Judit Polgar at IBM T. J. Watson
Feng-Hsiung Hsu
Judit Polgar. The original idea was for a big formal match, but due to
various circumstances, the final decision was for a simple, informal, one day,
invitation-only event on Aug. 20, 1993.
The participants included the Hungarian Consul General and his wife, Judit
and her monther Klara, several of the private sponsors for the recent US
tour by the Polgars, a very small contingent of journalists, and a Hungarian
TV crew. The rest are mostly IBMers. Bob Rice, the commissioner of
Professional Chess Association, was present as well. I asked Bob Rice about
how the PCA Interzonal arrangements were coming along. Even though the
deadline was still about a month away, 30+ of the 50 or so Interzonal
invitees had already confirmed their participation. Timman had declined
the invitation as expected, but Karpov had not made up his mind. I later
heard from a second source that even Salov might play in it if some of his
demands are met.
Judit and her entourage arrived in a Rolls Royce around noon at the T. J.
Watson Lab. I had seen Judit during the US Chess Festival in Manhattan,
but this was the first time I got to talk to her. Judit kept a very closed
mouth for anything related to Fischer, other than the match proposal itself.
Fischer is seeking $5,000,000 to play a match with Judit. The match is to
be played until 15 (I am not sure about this number) wins by one of the
players. The games are to played with the "Shuffle chess" format (I believe
this is the same as the wild 1 format on ICS). Time control is the same
as in the last Fischer-Spassky match or something like that. Personally,
I think Fischer can only get that kind of money if he is playing Kasparov,
Karpov and maybe Anand. I was a little bit surprised that Judit seemed
to think that Fischer did get all of his money from his last match.
Judit is quite different from the other two Champions that I had the chance
to sit across the chess board from [eat your heart out:-)]. Kasparov is also
charming and charismatic in public appearance, but one can sense a very strong
will in his presence. A smoldering fire below the surface. Judit is
more personable, and more easy going. After all, she just turned 17 at the
Biel Interzonal. Karpov is more bland in public, but from what I heard,
he could be quite charming in private too. Karpov kept a poker face at
the chess board, while Kasparov and Judit were both more animated. Kasparov's
expression could be almost threatening at the chess board.
The match was held in a design lab that we cleaned out the week before. The
design area seated about 25 people, while the adjoining vacated machine room
was used as the playing area. The time control was Action, 30 mins per
player per game. It is unclear whether this time control favors the human or
the machine. The search extensions in the Deep Blue Prototype do not really
kick in until the deeper plies, and at the Action time control, the search
depth is not quite deep enough. The machine that played was essentially the
same one played in Denmark with a few additional software mods and fixes. A
PS/2 running GIICS was used to communicate with the real machine downstairs.
An RS/6000 with two chess processors was used in the spectator area to
provide machine commentary. IM elect Danny Edelman provided the running human
commentary with inputs from GM Robert Byrne and a few others.
Judit apparently did have some preparations for the match. She squashed
Fritz II without any difficulty in blitz games and earlier spent one week
with Boris Gulko, who happened to have some success against DT-1. She
was probably better prepared against the machine than Karpov was, but
not as well as the Danish players and certainly not as well as Kasparov,
Mr. Prepared himself.
Judit looked outwardly calm before the match. Her comments before the
match, however, showed a little bit of nervousness. When she talked about the
machine, she mentioned that "I can't confuse it.". One of the photographers
stated that she did not look nervous. She quipped, "I don't look nervous?".
The Polgars do use the computers a lot in their chess preparations, but
playing a computer of this caliber would still be a first for Judit.
Judit drew black for the first game and played the sicilian defence against
Deep Blue Prototype's e4. After much shuffling, the machine played a
weird combination and won the exchange for a pawn. Judit managed to
entangle the machine's pieces for a while, but missed a second tactical shot,
which was overlooked by the commentators in the spectator room as well [can
you locate it?]. The game finished soon afterwards in the machine's favor.
Deep Blue Prototype--Judit Polgar [2630 FIDE], 30/SD
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Qc7
6. Be2 a6 7. o-o Bb4 8. Nc6 bc6 9. Qd4 Bd6 10. Qg7 Bh2
11. Kh1 Be5 12. Bf4 Bg7 13. Bc7 d5 14. Rad1 Ne7 15. Na4 Ra7
16. Bb6 Ra8 17. c3 Ng6 18. Bc7 Ra7 19. Bb8 Rb7 20. Bg3 O-O
21. ed5 cd5 22. Rfe1 f5 23. Bd6 Rd8 24. Ba3 Rc7 25. Bb4 Rc6
26. Ba5 Rf8 27. Bb6 Rf7 28. Kg1 Bf8 29. b3 Bb7 30. Bh5 Re7
31. Kf1 Kf7 32. c4 Rc8 33. Ba5 dc4 34. Nb6 Rb8 35. Nd7 Rc8
36. Bb4 cb3 37. Nf8 Rf8 38. ab3 Rb8 39. Be7 Ke7 40. Rd4 a5
41. Ra4 Bc6 42. Ra5 Rb3 43. Ra7 Kf6 44. Rh7 Nf4 45. g3 Bb5
46. Kg1 Nh3 47. Kg2 Ng5 48. Rh6 Ke7 49. Re5 Bc6 50. Kf1 Rb1
51. Re1 Rb2 52. Be2 Ne4 53. Rd1 Bd5 54. Rc1 Nd2 55. Ke1 Ne4
56. Ra1 Nc3 57. Bd3 Na2 58. Kf1 Nb4
What is white's shot here?
59. Bf5 Nc6 60. Rd1 Bc4
61. Bd3 Bb3 62. Rb1 Rb1 63. Bb1 Bd5 64. Rh7 Kf6 65. Rh4 Ne5
66. Ke2 Bf3 67. Ke3 Bc6 68. f4 Nf7 69. g4 e5 70. g5 Kg7
71. Rh7 Kg8 72. g6 ef4 73. Kf4 1-0
Judit wanted to avenge the loss immediately, but the spectators wanted
a break. Judit was overheard talking to Klara during the break that she
would like to have a copy of the program!? After the break, Judit stated
that it was hopeless against the machine once you were down. The second
game proved otherwise. Judit opened the second game with Nf3 instead of
her usual e4. Gulko bested DT-1 with the king's indian attack. Was Judit
trying to repeat the same idea? In retrospect, maybe she should have
stuck with her normal opening repertoire. 17. c3 might be questionable,
although white does have some compensation for the material deficit.
At move 49, the machine had a completely winning position, but 49. ... Ra4?
gave Judit some counter chances and 50. ... Ra2?? gave up the win. It
needed 10 seconds of thinking time, which it did not have, to avoid the draw.
Judit Polgar [2630 FIDE]--Deep Blue Prototype, 30/SD
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 d5 3. d3 Nbd7 4. Nbd2 e5 5. Bg2 c6
6. o-o Bd6 7. Nh4 O-O 8. e4 Nc5 9. Re1 Bg4 10. f3 Be6
11. Nf1 Qb6 12. Kh1 de4 13. de4 Rfd8 14. Qe2 Na4 15. g4 Bc5
16. Ne3 Bd4 17. c3 Nc3 18. bc3 Bc3 19. Nc2 Qa5 20. Bg5 h6
21. Be3 b6 22. Nf5 Qa4 23. g5 hg5 24. Bg5 Be1 25. Re1 Bf5
26. ef5 Rd6 27. Ne3 Re8 28. Rg1 Nh7 29. Bf1 Ng5 30. Rg5 Qf4
31. Rg4 Qh6 32. Rg1 Kf8 33. Qe1 Rd4 34. Bg2 Qf4 35. Ng4 Qf5
36. Qh4 Qg6 37. Qh8 Ke7 38. Qh4 Kd6 39. Qf2 c5 40. Ne3 Kc7
41. f4 ef4 42. Nd5 Kd8 43. Nc3 Qd3 44. Qb2 Re3 45. Nb5 Rb4
46. Qg7 Qb5 47. Qf6 Kc7 48. Qf7 Qd7 49. Qf8 Ra4 50. Qa8 Ra2
51. Qb7 Kd8 52. Qb8 Ke7 53. Qf4 Qd4 54. Qc7 Kf6 55. Rf1 Kg5
56. Qf7 Ra1 57. Qf5 Kh6 58. Qf8 Kh5 59. Qf5 Kh4 60. Qh7 Kg5
61. Qf5 1/2-1/2
Judit was probably a little shaken but showed her fighting spirit after
the games. "I need some practice, then I will kill it." Well, she did
better than Anand in her first two games against it, and Anand did get the
edge in the end during his visit.
dwe...@uoft02.utoledo.edu
what *IS* shuffle chess????
don wedding
Nasser ABBASI
In article <1993Aug23....@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dwe...@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes...
>In article <CC87q...@yktnews.watson.ibm.com>, f...@watson.ibm.com (Feng-Hsiung Hsu) writes:
>> Danny Edelman of USCF contacted us back in March about a potential match with
>> Judit Polgar. The original idea was for a big formal match, but due to
>
>what *IS* shuffle chess????
>
my understanding that to be where you place the chess peices in random
order befor the start of the game. ie. except for the pawns, the other
peices are put in different places, for example the king might be on
c1 instead of e1, the queen on g1 instead of d1, etc..
this is an attempt to by pass the huge amount of opening theory that
exist today and sort "be on your own".
this idea is not new, i think it was first proposed in the late 1920 and
ealry 1930 if i remeber right by some famouse GM's at the time , i can't
remeber who right now...
\nasser
Daniel Sleator
points out, I tried to design wild 1 to be the type of chess Fischer
was proposing. I used a description that I found here on r.g.c.
%VCS help wild
The stats variable "wild" controls the how the initial position is
generated. In all variants, each side has eight pawns, in their usual
positions, and only the ranks 1 and 8 differ from normal chess. Here
are the meanings of each value:
0: This is regular old chess.
1: In this variant both sides have the same set of pieces as in
normal chess. The white king starts on d1 or e1 and the black
king starts on d8 or e8, and the rooks are in their usual positions.
Bishops are always on opposite colors. Subject to these constraints
the position is random. Castling is similar to normal chess:
o-o-o indicates long castling and o-o short castling.
2: Here the usual set of pieces is arranged randomly on the first
and eighth ranks. Black's arrangement is always a mirror image
of White's. Castling is not allowed.
3: Here the set of pieces itself is randomly chosen (subject to the
constraint that there is one king of each color). Black's pieces
mirror White's, and castling is not allowed.
4: A random set of pieces is generated. These are placed randomly for
white and black, subject to the constraint that the bishops must
be balanced.
5: Surprise.
Anders Thulin
>In article <1993Aug23....@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dwe...@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes...
>this idea is not new, i think it was first proposed in the late 1920 and
>ealry 1930 if i remeber right by some famouse GM's at the time , i can't
>remeber who right now...
The idea to set up the pieces 'on your own' is older, but has probably
been reinvented more or less independently. Paul Felisch suggested it
in 1926, but there are reports that Lasker may have suggested itq
earlier as a way of avoiding remis-tod. (Lasker *did* suggest a more
fine-grained scoring than +1, -1, = as another way of achieving this.)
Another variation of the theme is: place a screen on the board, so
that the players can't see what the other one is doing, and let them
place their pieces any way they like on 'their' four rows. Remove the
screen, watch their surprise mingled with dismay :-) and start play.
As far as I remember, there are no restrictions on placing the pieces.
The idea was tested in a very small and very informal tournament in
Vienna. I think Marco was one of the participants; and reported
on it - must have been pre-1914.
--
Anders Thulin a...@linkoping.trab.se 013-23 55 32
Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden