Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   HI

   

   HI, Apr 11th, 2007 @ 7:37am

   
   

   I hate this article... quit at writing because you suck

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   never will

   

   dont care, Apr 11th, 2007 @ 7:39am

   
   

   stupidest article i have ever thought about reading in my life.....

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   But...

   

   Sanguine Dream, Apr 11th, 2007 @ 7:52am

   
   

   aren't most of those chess computers based on actual human players? Who is to say that he didn't learn those moves from constantly playing against chess computers?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2007 @ 7:52am

   
   

   "stupidest article i have ever thought about reading in my life....."
   
   "I hate this article... quit at writing because you suck"
   
   Wow, those are some quality people. When I read those I pictured two drunk red necks sitting in folding lawn chairs in front of a run down trailer.
   
   Anyway, back to the actual topic. The problem with cheating is that it some times is hard to define. Is it still cheating if the person wrote the program they are using? What if the ear piece just plays back notes they recorded? What if one of the kids is all hopped up on Ginkgo Biloba? It's really not clear what constitutes and advantage (which all competitors are looking for) and what constitutes cheating. That's where the organization sponsoring the event needs to step in and draw some lines and implement tests for cheating.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Chess is a game of memorization

   

   Matthew, Apr 11th, 2007 @ 8:21am

   
   

   FTA: Eugene Varshavsky, a low-ranked player, was searched thoroughly before each game after he beat a strong grandmaster by playing 25 consecutive moves that matched those suggested by a computer program. "Searched thoroughly" and yet not discovered to be cheating. Most of the article repeats this theme. Maybe the "grandmaster" took his opponent too lightly and embarrassed he lashes out and blames it on cheating?
   I'm not a real strong player, but anyone good at the game knows how to beat a machine. This article attempt to draw a line between kids using Google to take tests and using programs to 'cheat' at chess is very shaky.
   
   It seems like more of an attempt to get us to click on the NY Time's web site.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   ob 1, Apr 11th, 2007 @ 8:44am

   
   

   Wow, is chess a big deal? is there going to be a chess player on a wheaties box? Ok lets go with this so people who play chess are like suppose to be uber smart so if they are smarter than the judges they wont get caught.. I say both players should use computers and whoever has the smartest toy wins. And if your toy gets a BSOD well you deserve your fate

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Cheating!!!

   

   Dury1, Apr 11th, 2007 @ 8:48am

   
   

   I say if an athlete or whatever you might call a professional chess player uses anything outside of their own natural ability or mind is cheating.
   I know there is a debate as to what merits natural ability as to over the counter meds, vitamins etc. as to how it might enhance a persons physical or mental ability.
   But in regards to having a computer program tell you what your next move on a chess board should be is out and out cheating.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Re: But...

   

   Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2007 @ 9:06am

   
   

   Actually most of the younger generation of top chess players today trains on computers, so in any given game the majority of their moves will match what a strong computer program would pick (probably somewhere around 70%). But 25 consecutive computer moves is still very strong evidence of cheating. I doubt that anyone could produce 25 computer moves without cheating even if he was a top GM.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Clear Rules on cheating

   

   Carl Matiski, Apr 11th, 2007 @ 9:23am

   
   

   "Anyway, back to the actual topic. The problem with cheating is that it some times is hard to define. Is it still cheating if the person wrote the program they are using? What if the ear piece just plays back notes they recorded? What if one of the kids is all hopped up on Ginkgo Biloba?"
   I think it is very clear what constitutes cheating in a chess match. Any electrical device should be restricted from being used during a match. If he is all hyped up on Ginkgo, so be it , it will not help any.
   On the issue with the player that was searched, as long as they did not find anything on him then he is not guilty. Yes I agree that he may have learned those moves from playing against the computer. If you are good then you will beat those computer moves, right?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    re: ob 1

    

    Paul, Apr 11th, 2007 @ 9:30am

    
    

    chess is a big deal in some countries and even in some circles in the us. just because the media doesn't make a big deal, doesn't mean its not as important as any other sport.
    
    and you can be great at chess, but have absolutely no common sense. so saying they should be able to outsmart the judges doesn't make much sense.
    
    and you're saying they should use computers to help? i say in sports, you should be allowed to hire another guy to help you out. person with the biggest assistant wins.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    Ummm

    

    James, Apr 11th, 2007 @ 9:31am

    
    

    I thought there were no unique games inside the first 25 moves anymore. Every possible combination that makes sense has been played already, especially when you consider that within the first ten moves I have a text file that goes like a flow chart on reaction to the opponents opening moves. As long as I can remember it I play like Kasparov. If I cannot end the match inside ten moves I am hosed because that is all I have memorized so far. Works out to something like 300 permutations after the fifth move. Lots to memorize.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    Paul, Apr 11th, 2007 @ 9:53am

    
    

    stupidest article i have ever thought about reading in my life.....
    
    Ask any person who doesn't understand chess and you'll always get the same answer - "stoopid game."
    
    definitely cheating btw.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    Only so many moves...

    

    Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2007 @ 12:47pm

    
    

    This isn't football or basketball where the physical prowess of the players on the field have direct influence on the game.
    
    There are only so many ways a game of chess can go and a dedicated player will take the time to learn as many as possible.
    
    In football you need brains and brawn but in chess you only need brains and one working arm/hand.
    
    If this chess player Eugene Varshavsky and Peyton Manning were in the same car accident who's career is in more danger?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2007 @ 1:01pm

    
    

    Bluetooth sewen into a hat...sophmoric attempt at cheating. If the guy was serious, he'd put a cell phone in his teeth.
    
    http://electronics.howstuffworks.com:80/cell-phone-implant.htm
    
    This could really get interesting.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    Re:

    

    Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2007 @ 3:43pm

    
    

    Cell phone in the teeth? That means we are only about 10 years away from codecs a la Metal Gear Solid.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    Varshavsky case

    

    Anonymous Coward, Apr 11th, 2007 @ 4:12pm

    
    

    I read, I think it was a Scientific American article but I'm too lazy to try and find it, that the difference between grandmasters and lower rated players was mainly from the fact that grandmasters have studied more games and recognize positions from their studies. It is not from looking more moves ahead. In fact, for the first 20 moves in most high rated games are played out from memory. In the case of Varshavsky, if he played repeatedly an 'offbeat' variation of an opening against a computer, it is conceivable that he could get an advantage over a grandmaster who had not played that particular opening much. And as chess is as much psychological as anything, a lower rated player taking an early advantage would probably fluster a grandmaster affecting his end game and resulting in the out of characteristic game.
    As for the general problem of cheating, they should not allow anyone not playing the games in the room except for a ref. And they should use an EMP to knockout any communication devices. If a few people with pacemakers die, so be it.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    chess by committee

    

    rEdEyEz, Apr 11th, 2007 @ 6:28pm

    
    

    I think it would be much more interesting if each player had their respective legislative branches of government vote on each subsequent chess move.
    
    What a wonderful exercise in 'due process' it would be.
    
    The eventual tournament winners could be proclaimed, "Masters of the Universe."

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    Re: But...

    

    nematode, Jul 9th, 2007 @ 6:16pm

    
    

    No, computers play at a different level. The player was blatantly cheating, and for what?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    Re: Chess is a game of memorization

    

    Me, Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 1:44pm

    
    

    The title is in error: I can link shoe-computer Varshavsky to Mets' steroids! Just a couple of degrees of separation.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment