Monthly Archives: October 2023
Who Woulda Thunk?
This post began on a Friday, the 13th of October when reading, Space Force Gets Scared, Pauses All Use of Generative AI, by Maggie Harrison.
Space Bots
The brave Guardians of Space Force, the American military unit created to protect us feeble terrestrial Americans from various space-related threats, has announced a new and Earthly foe: generative AI.
As Bloomberg reports, Space Force leaders have forbidden their Guardians — the unfortunate name given to the military branch’s members — from using generative AI tools like ChatGPT on government devices, arguing that the web-based AI tools present security risks, among other concerns.
In an internal memo obtained by Bloomberg, Space Force chief technology and innovation officer Linda Costa reportedly told Guardians that while generative AI “will undoubtedly revolutionize our workforce and enhance Guardian’s ability to operate at speed,” she emphasized that the tech must be integrated responsibly. Which, at least for now, seems to mean abstaining from using generative AI tools at all, with Costa citing “concerns over cybersecurity, data handling, and procurement requirement” in the September 29 memo, according to Bloomberg.
(https://futurism.com/the-byte/space-force-pauses-generative-ai)
Eleven days later an article featuring Demis Hassabis was spotted.
If the name is unfamiliar think Deep Mind. DeepMind’s superhuman AI is rewriting how we play chess: AlphaZero doesn’t play chess like a machine – it plays it like a human grandmaster, but better (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/deepmind-ai-chess)
The aforementioned article is, AI risk must be treated as seriously as climate crisis, says Google DeepMind chief
Demis Hassabis calls for greater regulation to quell existential fears over tech with above-human levels of intelligence
Hope or horror? The great AI debate dividing its pioneers
Hassabis, the British chief executive of Google’s AI unit, said the world must act immediately in tackling the technology’s dangers, which included aiding the creation of bioweapons and the existential threat posed by super-intelligent systems.
“We must take the risks of AI as seriously as other major global challenges, like climate change,” he said. “It took the international community too long to coordinate an effective global response to this, and we’re living with the consequences of that now. We can’t afford the same delay with AI.”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/oct/24/ai-risk-climate-crisis-google-deepmind-chief-demis-hassabis-regulation
This was followed by another Maggie Harrison article:
Tech Guy Says Books Will Be Replaced by AI-Powered “Thunks”
by Maggie Harrison
Wed 25 Oct
https://futurism.com/the-byte/tech-guy-books-ai-thunks
Welcome to creative hell!
Who Woulda Thunk
Exit: books. Enter: thunks.
Or so says Peter Wang, PyScript inventor and the cofounder and CEO of the open-source Python platform Anaconda. In a recent post to Twitter-formerly-X, Wang offered a bold vision — or maybe an incredibly bleak one, depending on your point of view — of humanity’s literary future. Rather than publish books, Wang predicted, humanity will soon begin to publish inventions dubbed “thunks,” which he describes as “nuggets of thought that can interact with the ‘reader’ in a dynamic and multimedia way.”
“There can still be a classic linear ‘passive read mode,'” the developer added, “but that can be autogenerated based on the recipient’s level of existing context and knowledge.”
In other words? It seems that according to Wang, gone are the days of humanity expressing its creativity, engaging in the quest for understanding, and fulfilling our need to catalog our existence through the thousands-year-old tradition of literature. Instead, all we’ll do is think a little thunk, and allow AI to generate a multimedia choose-your-own-adventure experience. (https://futurism.com/the-byte/tech-guy-books-ai-thunks)
All of the above caused the AW to wonder if what I have been doing for some years now has not been writing, but Thunking? Am I a thunker, or what?!
Yesterday Maggie brought another article into the discussion:
Sam Altman Warns That AI Is Learning “Superhuman Persuasion”
He’s worried it “may lead to some very strange outcomes.”
Humanity is likely still a long way away from building artificial general intelligence (AGI), or an AI that matches the cognitive function of humans — if, of course, we’re ever actually able to do so.
But whether such a future comes to pass or not, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has a warning: AI doesn’t have to be AGI-level smart to take control of our feeble human minds.
“I expect AI to be capable of superhuman persuasion well before it is superhuman at general intelligence,” Altman tweeted on Tuesday, “which may lead to some very strange outcomes.”
While Altman didn’t elaborate on what those outcomes might be, it’s not a far-fetched prediction. User-facing AI chatbots like OpenAI’s ChatGPT are designed to be good conversationalists and have become eerily capable of sounding convincing — even if they’re entirely incorrect about something.
At the same time, it’s also true that humans are already beginning to form emotional connections to various chatbots, making them sound a lot more convincing. (https://futurism.com/sam-altman-ai-superhuman-persuasion)
Legendary Nona Gaprindashvili vs Helen Milligan at the Women’s World Senior
A few days ago there was an article in The Guardian, Siren kings: New Zealand city plagued by Céline Dion ‘speaker battles’ (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/24/porirua-siren-kings-new-zealand-city-speaker-battles) which caused this writer to think of a former Chess playing friend, ‘Mad Dog’ Gordon. Mike loathed and detested Celine Dion because he was a big fan of Bob Dylan. Because of the close proximity of the last names the Mad Dog often encountered Céline Dion. The Mad Dog was not a fan. When playing fifteen minute games with the Dog once my Bacon was being burned to a crisp. After yet another loss I said, “How ’bout putting on some Celine Dion?” The Dog became Mad and the rest of the evening was all mine! This has been mentioned because I thought of The Dog after spotting a Chess game between the legendary Nona Gaprindashvili
and Helen Milligan, who lives in New Zealand,
at the FIDE World Senior Chess Championships 2023 for Women.
GM Nona Gaprindashvili (2267) vs Helen Milligan WFM (1947)
FIDE Women World Senior Chess Championships 2023
E73 King’s Indian, Averbakh system
- d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Be2 O-O 6. Bg5 Na6 7. Qd2 e5 8. d5 c6 9. f3 cxd5 10. cxd5 Bd7 11. Be3 Nh5 12. O-O-O Nf4 13. Bf1 f5 14. Kb1 Nc7 15. Nge2 Nxe2 16. Bxe2 f4 17. Bf2 Bf6 18. Rhf1 Qe8 19. Rc1 Bd8 20. Bd3 Nb5 21. Ne2 a5 22. Rc2 a4 23. Rfc1 Ba5 24. Qd1 Qd8 25. Qg1 Kg7 26. Ka1 Rf7 27. Rc4 a3 28. b4 Bc7 29. R4c2 Be8 30. Rc4 Ra6 31. R1c2 Bb6 32. Rc8 Bxf2 33. Rxd8 Bxg1 34. Rxe8 Nd4 35. Nxg1 Nxc2+ 36. Bxc2 Rc7 37. Kb1 Rb6 38. Ne2 Rxb4+ 39. Bb3 Rxb3+ 40. axb3 a2+ 41. Ka1 Rc2 42. Nxf4 exf4 43. Re6 Rxg2 44. Rxd6 g5 45. h3 h5 46. Rd7+ Kg6 47. Rd6+ Kg7 48. Rd7+ Kg6 1/2-1/2
When teaching Chess one must first teach the rules, one of which features prominently, “Do not move the same piece twice in the opening.” Nona was born in 1941. The fact that such an illustrious Chess player would make such a poor move in the opening tells you what age does to the human body. According to 365Chess.com five different moves have been played in the above position; Be3 is not one of them. Stockfish shows it as ‘dubious’ while informing it is an “Inaccuracy. g4 was best.”
GM Sam Shankland Backs Down
In the recently completed Joya Sanitary Napkin Women’s Tournament 2023 (https://lichess.org/broadcast/joya-sanitary-napkin-womens-tournament-2023/round-7/NCcocXYg) there were a couple of French defense games featuring the Winawer variation, which begins after 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4?! The dubious distinction given by the Stockfish program used at lichess.org was new to these old eyes. After sitting back to reflect I was unable to recall seeing any Winawer variations for some, who knows how long, time. ‘Back in the day’ the Winawer was prominently featured in many, if not most, French defense games. When taking the first steps along the Chess path this writer played 1 e4 almost exclusively, which means the French was often faced. The results were not good. After battering my head against the French defense of NM Rex Blalock the decision was made to play 1 e4 e6 2 Qe2! The results against the dreaded French improved.
There was something rattlin’ around in my brain about another Winawer French seen recently… Later I recalled seeing a game from the recently completed US Chess Championship that was a Winawer, which caused me to check out the games at TWIC (The Week In Chess/https://theweekinchess.com/chessnews/events/us-chess-championships-2023) where the game was located. Then it hit me…the games of the US Chess Championships were not shown at lichess.org. To view the game I had to cut & paste the game into the analysis engine at lichess. I assume lichess.org did not show the games because, unlike Chess.com (https://www.chess.com/news/view/st-louis-chess-club-issues-statement-on-alejandro-ramirez) the USCF, in it’s wisdom, has still not provided a statement, any statement, concerning what has occurred. Why is that?
WFM Anjum Noshin (1952) vs WFM Zakia Sultana (1721) Round 3
WIM Rani Hamid (1770) vs Munia Afrin Jahan (1632) Round 3
C16 French Defense: Winawer Variation, Advance Variation
- e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4?!
What was that? Did you feel that, too? Must have been Simon turning over in his grave…
GM Sam Shankland vs GM Abhimanyu Mishra
2023 USCC Round 9
C16 French Defense: Winawer Variation, Advance Variation (365chess.com)
C16 French Defense: Winawer, advance, poisoned pawn variation (lichess.org)
- e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 7. Qg4 Qc7 8. Bd3
c4 9. Be2 Qa5 10. Bd2 Nf5 11. h4 Qa4 12. Kd1 Nc6 13. h5 h6 14. Qh3 Bd7 15. Bg4
O-O-O 16. Ne2 Rhg8 17. Bf4 Nfe7 18. Qe3 Rdf8 19. Bg3 b6 20. Bh4 Kb7 21. Kd2
Re8 22. Bh3 Rh8 23. g4 Rh7 24. f4 g6 25. Ng3 Ng8 26. Bg2 Nce7 27. Rh2 a5 28. Qe1
Rf8 29. Bf6 Qc6 30. Qe3 Ka6 31. Ke2 Qa4 32. Kd2 Qc6 33. Bf3 Re8 34. Re2 Qa4 35. Ke1
Qb5 36. Qc1 Qa4 37. Kf2 Ka7 38. Kg2 Ka6 39. Rb1 Qc6 40. Qb2 Qc7 41. Qc1 Qc6 42.
Re1 Qc7 43. Rh1 Ka7 44. Rh2 Qc6 45. Kf2 Ka6 46. Qb2 Qc7 47. g5 hxg5 48. fxg5
gxh5 49. Rbh1 Nxf6 50. gxf6 Nc6 51. Rxh5 Rxh5 52. Rxh5 Rb8 53. Ne2 b5 54. Qa1
Qb6 55. Ke1 Be8 56. Kd2 Kb7 57. Rh7 b4 58. axb4 axb4 59. Bh5 Ra8 60. Qb1
bxc3+ 61. Nxc3 Qxb1 62. Nxb1 Nxd4 63. Bxf7 Nf3+ 64. Ke3 Ng5 65. Bxe6+ Nxh7 66. Bxd5+
Bc6 67. Bxc4 Nf8 68. Nd2 Nd7 69. Kd4 Rd8 70. f7 Nf8+ 71. Ke3 Bd5 72. Bxd5+
Rxd5 73. Nf3 Kc7 74. Ke4 Rc5 75. Kf5 Kd7 76. Kf6 Rc6+ 77. Kg7 Ke7 78. Nh4 Ne6+ 79.
Kg6 Nd8+ 80. Kg7 Nxf7 0-1
Stockfish will play 15 g4 as in this game:
Joshua Ad Avila Rodriguez (2230) vs Jose Antonio Garcia de Dios (2103)
Event: 32nd Carlos Torre Mem
Site: Merida MEX Date: 12/20/2022
Round: 7.18 Score: ½-½
ECO: C19 French, Winawer, advance, poisoned pawn variation
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.Qg4 Qc7 8.Bd3 c4 9.Be2 Qa5 10.Bd2 Nf5 11.h4 Qa4 12.h5 h6 13.Kd1 Nc6 14.Qh3 Bd7 15.g4 Nfe7 16.f4 O-O-O 17.Nf3 f6 18.Be3 fxe5 19.fxe5 Rdf8 20.Nh4 Be8 21.Kd2 g5 22.hxg6 Nxg6 23.Nxg6 Bxg6 24.Ra2 Be4 25.Rb1 Qa5 26.a4 Qc7 27.Raa1 Qh7 28.Rf1 Rxf1 29.Rxf1 Bxc2 30.Qxh6 Qg8 31.Qf6 Bg6 32.Rf2 Kd7 33.Qg5 Ne7 34.Rf6 Rh1 35.Rf1 Rh2 36.Rf2 Rh1 37.Rf1 Rh2 38.Rf2 Rh1 39.Rf1 Rh2 40.Rf2 Rh1 41.Rf1 Rxf1 42.Bxf1 Qh7 ½-½
https://www.365chess.com/game.php?back=1&gid=4388877&m=30
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 e5 c5 5 a3 Bxc3+ 6 bxc3 Ne7 7 Qg4 (The most often played move has been the move played in the game, 7…Qc7. There are 2338 games in the 365Chess.com database. 7…0-0 follows closely with 2298 games. The first choice of the Stockfish program at lichess.org, 7…Kf8, comes next with only 610 games. It is the move that has scored best). 8 Bd3 (Although there are 528 games with this move contained in the 365 database there are 1927 in which the player of the white pieces took the pawn, which is the first choice of Stockfish. I could not help but wonder why the Shank would not take the pawn and instead play a second rate move? What other reason would there be to move the Queen out early but not make the move taking the pawn other than backing down?
Stockfish will play
Grandmasters Are Human
Where do you place the Queen?
Grandmaster Hannes Stefansson (2529) vs Petr Folk (2109)
2023 World Senior Championship 50+
B48 Sicilian Defense: Taimanov Variation, Bastrikov Variation, English Attack
- e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be3 a6 7. a3 Nf6 8. f4 Nxd4 9. Bxd4 Qxf4 10. g3 Qg5 11. e5 Nd5 12. Ne4 Qh6 13. c4 Ne3 14. Qf3 Nc2+ 0-1
The Loneliness Epidemic
The loneliness epidemic: Nearly 1 in 4 adults feel lonely, new survey finds
By Taylor Nicioli, CNN
Tue October 24, 2023
If you feel lonely, you’re actually in good company: Nearly 1 in 4 adults across the world have reported feeling very or fairly lonely, a new Meta-Gallup survey has found.
The new survey, taken across 142 countries, found 24% of people age 15 and older self-reported feeling very or fairly lonely in response to the question, “How lonely do you feel?”
The survey also found that the rates of loneliness were highest in young adults, with 27% of young adults ages 19 to 29 reporting feeling very or fairly lonely. The lowest rates were found in older adults. Only 17% of people age 65 and older reported feeling lonely.
Over half of adults age 45 and older reported not feeling lonely at all, while the majority of those younger than 45 answered that they felt at least a little lonely, if not very or fairly lonely.
“There is a lot of research pointing to the dangers of loneliness and social isolation among older adults,” Ellyn Maese, a senior research consultant with Gallup, told CNN. This survey “is a really good reminder that loneliness is not just a problem of aging — it’s a problem that can affect everyone at any age.”
While there was little or no difference in the reported loneliness between men and women, some countries had substantial gaps in both directions, depending on the country’s cultural context, Maese said. Overall, 79 out of the 142 countries had a higher self-reported rate of loneliness in women than men.
The Joya Sanitary Napkin Women’s Chess Tournament 2023
There I was at lichess.org minding my own business when seeing the name of one particular Chess tournament caught my attention: Joya Sanitary Napkin Women’s Tournament 2023. (https://lichess.org/broadcast/joya-sanitary-napkin-womens-tournament-2023/round-6/VrQMQCEO) Seeing that tournament name was a real eye opener. My first thought was, “You’ve come a long way, baby!”
The movement toward incorporating women into Chess has brought surprises and nothing better illustrates that fact than the name chosen for the tournament. I will leave it at that… Obviously, the less said about the name, the better for all concerned.
The following game was the first one seen and must be the first round, first board game. Viewing the opening moves stopped after seeing Black’s third move… Believe me when I say that from teaching many chowder heads this Chess coach has seen many moves while hoping never to ever see another one remotely resembling what was just seen. This ranks right down there with the worst of them…
WFM Anjum Noshin (1952) vs Kaumudi Nargis (1274)
Joya Sanitary Napkin Women’s Tournament 2023 Rd 1
C10 French, Paulsen variation
- e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 c6 4. e5 Nd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 h6 7. Be3 Qb6 8. a3 Qxb2 9. Na4 Qxa1 10. Qxa1 c4 11. Nc3 a6 12. f5 Ne7 13. g4 exf5 14. gxf5 b5 15. Bh3 Nb6 16. e6 f6 17. Nh4 g5 18. fxg6 Bg7 19. Qb1 Rb8 20. Kd2 Na8 21. Qb4 Rb7 22. Nf5 Nxf5 23. Bxf5 Nc7 24. Qc5 1-0
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 c6 (The Stockfish program used at lichess.org gives the five top moves in this position and c6 is not one of them. They are, in order, 3…Nf6; 3…Bb4; 3…dxe4; 3…Be7; and 3…a6. We are, though, not out of the book because 365Chess.com shows 177 players have opted for the move 3…c6. Go figure…) 4 e5 (4 Nf3 has been seen in 254 games; and 4 e5 in 102. The move Stockfish will play, 4 Bd3, has only been attempted in 46 games) 4…Nd7 (It would be thematic here for black to play 4…c5, and it is the first choice of the ‘Fish, but maybe Kaumudi has been inculcated with tired, old, axioms like, “Never move the same pawn twice in the opening.”)
5 f4 (I was flummoxed after seeing SF will play 5 Ne2, moving the same piece twice in the first five opening moves! After inputting the move into the SF program I was baffled to see the first two choices when the top five moves are given, both at +0.8, were 5 f4 and 5 g3, dropping the move 5 Ne2 to third place at +0.7) After 5…c5 6 Nf3, both moves best, according to the ‘Fish, the move 6…h6? was played. The move is, unsurprisingly, a NEW MOVE. 365Chess.com is now on notice… The next move played by the WFM Anjum Noshin, rated 1952 (‘Back in the day’ a rating of beginning with a ’19’ put one into the Class A category. My how things have changed for the female Chess players. Again ‘Back in the day’ a title had at least a modicum of meaning. In striving for ‘political correctness’ some in the Chess community have shot reason all to HELL. There was a time when a title had validity. What have those people in power of the Royal Game done to our game?) 7…Qb6? (SF says 7…Ne7 is reasonable) 8 a3? (Knowing the player who takes the Queen Knight pawn sleeps in the gutter Stockfish will come right at you with the move 8 f5 and allow you to take the gutter pawn)
To take or not take the b pawn?
The following list is of only the first ten players, each of whom is a “Titled” Chess player:
Starting rank No. Name Fide ID FED Rtg sex
1 WFM Noshin, Anjum 10218564 BAN 1952 w
2 WFM Khan, Nazrana 10201734 BAN 1888 w
3 WCM Ahmed, Walijah 2831193 BAN 1848 w
4 WCM Jannatul, Ferdous 10212590 BAN 1813 w
5 WCM Israt, Jahan Diba 10224505 BAN 1808 w
6 WFM Wadifa, Ahmed 10226869 BAN 1771 w
7 WIM Hamid, Rani 10200096 BAN 1770 w
8 WCM Kazi Zarin, Tasnim 10213961 BAN 1770 w
9 WCM Nusrat Jahan, Alo 10226826 BAN 1770 w
10 WFM Sultana, Zakia 10201220 BAN 1721 w
Reflections On The 2023 US Chess Championships
The recent US Chess Championships were inherently unfair to half of the field because an odd number of rounds mean some players will have an extra game with the white pieces, yet the format remains unchanged. It is long past time Chess instituted change to ensure equality for each and every player. The best way to accomplish equality would be to have each player play two games, one with white, one with black, against each opponent.
There were two separate tournaments, the US Chess Championship, open to all players regardless of sex, and one for only female players. Maybe in the future female players will become strong enough to compete equally with the men, then again, maybe not… There is a large prize fund going to players who, frankly, are not ready for prime time. That fact cheapens the US Chess Championship.
There were twelve players in each tournament, some of whom should not have been playing, especially in the women’s tournament. Why were there as many players in the women’s tournament as there were in the men’s tournament? The tournament would have been better if there had been only eight, or even six players. Eleven rounds were simply too many for the female players, who lack the stamina of male players, some of whom collapsed at the end of the tournament. Chess would be much better if a Chess player were only a Chess player; not a male or female player.
The games are too long. In interviews shown on the broadcast some players spoke of having a position after twenty, or more, moves on the board during their preparation for the tournament. If the games are beginning around move twenty why is there so much time for the games? ‘Back in the day’ players made it up as they went along. These daze the Chess programs have changed the way the game is played, and this should be acknowledged. The time for a game should be shortened.
When cogitating about this post prior to sitting down to punch & poke I liked the idea of an ‘Elite Eight’ tournament, but that would mean fourteen games, which would obviously be too many for the female players…and maybe some male players, although it is obvious males currently have much more stamina than female players. Which is the reason I considered a tournament consisting of only six players, which would mean ten rounds. Maybe the tournaments could feature the ‘Elite Eight’ male players, and the ‘Super Six’ for the women, with each player playing two games versus each opponent. There would then be fourteen rounds for the male players and only ten for the females.
There should be only two hours for each game. Two games could be played each day by the same players, with each having the white and black pieces once. Think of it, most work days consist of an eight hour day with a break for lunch. How about having the players face off for the first game before a two hour break, and then playing the second game of the day, which would be akin to an eight hour work day.
As for the tournament, the less said the better. This Chess fan was so disgusted after seeing Lev Aronian
slap Rex Sinquefield
in the face with an EIGHT MOVE DRAW in the third round versus the player considered to be the punchin’ bag that I did not watch any of the fourth round games. I did, though, watch the magnificent, fighting round five, which contained five decisive games with only one draw, which is almost unheard of these daze… Unfortunately, the players atavistic tendencies reared their ugly heads and the following round two rounds consisted of twelve draws, with nary a decisive game in sight.
As for the tournament, some of the interviews were interesting, and have become a favorite part of the broadcast.
We will begin with what has already become a classic interview with the man now called by some, ‘Shaky’ Sam Shankland.
Coming on the heals of the ‘brick’ below it is easy to understand why Sam is being called ‘Shaky Sam’.
The ‘Shaky’ one finished at minus two, tied for ninth place as one of the four ‘bottom feeders’. Sam has recently written and published a massive new book consisting of 448 digital pages of Rook endgame theory:
Unfortunately the following video contains the entire broadcast of the fifth round. I was unable to locate an individual video showing the reaction of Shaky Sam after realizing the draw he thought was within his grasp turned out to be illusionary.
If you go to 4:50 you will see the reaction when Shaky Sam grimaced upon realizing the agony of defeat:
The next video concerns the young teen Mishra, who seems far more mature than your average fourteen year old. The reaction of the young player when shown the possibility of his opponent playing the move f4 is a classic and not to be missed, which is why it is being presented:
These were some of the highlights of the tournament, which, unfortunately included a plethora of low lights. The AW would much prefer to…
The Kentucky Lion Slept Well After This Game
The move 9…Nbd7 is not contained in the 365Chess database, and may be a Theoretical Novelty. It is the first choice of the Stockfish program used at lichess.org.
The twelfth move castles is, believe it or not, not the first choice of Stockfish, but it is the second choice of the ‘Fish. The move Stocky will play is…drum roll, please… 12 Qe2! Just sayin’…
I will allow you time for cogitation after informing you the move of the Queen to b6 was not the best move to be played. Stockfish would have simply moved the Rook to b8. If you were sitting behind the black pieces what move would you make?
The next position shows the move played by a GRANDMASTER rated OVER 2700:
If you were a Chess teacher, or Coach, what would you say to a student who presented this game after seeing the above move? This is being asked because I was a teacher of Chess, or at least tried my best to be a good teacher and Chess Coach. One of the most difficult parts of teaching is to see a student well up with tears, because THERE IS NO CRYING IN CHESS!
Qatar Masters
GM Gregory Kaidanov (2554)
vs GM Jordan Van Foreest (2707)
D45 Queen’s Gambit Declined semi-Slav, 5.e3 (365Chess.com)
D45 Semi-Slav Defense: Main Line (lichess.org)
- d4 Nf6 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 d5 4. e3 e6 5. Nf3 Be7 6. Bd3 dxc4 7. Bxc4 b5 8. Bd3 b4 9. Ne4 Nbd7 10. Nxf6+ Nxf6 11. e4 Bb7 12. O-O O-O 13. e5 Nd7 14. Be4 Qb6 15. Bg5 Bxg5 16. Bxh7+ Kxh7 17. Nxg5+ Kg6 18. Qg4 f5 19. Qg3 Qxd4 20. Ne4+ Kh7 21. Qh4+ Kg6 22. Qg5+ Kf7 23. Rad1 Qxe5 24. Rxd7+ Kg8 25. Rxb7 Qxb2 26. Nc5 Rf7 27. Rxf7 Kxf7 28. Rd1 Qe5 29. Rd7+ Kg8 30. h4 Re8 31. Qg6 1-0 (https://lichess.org/broadcast/qatar-masters-2023/round-7/RYysDMKy)
After that victory there is no doubt that the Kentucky Lion slept very well that night.
Magnus Whiner
When Magnus Carlsen, the highest rated human Chess player on the planet, began the ongoing 2023 Qatar Masters Chess tournament his biorhythm chart showed he was “floored”:
After making weak moves and losing to a fellow GRANDMASTER who happens to be rated hundreds of points lower than Magnus the former World Chess Champ began whining like a Whiner.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time Magnus has lost after playing poorly and whined. Frankly, it is conduct unbecoming the highest rated human player on Earth. Magnus needs to stop whining, bitchin’, moaning, and complaining and talk and walk like a man.
Cheating Blowup—and This One’s About a Watch
After a stunning loss, former world champion Magnus Carlsen put the spotlight back on cheating in chess by calling out the lack of policing at tournaments—and the presence of personal devices
By Andrew Beaton and Joshua Robinson
Oct. 13, 2023 10:00 am ET
Norwegian grandmaster Magnus Carlsen sat down inside Qatar’s Lusail Sports Arena on Thursday for a chess game against an opponent he would normally demolish. But the five-time world champion suddenly found himself unable to concentrate on the pieces in front of him because his mind was focused on something else entirely.
Carlsen had noticed his opponent was wearing a watch.
As his eyes flicked back and forth between the board and the wrist of the 23-year-old Kazakh grandmaster across the table, he couldn’t shake the feeling that has been gripping elite players for over a year: total paranoia about possible cheating in chess.
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
Step out of line, the man come and take you away
https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/buffalospringfield/forwhatitsworth.html
“I was completely crushed in my game today,” Carlsen posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, after the defeat to Alisher Suleymenov. “This is not to accuse my opponent of anything, who played an amazing game and deserved to win, but honestly, as soon as I saw my opponent was wearing a watch early in the game, I lost my ability to concentrate.”
The loss to Suleymenov at the Qatar Masters marked one of the worst defeats Carlsen has suffered in a decade. But his reaction to losing to a relatively low-rated opponent—whose analog watch would normally be banned in competition by the game’s world governing body—highlighted a growing frustration inside the chess community. As long as organizers don’t take security more seriously, top players say, the specter of cheating looms over every game.
It was just last year when Carlsen set the chess world on fire by withdrawing from a prestigious tournament after losing a match because he believed his opponent, the American grandmaster Hans Moke Niemann, was a cheater. The allegations led to outrageous speculation about potential cheating methods, a $100 million lawsuit and a broader reckoning over how to police the game. The situation grew so absurd that one top player, Russia’s Ian Nepomniachtchi, wryly suggested “playing naked in a locked room” to ensure nobody was carrying a hidden device.
These days, cheating is so easy because anyone with access to the internet has the capability to load technology capable of stomping the best chess players on the planet. It simply takes a few taps on a smartphone to pull up what’s known as a chess engine on a website or an app, and instantly discover the perfect move in every situation. No human stands a chance against the world’s best engines.
So it isn’t difficult to imagine how a wannabe cheater with an accomplice might attempt a chess heist. Over the years, mid-match trips to the bathroom have become so scrutinized that there has been more than one scandal dubbed Toiletgate. Other accused cheaters have allegedly received signals from someone in the audience.
“I just see organizers continuing to operate under the premise that people won’t cheat,” said Chess.com’s chief chess officer Danny Rensch, who questioned when top players will begin simply sitting out in-person tournaments that don’t have proper anti-cheating measures. “The ease of access to technology that would facilitate cheating would shock people.”
After Carlsen’s blow up with Niemann last year, the tournament overhauled its security protocol to eliminate potential wrongdoing. The game’s broadcast was put on a time delay, so anyone watching remotely wouldn’t be able to send signals in real-time to a player via a hidden device. And players were checked for electronics with a high-end, silicon scanner—even a banana Niemann had brought for a snack went under the wand.
Such measures were seemingly absent from the Qatar Masters, Carlsen said. In addition to the watch that dominated Carlsen’s attention, he noted that there was no transmission delay while spectators were allowed to roam the playing hall with smartphones.
“I obviously take responsibility for my inability to deal with those thoughts properly,” Carlsen wrote on X, “but it’s also incredibly frustrating to see organizers still not taking anti-cheating seriously at all.”
The Qatar Chess Association did not respond to a request for comment. But by the start of Friday’s play, organizers had added a 15-minute delay to their tournament broadcast and formally banned watches after several more top players’ echoed Carlsen’s concerns.
“Absolutely agree with this take,” wrote French grandmaster Maxime Vachier-Lagrave. “Players need to unite to get anti-cheating measures in place at every tournament. To hinder cheaters, obviously, and to avoid people doubting every great performance, as I already saw a few bad tweets throwing shade at Alisher’s brilliancy today.”
There is nothing to suggest that Suleymenov cheated. But what’s now the most controversial wrist accessory in chess seemingly violated the most basic anti-cheating protocols. FIDE, the game’s international governing body, prohibits players from bringing any personal items such as wallets, smart glasses, pens or watches into the playing hall.
Carlsen’s timepiece tantrum comes only months after players raised eyebrows about apparent laxity around fair play measures at this summer’s Chess World Cup in Azerbaijan. Carlsen also isn’t the only former world champion to raise concerns about cheating recently either.
Last month, Russia’s Vladimir Kramnik dragged Niemann into another flare-up after losing to the American in a game online by insinuating he was cheating. Niemann has denied cheating except in a handful of online games when he was younger. Kramnik described Niemann’s play as “unusual” and then wrote that he would stop playing on Chess.com because there were too many cheaters on the website. (Chess.com, which is widely viewed as having the most advanced cheat detection in the industry, says it closes the accounts of 10 to 15 titled players a month for violating fair-play rules.)
Kramnik didn’t make the suggestion lightly. He also knows what it’s like to have the finger pointed at him, even when those accusations are dismissed. He was the one wrongly accused at the 2006 World Championship in the original Toiletgate scandal. (https://www.wsj.com/sports/magnus-carlsen-chess-cheating-70c273aa?mod=hp_major_pos1#cxrecs_s)
Armchair Warrior 