All that fuss and only a draw??? Chess should have overtime and keep going until someone wins :)

Michael@Slashdot wasn't as convinced of Kasparov's excusing "himself (unconvincingly)" about Deep Blue's win being backed up by humans, but either way, the above link is somewhat interesting for Chess Geeks.

Glenn Frazier quotes a chess maxim.

His purpose was to discuss politics, but I'll leave that to other people. I'm more interested in Chess:

Chess has many maxims. One of the most well known (and yet least followed by beginners) is "The threat is greater than the execution." Like all maxims, it is really a shorthand for a more complex understanding, and thus cannot be followed blindly with success. The basic notions behind it, though, are pretty simple:

If a rational opponent sees what is threatened and does not like it, they will be inclined to react to it before, rather than after, it happens;

To some degree or another, the future is not practically knowable, and so how real a danger a given threat poses is often uncertain;

Thus, the threat, if reacted to, may be more powerful than the actual execution of the threat, which could have turned out to fail, had it not been prevented; and also

Executing an aggressive action always involves an exchange (loss of material, weakening/overextension of position, change of initiative, etc.), even if it's a net benefit to you;

So getting the opponent to react to a threat can sometimes achieve the same result at less of a cost, compared to actually executing the threat.

This is absolutely true. It's amazing how much effect the act of attacking and bluffing is important in real chess. I can't stand playing against a computer. The psychology and "magic" is gone from the game.

I'm sure many people learn a lot from the computer but the few times I've done it the games have felt so empty. When you watch real masters playing it is so much fun. They often have great humour and the confidence or lack thereof when they make a move has a tremendous effect.

It's been years since I've watched a game with the best Speed Chess player I ever met, an old acquaintance of mine, Dean from Croatia. He is a master Speed Chess player, but he doesn't hang around the chess scene in Santa Monica anymore. If anyone reading this knows his whereabouts, let me know. And if you ever get a chance to watch him play, don't miss it! The guy is incredible. He will play anyone with 1 minute on his clock to 6-7 minutes for the other side. He will know how he will answer your move, no matter which one you choose, before you have decided on your move. And his hand will hit the clock a millisecond after yours does, time and time again. All you need to do is survive without a checkmate for one minute. But I haven't seen too many people win around him...

CNET.com reports on Kramnik's loss. I hope he can jump ahead again and also look forward to the rematch with Kasparov.

Kramnik loses game 5 to Deep Fritz.

Although Leslie Walker introduces this story in an unfortunate way, she does write some interesting articles. This one is about the latest GM (grandmaster) showdown between Kramnik and Deep Fritz.

I can understand why someone who doesn't know much about chess may find this comment by Walker true

"it might have all the thrill of watching paint dry, but the most novel entertainment on the Internet this week is at the "brains in Bahrain" Web site",

I've seen some coverage lately on this topic and find it unfortunate the way Kasparov's match in '97 is characterized as a loss for him. I seem to remember him objecting to the conditions of the match. In between games, apparently some IMs (or was it GMs) reprogrammed Deep Blue to deal specifically with how Garry was playing. That's not the same as playing against an algorithm at all.

Unfortunately, I cannot find any online reference to those statements. I was able to find some comments at Kasparov's website about the current match though.

Here's the URL for the Brains in Bahrain showdown.

Here's Bill Gates' thoughts dated well before the match where Kasparov lost.

A final thought. Can the game of chess be "solved" by a computer like Tic Tac Toe can? In other words, is there one or several best moves for every single position? Strangely, people used to think no. I always thought it did. Although there are an infinite number of moves (if each side moves their queen between 3 squares indefinitely, the match could go on forever), in fact there are a finite number of positions that each piece can legally be in. Just figure out every possible outcome of every position and chess is "solved".

This is more complex than meets the eye, because of the infinite variety of moves, but I believe that the right algorithm can achieve a "solution". Caveat, I am not a mathemetician.