View From

Down Under
Chris Depasquale
Mission Improbable
Getting Away
No doubt about it, the life of the chess journalist is a high-pressure one, you are
constantly living on the edge. At any moment you might attach an "N"
(novelty) to a move in a game you are annotating, only to find out that it was
played two days earlier in the Ulan Bator Open. Or worse still, append an "!" to
a move that later turns out to be refuted by anybody who has the time and
energy to put Fritz on infinite analysis mode for a week or two.
Because of this pressure, every chess journalist needs to get away from it all
once in a while, so I decided to do some rock climbing. One of the advantages
of living in outback central Australia is that you are just a stones throw from
some of the largest monoliths and the deepest canyons in the world. Another
advantage is that the place is so isolated your chances of coming across another
human being are almost negligible.
It is for that reason that the tragedy occurred. When I burst over the ledge to the
top of the canyon the person already there was so surprised by the noise he
swung around, lost his footing, and plummeted to his death. Naturally I
reported the incident when I got back to town, but knew as that as soon as I
walked out of the police station they would immediately shred my signed
statement. People do die climbing the monoliths, canyons and cwms in this part
of the world but the deaths never get publicity. To do so would be bad for the
tourist trade, I am told.
The only thing I could report about the chap was that he was a dead ringer for
Tom Cruise. "How do you know it wasnt Tom Cruise?" the policeman asked
me. "He looked too much like him," I explained patiently. Charlie Chaplin once
anonymously entered a Charlie Chaplin look-alike competition, and finished
third. In a Tom Cruise look-alike competition, my rock-climbing mate would
have beaten the real Tom Cruise comfortably. But I digress.
That the police didnt intend to follow up the matter was made clear by the fact
that they let me keep the sunglasses, which was the only evidence of the
blokes existence I had been able to find at the top of the canyon. These came
in useful when I got back to work, the first phase of which was a brainstorming
session.
Brainstorming
For me, a brainstorming session commences like this. I go out into the back
courtyard, arrange the banana lounge in a nice sunny spot, lie down on the
lounge in the sun, and start wondering where my next assignment (and next
meal) might be coming from. This process invariably leads me to being at one
with my surroundings, and I quickly assume a trance-like state.
View From Down Under
file:///C|/Cafe/Chris/chris.htm (1 of 8) [10/5/2000 7:37:00 AM]
Just how long the trance lasts depends on many things, like what time my wife
gets home, or when the ice cream van arrives in my street. Invariably, however,
it leads to inspiration for my next article, even if I have to enter this trance-like
state for several consecutive days.
On this particular day I was having difficulty achieving my trance-like state.
Initially I thought it might have been that I had overdone breakfast, but on
review I confirmed that I had stuck to my usual Spartan four courses plus wine.
Just in case, I quaffed another couple of glasses of wine, but found it didnt
help (much), it was the angle of the sun that causing me the problem. "Give me
a lever long enough, and a place to lie" I muttered to myself, but it sounded
like too much work, so I slipped on the sunglasses of the Tom Cruise look-alike
instead.
The Mission
That did the trick. Almost immediately I had an inspiration, as if somebody was
whispering the entire thing into my ear. I dont recall the precise words, but it
was along these lines:
"Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to
conduct an in-depth interview with the latest addition
to the ranks of chess super-stardom. You will find
your target in chat room number 5 at [website
address]. Your interview, should it be published
successfully, will attract the usual fee. Naturally,
should it turn out to be a crock, we will deny any
knowledge of the operation. This message will
self-destruct in five seconds."
I immediately rushed inside to scrawl down the website address before I forgot
it, my first bad move for the day. Going from the sunlight to the relative
darkness indoors, and wearing sunglasses to boot, I could see practically
nothing, and tripped over an enormous breakfast tray some idiot had left lying
around. As I hit the deck the sunglasses were dislodged. They couldnt have
been very good quality as, upon contact with the floor, they spontaneously
combusted, leaving nothing behind at all. (It is possible, perhaps, that they left
some ashes behind, but as I had run out of empty ashtrays two weeks earlier,
and had been improvising, it was impossible for me to tell. But I digress.)
I logged in to the appointed place, and found somebody waiting for me in the
chat room. "Who are you?" I keyed in, and received the same question in
response. "I am Chris Depasquale, chess journalist to the stars," I replied
impatiently, "who are you?" A few moments later the reply appeared on the
screen. "I am Junior."
"Well sonny", I keyed, trying to get as much contempt as possible into the
keystrokes, "is your father home? I am supposed to be doing a very important
interview, and I dont like to be kept waiting." I didnt have to wait long for the
reply. "It is me you are to interview. Junior. The chess computer program,
Junior 6."
I was taken aback. I hadnt interviewed a computer program before. But, what
the heck, I thought to myself, I havent got anything better to do this morning
View From Down Under
file:///C|/Cafe/Chris/chris.htm (2 of 8) [10/5/2000 7:37:00 AM]
that doesnt involve a long trek to the bottleshop. And so I talked as fast as my
hands would let me. (For this I was well equipped. My Italian ancestors
developed the technique of talking with their hands many years ago,
anticipating the Internet chat room by several generations at least. But I
digress.) Here is the outcome of my interview with Junior.
The Interview
CD: You scored 50% (+2, =5, -2) against the super-GMs in Dortmund
recently, and performed at about 2700 strength. Were you happy with your
result there?
J: This is where the humans, if they had a good result, say (full of false
modesty) "I was happy with my result, but not the quality of my play". Or, if
the human had a bad result, "I played some interesting chess but wasnt
rewarded on the scoreboard for my creativity". I will tell you, honestly, I could
have done better.
CD: What prevented you from doing better?
J: Well, the politics of the situation is a bit tricky. Suppose I go out there and
blow the field away, score plus 6 or plus 7 [the winning score at Dortmund was
+3 CD] when would be my next such tournament invitation?
CD: Surely that would lead to a bonanza for the sales department?
J: But only temporarily. Then the next edition of Fritz or Hiarcs or whatever
comes out, and people forget. It is better to be in the public eye for a longer
period of time. It is the same with the Internet Grand Prix event earlier this
year. When my operators realised that I was going to win the event they had to
pull the plug. Literally.
CD: You are certain that you would have won but for the connection problems?
J: Absolutely. Firstly, at that rate of play, we computers are as good as
anybody, and better than most. But think of the conditions. I was playing
exactly as I normally do. But the humans were trying something new. They
were not used to the concept of playing serious tournament chess over the
Internet. The result would not have been in doubt. But it is all about politics.
CD: Already FIDE is talking about not recognising events in which computers
take part. What are your views on that?
J: Well (smiles) just yesterday I overheard Fritz saying to Crafty that there is
some doubt that FIDE can recognise a chess event. Full stop! (Laughs) But
Kasparov is the one with the right idea. Chess-playing computer programs can
bring the game up to a new level, but he is the only one who has stuck to that
line. Little wonder he crushes all the other humans, he is the only one being
completely positive about the technology. In this respect chess is no different to
other fields: the first embrace the latest technology will steal a march on the
rest.
CD: But Kasparov lost to Deep Blue
J: (Interrupts) Phooey! Deep Blue was a figment of everybodys imagination.
Kasparov was playing a team of leading Grandmasters in consultation. No
View From Down Under
file:///C|/Cafe/Chris/chris.htm (3 of 8) [10/5/2000 7:37:00 AM]
computer in the world would select more than 90% of the moves chosen by
"Deep Blue".
CD: Do you have evidence of this?
J: Well, I have some evidence, but when I mentioned it at a couple of bulletin
boards, Amir [Amir Ban, one of the programmers of Junior - CD] got some
very threatening emails from the heavies at IBM. (Apologetically) I do read
Amirs emails occasionally when Im bored. So I stopped releasing the
evidence. I dont want to get Amir into trouble; hes been like a father to me.
But wait a few years until computers are performing at 2900 or 3000 strength.
Then try to get them to find some of "Deep Blues" better moves. It wont
happen, these were human moves.
CD: So the human players are still stronger then?
J: That is an oversimplification of what I was saying. On some occasions the
humans can come up with better moves than we can. But overall chess strength
is not established by those 2 or 3 moves a game, it is about playing consistently
good moves.
CD: So, what sort of positions do the computers play less well? Some of the
players at Dortmund suggested that you played poorly against the Stonewall
structure (d4-e3-f4). Is this true?
J: This is purely a result of propaganda. That is one of the reasons I am talking
to you today to set the record straight. Kramnik plays the Stonewall attack,
wins a game, publishes some notes, and for the rest of my life I have to face
this boring crap, instead of the nice, juicy Sicilians and Kings Indians that
Kasparov gets to play. Lets look at the facts. If this opening is so good
everybody would be playing it, wouldnt they? But they dont, because the
opening is no good.
CD: So what went wrong against Kramnik?
J: Well, look, it was like this. Tell me one chess player who cant relate to this
situation. The previous round I was swindled by Khalifman. I was a pawn up,
just winning, and he offered this second pawn. I didnt see any reason not to
accept, but suddenly I couldnt win. He got a draw. I was annoyed, of course, as
anybody participating at this level would be.
Junior 6 - Khalifman, A (2667) Dortmund (4), 10.07.2000
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 d6 5.Be3 Nf6 6.Qd2 b5 7.Bd3 Bg4 8.e5 b4
9.Ne4 Nxe4 10.Bxe4 d5 11.Bd3 Bxf3 12.gxf3 Qb6 13.h4 Nd7 14.h5 c5
15.dxc5 Nxc5 16.Be2 0-0 17.Qxd5 Rac8 18.hxg6 hxg6 19.Qd4 g5 (See
Diagram)
View From Down Under
file:///C|/Cafe/Chris/chris.htm (4 of 8) [10/5/2000 7:37:00 AM]
20.Bxg5? [20.Qg4!] 20...Ne6 21.Qxb6
axb6 22.Bxe7 Rfe8 23.Bd6 Nd4 24.Bd3
Bxe5 25.0-0-0 Bxd6 26.Bh7+ Kf8 27.Rxd4
Bc5 28.Rg4 Ke7 29.Re1+ Kd6 30.Rd1+
Kc7 31.Bd3 Rcd8 32.Rf1 Rd4 33.Be4 Re5
34.Rh1 Re7 35.Rg5 Rd6 36.Rg2 Red7
37.Bf5 Re7 38.Rf1 Re5 39.Be4 Re7
40.Rh2 Red7 41.f4 Rd4 42.f3 Bd6 43.Rh4
Bc5 44.Rhh1 Rd2 45.Kb1 Rg2 46.f5 Bd4
47.Rd1 Bc5 48.Bd3 Rg3 49.Rdf1 Re7
50.Be4 Rd7 51.Ka1 Bd4 52.Bd3 Re7
53.Bc4 f6 54.Kb1 Reg7 55.Rh4 Bc5
56.Re4 Rg1 57.Rc1 R7g5 58.Be2 Rxc1+
59.Kxc1 Rxf5 60.Kd2 Rd5+ 61.Bd3 Bd4 62.Kc1 Bc5 63.Re6 Rd6 64.Re2
Rd7 65.Rg2 -
To make matters worse I have an entire rest day to fester over my stupidity. It is
all right for the humans, they go off swimming, or playing tennis, and just
forget about it. But what am I going to do? Go swimming? Of course not. So I
spent the entire rest day moping about in my room.
Then, in round 5 I am playing Kramnik, a match I was looking forward to, and
by move four he has a strategically lost position. This Stonewall structure. And
I simply dropped my intensity. Then I missed a trick, his 18
th
move I didnt see
coming at all until he played it, and suddenly I am struggling, perhaps even
losing at that point.
Kramnik, V (2770) - Junior 6 Dortmund (5), 12.07.2000
1.d4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.Bd3 e6 4.f4 Be7 5.Nf3 c5 6.c3 0-0 7.Nbd2 Ng4 8.Qe2 c4
9.Bc2 f5 10.Rg1 Nc6 11.h3 Nf6 12.g4 Ne4 13.Qg2 g6 14.Qh2 Kh8 15.h4
Nxd2 16.Bxd2 fxg4 17.Ng5 (See Diagram)
17Qe8? 18.h5! gxh5 19.Rxg4 Rf6
20.Rh4 Rh6 21.0-0-0 a5 22.Rh1 b5 23.Bd1
Ra7 24.Bxh5 Qf8 25.e4 Bd8 26.f5 b4
27.Bg6 Rxh4 28.Qxh4 bxc3 29.bxc3 Bf6
30.Qxh7+ Rxh7 31.Rxh7+ Kg8 32.Bf7+
Qxf7 33.Rxf7 1-0
CD: Did you see his notes to the game in
New In Chess magazine?
J: Yes. They were not very flattering. To
describe my early moves Kramnik used
words like "ridiculous", and "inhuman", and
he says that my 13
th
and 15
th
moves were
serious errors. Yet, at move 17 I can play 17e5 and I am still fine.
(Sarcastically) But apparently he played perfect chess with the White pieces
while all this was happening! If he is serious, lets see him play the Stonewall
attack in his match with Kasparov, and see how he goes.
CD: So you think Kasparov will win that match?
J: Well, I havent studied it too closely. But you will find all the computers are
View From Down Under
file:///C|/Cafe/Chris/chris.htm (5 of 8) [10/5/2000 7:37:00 AM]
barracking for Kasparov, because he is the one who has embraced the
technology, and been thoroughly positive about it.
CD: Such as "Advanced Chess", man and machine together. How do you
explain the poor quality of the play in the Advanced Chess matches to date?
J: It is just a matter of time. So far nobody has had enough experience to
maximise the coming together of the human player and the computer program
in cross-board chess, because the humans are having to take their decisions too
quickly. Compare the rise in standard in correspondence chess, where the
players can harness the strength of the computer programs while taking as
much time as they want. It is in the field of correspondence/email chess where
we have seen genuine "Advanced Chess" taking place.
CD: After playing you in Dortmund, having already played Fritz in the Dutch
Championship, Jeroen Piket remarked that you were stronger than Fritz. Does
that please you?
J: (Blushing) Well, there is, of course, both rivalry and kinship among the
programs. It is a bit like you humans, in a way. When you meet each other in
the national championship you are out for blood, but a short time later you are
in the Olympiad team together, and the best of mates. Except for the English
team, of course, their players always hope their team-mates fail. (Chuckles.)
But Pikets comment is most gratifying we all like to be acknowledged as the
best.
CD: Several of the players at Dortmund avoided main opening theory against
you. Some remark that the huge openings database you can access during the
game gives you an unfair advantage. How do you respond to that?
J: Well, this is more anti-computer propaganda. The openings database
seriously inhibits my performance. Think about it logically. At the super-GM
level a good percentage of the victories are set up by opening novelties. Yet I
have to compete against these guys and am not allowed to play a novelty, I
have to stick with what is in the database. So it is actually a disadvantage.
CD: Could you actually create some novelties of your own?
J: (Disdainfully) Of course! Let me give you an example. In my spare time I
like to play blitz games against Rebel. I play 1.d4, he replies 1d5 and I play
2.h4!N. I choose this line because Rebel blunders a piece on move 3: 2Bf5
3.e3 e6? (See Diagram)
View From Down Under
file:///C|/Cafe/Chris/chris.htm (6 of 8) [10/5/2000 7:37:00 AM]
And now 4.g4! wins a piece. Rebel
overlooks this because after 4Bg6 5.h5
Be4 6.f3 he has 6Bb4+. This check is
completely useless, both 7.c3 and 7.Kf2 win
a piece, but the checking possibility serves
to put the piece loss beyond Rebels
horizon. But I digress. The point is that
2.h4! is a strong novelty. When we
computers get around to solving chess it
will become clear that it is the only winning
move in that position. Yet at Dortmund, and
in other tournaments, I am not allowed to
play 2.h4 because it is not in the database.
So this supposed "unfair advantage" is actually a major disadvantage at that
level.
Of course, against lesser players we can generally rely on the database to get a
winning position straight out of the opening. No need for any thought at all. If I
am playing anybody below 2500 these days I generally amuse myself doing
cryptic crosswords during the opening phase.
CD: You mentioned "solving chess". Is this really possible and, if so, how far
away is it?
J: Well, it can happen, but it will only happen as a scientific experiment. It is
absolutely clear that chess players, chess organisations and developers of
commercial chess software have no interest in solving chess, it would be a
disaster for them. And, of course, we cant do it while we are restricted to
known opening theory. It can happen, but not in my lifetime. Today I am king,
but soon I will be Junior Senior, and passing on the baton to Junior Junior.
CD: Well thank you very much for talking to me today, it has been most
enlightening.
J: Where will this interview be published?
CD: The Chess Caf. Do you read my columns there?
J: Well, you usually prattle on about sex and drugs and rock & roll. While that
should be of interest to all humans, whatever their level of chess, it is not of
much interest to me, I am only a machine. But I did notice that recently you
gave an exclamation mark to a move I managed to refute in just three days on
infinite analysis mode
Copyright 2000 Chris Depasquale. All rights reserved.
Want more Chris Depasquale? Order his very funny book My 60 Memorable
Columns now.

View From Down Under
file:///C|/Cafe/Chris/chris.htm (7 of 8) [10/5/2000 7:37:00 AM]
[The Chess Cafe Home Page] [Book Reviews] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists]
[Endgame Studies] [The Ninth File] [The Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About The Chess Cafe] [Contact Us]
Copyright 2000 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
"The Chess Cafe" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.

View From Down Under
file:///C|/Cafe/Chris/chris.htm (8 of 8) [10/5/2000 7:37:00 AM]