Killegar Chess presents: Boris Spassky Vs. Bobby Fischer, 1960 - part two

[michele11804]

LOL, the only thing I hate about your videos is when you say, "That's the end of part 1...".

[mixmastermeeks]

how old was bobby in this game?

[mukmin01]

OMG, finally a video of fisher's lose. So hard to find one

[ChickCherub]

Never mind that last comment, Sean. I paused the video at that point to write a comment, and it seems as if you already read my mind in terms of commentary. :)

[ChickCherub]

At 6:26, after Re4, why not Qd1+? It seems to even things out from my perspective.

[Milerization]

i really like it, but it seems to me, that because of the extensive analysis of alternative lines you are getting quite confused about the actual move order of the pure game.

[ejvarriale]

@Milerization what do you think chess is about? chessgamesdotcom for the sterile game, duh.

[Milerization]

@ejvarriale sorry?

[ALVARINBO]

Great videos and analysis!

[maddenwh]

love the extensive analysis of alternative lines, and the discussion of Fischer's comments--thorough and elequantly stated.

[dudewtf852]

heres a pointer. dont discuss what moves could be made. you just wasted 5 min of my life when i just wanted to know what moves were made.

[lethallyla]

@dudewtf852 I'm sure your life isn't that important if your watching chess videos in the first place. if you don't like it watch something else. I think his video's are good.

[lethallyla]

@dudewtf852 I'm sure your life isn't that important if your watching chess video's in the first place. his videos are great. watch something else

[StarSukasa]

mine keeps freezing at 2:58

[gjhille0989]

Excellent analysis

Gary

[colourmegone]

Just a quick quibble. Chess players don't think like computers because computers don't think. They are machines; they have no intelligence, as you pointed out. Without human thought and creativity to direct them they are just pieces of junk. The best analogy is that a computer is a lever for the mind. It can give enormous power and scope to thought but, left to its own devices, it is just an inanimate object.

[SeanGGodley]

Hiya, yes, I take your point. I think what was being implied in the discussion was that some GMs use a very similar mode of analysis to that which the computers use; I.e. (so called) brute-force algorithms when they are calculating positions. Fair enough without the human input computers would be terrible players - but the point is that they've had that input, and the resulatant level of play is so astronomically good that for a human to reach that level is an incredible feat, and it seems some

[SeanGGodley]

are able to do it - Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen et al. Interesting thought of yours that a computer is a lever for the mind; I had not considered it that way before and when I thought about it, it made absolute and compelling sense! All the best,

Sean

[colourmegone]

It's important to remember that a computer has nothing remotely resembling a thought process. It is an electronic device that can actually only add two numbers together (it can't even subtract) and compare values. The reason that computers 'play' chess at all is because of our input. It isn't the computer that plays, it's the team of programmers & GMs who are actually playing, the computer is just the medium they use.

[SeanGGodley]

Well, I'm not sure about that. When a computer considers a position on the chessboard it goes about analysing all the possible continuations, gradually whittling down to a few sound ones; then working out which is the strongest tactically, etc. I would say this is similar to a thought process. Humans program in the algorithms that it uses, but it's the computer that does the actual figuring out and calculating, don't you think?

[colourmegone]

Computers don't figure anything out. You're thinking of a computer in the same way as you'd think of a living thing. A computer doesn't have any volition, i.e. will power. The algorithms used to generate the programs which the computer runs are doing the 'figuring out', along with the opening book and endgame table worked out by human GMs. This isn't just a semantic quibble, it's like saying your television is great writer, director and actor because you've just watched a good show.

[SeanGGodley]

My point is that the computer, as you said, has to run the algorithms. So it's both the computer and the algorithms doing the figuring out. Without the presence of the either in the equation, the process wouldn't work. So computers are a necessay component. Their ability to run the algorithms so well is what sets them apart from human players. Essentially, however, I think this is in fact a semantic debate, and your television comparison is a bit wild! All the best anyway,

Sean

[jonsploder]

Our brains are essentially giant computers, just more complex...

[colourmegone]

Our brains are nothing like electronic or mechanical computers. Whoever told you that was an ignorant fool. Electronic computers are devices which we designed using our brains; they are extremely simple, in fact they're just a huge bunch of switches connected together in a very clever way that can operate billions of times a second. Our brains are nothing like this at all. Finally a computer is inanimate, that is dead. It has no life or will of its own, it only does what we tell it to.

[Stokkeland23]

I guess i am just very sceptical of a world champion 40 some years ago being a stronger player then a good computer nowadays.

Therefore i would just like to see the main lines of the computers defences, as i believe in the future world champions will think more like computers when it comes to chess :) We will see

[SeanGGodley]

We will see indeed! It's a very interesting debate, especially considering how creative engines are becoming. It's important to bear in mind though that the strongest engines today use databases of games that have solely human analysis for openings and endgames - without these they are nowhere near as strong. Anand, for example, would beat Rybka hands down in regular match conditions if it had no openings book or endgame tablebases. Alot of the present day champions think like computers already!

[OceanderTethyseus]

I think it is funny that Fischer admired Steinitz, as they were both quite mental.

[SeanGGodley]

Your frankness is amusing! Of course, you are correct, they were both, shall we say, "a bit off the wall." (So was Nimzovich, for the record!) I would like to point out to everyone though that Fischer is a prime example of media misportrayal; most of the time he was 95% rational, albeit cutting and no-nonsense - like many people who grow up poor in Brooklyn. Accounts from close friends reveal a good sense of humour too, and his more human side can be seen in many of his youtube videos.

[OceanderTethyseus]

To illustrate, imagine a top-level game in which each player were permitted to use a chess computer for exactly one move. It is easy to imagine that the GM might do well to reject the move recommended by the computer - not because the computer's move is inferior to his own, but rather because it would lead to complications that the GM can't reliably analyze in the allotted time.

So, I guess my point is that Fritz may be right about what it objectively superior, but only in an academic sense.

[SeanGGodley]

Hi - interesting point. I think you are absolutely right. In many cases I think players prefer to keep things simple and this is one advantage that engines have over humans; perfect calculation (given enough time) even in maniacal positions. The above game is an example of that - and Fischer was well-known for preferring clear-cut positions. Saving the d pawn may have been good in the long run - but also, maybe not. Even engines cannot see clearly 20 moves ahead with an uncertain position ...

[SeanGGodley]

but what was immediately clear in the Spassky - Fischer game was that paying d5 would have given white a lot of play right away, and I think this is more what Fischer wanted to avoid. Fritz wouldn't mind this, because he finds a defence that works - but it comes at the cost of disjointed pieces (at least temporarily) and allowing counterplay, which is 'okay' in his brain. Personally, I prefer Fischer's way here, but essentially it's a matter of taste.

[OceanderTethyseus]

hey Sean. I love your videos. They are beautifully crafted.

In your point about saving the d pawn, you mentioned that Fischer thought it unwise, whereas Fritz recommended it, and you attributed this divergence in opinion to the chess algorithm's favoring material over positional advantage.

I would like to suggest that chess algorithms may find winning moves that are useless to human players because they create positions that are too complex for human players to analyze.

[elifieldsteel]

Great video. It's too bad time didn't allow for a replay at the end, there were some wild variations there. But what else can you expect from the king's gambit?

[roaddog481]

Xcellent - 5 stars. Look forward to the next one.

[dreamtheater39]

great narration! love your videos, they're all fantastic! its terrible to see fischer lose a game :/

[Stokkeland23]

Very nice video, and i must admit i rather liked seing Fischer lose and his notes about it.

However instead of spending 3-4 minutes on alternative lines given by Fischer i would like more intensive proof when Fischer says "this move is bad" and Fritz disagrees.

Maybe i trust computers to much, but i would just like some other proof and the computers main line and more extensive analysis on why this is or aint good.(rather then i trust fischer)

But great video, i watch all your vids. Thank you

[tuoljg]

i agree, especially tactically. Beacuse on defending/attacking computers are unbeatable. But using latest rybka(chess computer) i highly doubt it would be beaten possitionly either.

[SeanGGodley]

Please see the conversation above with

OceanderTethyseus for my view on why Fischer thought preserving the d pawn was bad. The main reasons why were covered in the video - white getting a lot of play if black preserves the pawn. It could be called a "prophylactic gambit." As I said in the vid, it's certainly a case of an engine being materialistic and a human following fundamental positional rules. Interestingly, Fischer never trsusted engine evaluations. There is a video on youtube ...

[SeanGGodley]

with an interview of Vishy Anand where he talks about meeting Bobby Fischer and recounts how the two of them discussed some variations in the Queen's Indian Defence. Vishy went quickly through the line saying "this is what the engines agree is best" but Fischer insisted on checking it all himself. Vishy recounted it with his trademark warm smile; saying that is was rare these days for anyone not to trust the computers, and when asked by the interviewer he had to admit that the engine was right!

[TmTRaxo]

Thanks Sean, great video as always. Nice to see that geniuses like Fischer can make mistakes too

[buffguy86]

nice to see that fischer wasnt invincible, great game

[nagoya4]

nice 1 , even he is sort of human