Comments on: Kasparov versus the World

By: Michael Nielsen

Michael Nielsen — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:53:06 +0000

It appears to have been a hack, unfortunately, by someone acting alone. A real pity, although in its way this also carries lessons about the capacity of individuals to sabotage collective problem-solving.

By: Bruce Arnold

Bruce Arnold — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:45:26 +0000

This is a very interesting article, but what I find more interesting is how much one’s understanding of the episode is enhanced by the diverse and informative comments. This webpage effectively replicates the conditions of the game it describes, where (original post + comments) produces a deeper knowledge. Kudos to all.
On a related issue, I haven’t yet done my research, but it’s curious what went wrong at move 51. Was it a hack / foul play? Was it that Ms. Krush’s advice had been so overwhelmingly accepted by that point that the voters simply endorsed her move without working quite as hard to help inform her recommendation (i.e., had group-think set in)? Fascinating.

By: Oleg

Oleg — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:45:35 +0000

Comment written on August 10, 2011. Michael wrote: : “Kasparov versus the World is a fascinating case study in the power of collective collaboration. Most encouragingly for us, Kasparov versus the World provides convincing evidence that large groups of people acting in concert can solve creative problems well beyond the reach of any of them alone
Of course, this is true, but if you consider that, let us say, to Kasparov (or people like him) employer have to pay something like $1,000,000 per year and for 5000 participants something like $40,000 x 5000 = $ 200,000,000 it is understandable that one Kasparov, from economic point of view, is much better than 5000 others.
The conclusion from this might be: it would be better to have only one great scientist who can solve problems better than 5000 average. To attract solving problems even a group of 5000 average scientists will be much less profitable and they will be much less productive that one scientist of Kasparov’s level. In real life you can see this situation rather often.
At present, when you try to design an optimal model of science organization and management in the Internet age, the main problem is not how to organize a collective of all competent scientists to solve a problem, but how to correctly, precisely rank and reward them as problems solvers. I.e. precisely and quickly find out who is “Kasparov” and next after him in all small and large fields of science. More over, for solving ill-structured and, more or less, well-structured problems it might be very different peoples.

By: Michael Nielsen

Michael Nielsen — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:21:13 +0000

Kenneth – Ah, yes, just to be clear: in writing about K vs. the World I have (past tense) found your notes and Irina Krush’s absolutely invaluable. Of course, my focus is on the collaborative aspects, much more than the chess itself. I’m only a chess novice, and much of the analysis is beyond me. Still, I found it absolutely fascinating to read, and spent hours working through many of the lines of play over a (computer) chessboard.

By: Kenneth W. Regan

Kenneth W. Regan — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:56:19 +0000

Ah—I thought “I’ve” meant just-now, but it can also mean previously—and since my stuff is indexed on the Wikipedia page and Googlable, probably does. Good luck with that!

Just happened to spot a “cook” in the diagram at the end of my 38.Rd1! page: 57.Rg1! also wins for White, because there’s a Knight underpromotion with check that I (sans-machine) may have overlooked. (A “cook” is like an extra proof, in a chess endgame study where you want to assert there’s a unique proof.)

By: Kenneth W. Regan

Kenneth W. Regan — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 02:02:38 +0000

Wow, great! I may also be able to dig up some other material---maybe find someone who saved more of the BBS posts than I did. There's some other material at my older page---the broken links there are fixed on the newer one. Kasparov felt attached enough to the game even after to publish a 13-page analysis to "prove" how he could have won the game even after the correct move 58...Qf5. However I refuted it over a long weekend, with no machine aid. Computers later held up my refutation 100% in all sub-lines, but they also found a way for White to win, which is what made it into Kasparov's book. [There's a second win---I was on the right track with my line with 80.Ka5"!!" on that older page.] Funny, that may be my best case of breaking a "proof", but it wouldn't make a good blog post with Dick---Kasparov and (Boris) Alterman simply left a gap, as my site shows also happened to me. I've mused on the idea of a book with a title like "One World, One Game" that would cover the collaborative aspect and integrate it with an analysis of the game. I even have some unpublished analysis that I could revisit and check: Black was fine with ...Bh8! at move 35 or 36, and White's win with 38.Rd1! ends in a fabulous mutual Zugzwang at 50.Rh1!---ah, I did type that up here. But this may be beyond the scope of what seems to be a book chapter in your intent.

By: Michael Nielsen

Michael Nielsen — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:31:47 +0000

Thanks, Kenneth. This blog post was actually a draft for a more detailed analysis of the collaborative aspects of the game that I’ve prepared for a forthcoming book. I’ve found the articles on your webpage invaluable for that work!

By: Kenneth W. Regan

Kenneth W. Regan — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:15:30 +0000

Meant to link my article, "World Team Endgame Strategy Explained".

By: Kenneth W. Regan

Kenneth W. Regan — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:14:14 +0000

Hello Michael, I just happened to notice this after being curious about your stem page after visiting the wiki on Vinay Deolalikar's paper so often. I got involved in the match during the endgame phase, and was exchanging analysis with Irina Krush (whose sponsor Ron Henley I knew from childhood) during the queen endgame. Exhaustive computation of 6-piece endgames finished in 2008, confirming a prior determination that the losing move was 54...b4?, which I must admit was originally my suggestion. I co-wrote some articles with Irina which can be found on my page on the game. Indeed I tried to co-ordinate the very collaborative effort which you highlight. I wrote a rather detailed primer as the Queen-endgame approached, "World Team Endgame Strategy Explained", whose point (30) itemized how people could contribute. This worked well until the unfortunate Move-58 breakup; two amateurs had found tricks which could have changed the course of the game had play continued with 58...Qf5! My site needs to be overhauled---alas any time I'd have for that has been trumped by my involvement with the chess-cheating allegations of recent years, which at least yields real CS research.

By: Michael Nielsen

Michael Nielsen — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:36:31 +0000

Lee – Thanks for your comment. My understanding is that the decisive move was arguably move number 51, and that it was actually thrown when someone figured out how to hack the voting software. The person who hacked the voting system preferred a move that Krush already knew was losing. What a great pity!