#Af...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasparov_versus_the_World#Aftermath):

 _”After the game Kasparov shocked many people on the MSN forum, which was
kept open after multiple requests, by announcing he had been reading the World
Team strategy board during the game.”_

⇒ one could argue this was “the World, including Kasparov versus the World,
excluding Kasparov”

~~~
savanaly
>one could argue this was “the World, including Kasparov versus the World,
excluding Kasparov

Well only if he also posted his best ideas for how to beat himself. It's
Kasparov vs the world and Kasparov cheated a bit.

~~~
Tomminn
You miss the parents point: White was playing with the rest of world's
analysis and Kasporov's analysis, Black was only playing with the rest of
world's analysis.

Literally reading all the thoughts of your opponent is a little more than
"cheating a bit". It is putting your opponent on your side of the table.

~~~
galfarragem
I've mixed feelings. At first I lost some respect for him when he said he
cheated but then I realized he conceded that he cheated and that is also
respectful.

~~~
vanderZwan
I mean honestly, when it is not against the rules it is just good meta-gaming.
At least when playing on this level. And the game was still very interesting!

------
Laforet
The entry reminds me how Microsoft had one of the better proto-social media
platforms of the 2000s and a solid messenger app, and then managed to run both
into the ground. RIP old blogosphere

~~~
gesman
Ballmerized projects

------
barbegal
This sort of proves that there is no such thing as "Wisdom of the Crowds".
There seems to be a bit of a cult myth [1][2] about groups being able to "on
average" outperform even the best individuals but that seems to be based on
some rather flimsy studies whose methodology has not been published. It seems
more likely that in reality, data is cherry picked, where it correlates with
the "Wisdom of the Crowds" myth nit gets published, if not it gets discarded.

The most rigorous experiment I've seen performed, tested a group of reddit
users on estimating lines in an image [3]. Some expert individuals were far
more accurate than the group average.

[1] [http://feiss.be/blog/post/169](http://feiss.be/blog/post/169)

[2]
[https://www.cfapubs.org/doi/abs/10.2469/faj.v43.n3.50](https://www.cfapubs.org/doi/abs/10.2469/faj.v43.n3.50)

[3] [http://feiss.be/blog/post/169](http://feiss.be/blog/post/169)

~~~
fasj82
Checkmate, democracy.

~~~
mattnewton
I tend to think democracy is less about finding some optimal solution and more
about finding a solution enough people will be happy with that there isn’t
revolution.

~~~
opportune
Yeah, democracy may have a limited best case scenario compared to other forms
of decision making, but in many senses it has one of the best worst case
scenarios. More centralized power may be able to get more done, but
historically we've seen it often results in decision making that is either
just-plain-bad (when leadership is clueless) or which only benefits those in
power, to the detriment of everyone else (when leadership is malevolent).
Whereas democracy is slower and less efficient, but does ensure that most
people are in support of the decisions being made

~~~
thomasz
Democracy isn't about getting the best policy each and every time, its primary
value lies in the fact that it creates framework that facilitates the peaceful
transition of power and avoids the otherwise frequent wars of succession,
purges, coups and whatnot.

------
Moodles
I'm not a great Chess player by any means, but I was good as a child. I've
recently found Kingcrusher to give really entertaining youtube videos on it
various games, e.g. he covers good GM matches or recently AlphaZero. His take
on Kasparov vs world;
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJyJCdU6Fh0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJyJCdU6Fh0)

~~~
cyberferret
I've recently got back into chess playing again after decades away. Recently I
stumbled upon Agadmator's channel on Youtube [0] where he gives fast,
insightful, no nonsense breakdowns of famous and not so famous chess games.
Love his deadpan style, and also how he goes beyond the actual game to analyse
'what if' scenarios or explains why a player resigned in some games.

[0] -
[https://www.youtube.com/user/AGADMATOR](https://www.youtube.com/user/AGADMATOR)

~~~
Moodles
But why didn't he capture the rook????

------
indescions_2018
This came up in the "Twitch Plays Go" discussion here on HN this morning. It's
a terrific concept. And am definitely stealing it ;)

Highest vote count amongst N players decides move choice. Player votes can
even be weighted by "success" based on past performance.

But rather than chess, which is a fully deterministic, perfect information
game. I'd really like to apply it to stochastic games. And see how adept
crowds can be at finding an equilibria.

------
phreeza
Not a chess expert by any means, but I think ca 1999 was probably a kind of
sweet spot for this kind of match because the internet was sufficiently mature
to allow for sufficient people to participate, but most participants would not
have been able to run a grandmaster level chess engine on their home PCs. I
could imagine use of chess engines would make such a "human" crows much more
powerful these days?

~~~
aaron695
> but most participants would not have been able to run a grandmaster level
> chess engine on their home PCs

Pretty sure your phone is more powerfully than any human that has or might
exist at chess.

Fairly sure humans can no longer assist a computer (human + computer <=
computer)

So not really sure what you'd prove today?

It was also pre-lulz. The hive mind these days has seen the value in humor
over original intentions.

------
dang
Discussed in 2008:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=392368](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=392368)

~~~
ryanlol
I was reading this article earlier today, and had the same thoughts patio11
was having in 2008.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=392524](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=392524)

Nice to see it's survived for so long.

------
d0m
Link to the game
[http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1252350](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1252350)

------
elahieh
At the time I was involved in the Computer Chess Team and wrote the post-game
summary for slashdot.org. I still like to analyse the game with the latest
versions of Stockfish when they come out, with whatever EC2 hardware I can get
hold of.

The problem with the Wikipedia article is the subjectivity of how the "?" and
"!" annotations on the moves are handed out - sometimes they are quite wrong.

The clearest example in the article is the fact that 37... e6 loses and thus
it deserves a double question mark, because 37... e5 draws. Anybody who
downloads Stockfish and the six piece table bases can see that very quickly in
2018, but I suppose Wikipedia requires an "authoritative" published source on
that before it can go into the article. Similarly on the next move, 38. Rd1
wins, whereas Kasparov's 38. h6 only draws. So that also deserves at least a
question mark. (perhaps Chessbase should do an article on it)

Other dubious annotations are 18... f5 when 18... Bd4 is a clear draw (also in
the Kasparov and King book) and perhaps 26... f4 when 26... Bc5 was better (in
"Reinventing Discovery" the author writes about this move choice quite a bit).

~~~
Someone
I’m not saying it applies, here, but there also is a psychological aspect to
chess annotations. Annotators may mark a move as good even if they think or
even know better moves against optimal play exist. It isn’t fair to expect
human chess players to play optimally.

For example, Mikhail Tal’s made multiple sacrifices that won him games even
today get a _!_ annotation from reviewers, even though they aren’t optimal
([https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-should-one-
go-a...](https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-should-one-go-about-
studying-tals-games))

------
dmitriid
This reads better than any action book out there

------
awaisraad
It is said it was a computer error that helped it win against Kasparov.

[https://www.theverge.com/2014/10/24/7056493/how-a-
computer-e...](https://www.theverge.com/2014/10/24/7056493/how-a-computer-
error-helped-deep-blue-beat-humanitys-best-chess-player)

------
jonbarker
I'd watch if someone created this for Go, only the format is 'the world vs the
world'. Have a timeframe for voting on the next move, then make the next most
upvoted move, then repeat.

~~~
jgtrosh
Maybe that would feel to much like playing on your own, and not seem very fun.
If you could give each “player” an indentifiable characteristic it might be
bring out some weird psychologycal effects. Either something kind of abstract
like red v blue, or something more anthropomorphic like boy v girl.

~~~
dfox
There is Babylon 5 episode about the conflict between Drazi of "green" and
"purple" characteristic (2x03, coincidently? one of the more important
episodes for the overall story arc). Last week I was reminded of this while
thinking about Ingress and it's green vs. blue "conflict" (which is
wonderfully designed such that taking the in-game fights into meatspace will
gain you nothing in comparison to settling them in-game).

~~~
jacques_chester
I can't help but think of the Byzantine factions, the Blues and the Greens.

In a riot sparked by a chariot race[0], half of Constantinople was destroyed.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots)

------
legionof7
I'd be really interested to see this again but utilizing the surprisingly
popular algorithm (Bayesian truth serum)

------
m12k
Twitch plays chess

