<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Kasparov versus the World</title>
	<atom:link href="http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/kasparov-versus-the-world/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/kasparov-versus-the-world/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:14:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael Nielsen</title>
		<link>http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/kasparov-versus-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-26662</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Nielsen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:36:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=267#comment-26662</guid>
		<description>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!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lee &#8211; 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!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lee</title>
		<link>http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/kasparov-versus-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-26658</link>
		<dc:creator>Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:54:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=267#comment-26658</guid>
		<description>When Krush put up that amazingly deep analysis tree there became no question about whose advice to follow.  She used many sources, and she even replied individually to patzers like myself.  I don&#039;t remember if she ever recommended a move that did not have the highest ranking in her tree, but if she did she probably offered a very convincing reason.

When the world finally went wrong and played against her advice, it was a decisive mistake.  If I remember, her recommended move would obviously give up any chance of winning in order to keep drawing chances, while the chosen move kept a passed pawn but led to a position that Krush and other strong players knew to be losing.  To the world&#039;s average players, even with the analysis tree, it must have seemed better to retain apparent winning chances - even though there really were not any winning chances at all by that stage.

So clearly even though a collaborative effort can produce excellent results, there exists a possibly of an irrational choice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When Krush put up that amazingly deep analysis tree there became no question about whose advice to follow.  She used many sources, and she even replied individually to patzers like myself.  I don&#8217;t remember if she ever recommended a move that did not have the highest ranking in her tree, but if she did she probably offered a very convincing reason.</p>
<p>When the world finally went wrong and played against her advice, it was a decisive mistake.  If I remember, her recommended move would obviously give up any chance of winning in order to keep drawing chances, while the chosen move kept a passed pawn but led to a position that Krush and other strong players knew to be losing.  To the world&#8217;s average players, even with the analysis tree, it must have seemed better to retain apparent winning chances &#8211; even though there really were not any winning chances at all by that stage.</p>
<p>So clearly even though a collaborative effort can produce excellent results, there exists a possibly of an irrational choice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Bean</title>
		<link>http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/kasparov-versus-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-26236</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Bean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Oct 2009 01:45:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=267#comment-26236</guid>
		<description>Nukedoom: this is what happens when such things are tried today:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1531174

Umansky won the 50WCJT tournament against the other world champions without losing, so has some claim to be the strongest correspondence player ever.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nukedoom: this is what happens when such things are tried today:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1531174" rel="nofollow">http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1531174</a></p>
<p>Umansky won the 50WCJT tournament against the other world champions without losing, so has some claim to be the strongest correspondence player ever.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alexander</title>
		<link>http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/kasparov-versus-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-26034</link>
		<dc:creator>Alexander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:03:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=267#comment-26034</guid>
		<description>Just to apologise for not mentioning the great Michael Nielsen in the previous text and for not sending:

With highest respect,
Alexander</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just to apologise for not mentioning the great Michael Nielsen in the previous text and for not sending:</p>
<p>With highest respect,<br />
Alexander</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alexander</title>
		<link>http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/kasparov-versus-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-26033</link>
		<dc:creator>Alexander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:59:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=267#comment-26033</guid>
		<description>I think this text is  great example of contribution  Complexity theory to Sociology and it can be clue for further development of the  chess game. It is also great response of human thought to the essential role that Computer science has in the stage of the art of chess game. Also, the fact that one idea (formed by the group of people) is essentialy better than sum of its parts (subideas) is an example that this kind of human-human interaction creates probably much better result than any other (like Brainstorming, for example). In that respect,if we take into the account complexity of chess game- we can find innovative ways to evolutionise the development of chess game. Until recently, the main scientific theory which elaborated the entity of chess was Information theory. Now we have the chance not only to develop the game of chess (in the respect of the role of Complexity theory), but also (feedback between human thought and chess) to make improvement in the level of social interactions. Not computer, but men have to find an adequate, filigree response to the threat of (from the Information processing point of view, which is also part of Complexity theory) simplifing the game of chess.

The match didn&#039;t have any influence on the sport aspect of chess game, but scientific. On the other hand, due to global mass phenomena, I think that chess is losing its artistic component- but that issue couldn&#039; be solved with this initial conditions (Kasparov-Other World). I think men should have found a proper measure between popularization of chess and keeping up the Complexity of chess game (including its artistic component, which is incorporated into the Complexity of the game).
Mass media and mass communications couldn&#039;t make breakthrough in this area of human heritage- the popularization of the game might make countra effect.
I think that if the initial conditions of the game had been different (not to choose players from all chess levels, but a few adequately selected (of course, from the World top)), and with proper decision making criterion for a chess move (with measure of accuracy required in Quantum Cryptography decision making) , the whole strength of Kasparov&#039;s opponent would have been much better expressive - probably he would have lost the game. It&#039;s a great pitty that nowdays improvement  of a young player (11-13) in the game of chess is not harmonized with the natural (given by human evolution) development of child&#039;s mental abilities. The actual trends in the game of chess insist on short-term memory (fifteen years ago, when I was in that period of life, You must have hade high level of critical resoning and in some degree, the ability to estimate unknown position on Your own ,original way (this is an indication of chess talent).
 The enormous flow of information and dominant role of computers in modern society has created that kind of problem (there are also big ecological problems connected with this). 
The development of Quantum computers will resolve previous mentioned problems.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think this text is  great example of contribution  Complexity theory to Sociology and it can be clue for further development of the  chess game. It is also great response of human thought to the essential role that Computer science has in the stage of the art of chess game. Also, the fact that one idea (formed by the group of people) is essentialy better than sum of its parts (subideas) is an example that this kind of human-human interaction creates probably much better result than any other (like Brainstorming, for example). In that respect,if we take into the account complexity of chess game- we can find innovative ways to evolutionise the development of chess game. Until recently, the main scientific theory which elaborated the entity of chess was Information theory. Now we have the chance not only to develop the game of chess (in the respect of the role of Complexity theory), but also (feedback between human thought and chess) to make improvement in the level of social interactions. Not computer, but men have to find an adequate, filigree response to the threat of (from the Information processing point of view, which is also part of Complexity theory) simplifing the game of chess.</p>
<p>The match didn&#8217;t have any influence on the sport aspect of chess game, but scientific. On the other hand, due to global mass phenomena, I think that chess is losing its artistic component- but that issue couldn&#8217; be solved with this initial conditions (Kasparov-Other World). I think men should have found a proper measure between popularization of chess and keeping up the Complexity of chess game (including its artistic component, which is incorporated into the Complexity of the game).<br />
Mass media and mass communications couldn&#8217;t make breakthrough in this area of human heritage- the popularization of the game might make countra effect.<br />
I think that if the initial conditions of the game had been different (not to choose players from all chess levels, but a few adequately selected (of course, from the World top)), and with proper decision making criterion for a chess move (with measure of accuracy required in Quantum Cryptography decision making) , the whole strength of Kasparov&#8217;s opponent would have been much better expressive &#8211; probably he would have lost the game. It&#8217;s a great pitty that nowdays improvement  of a young player (11-13) in the game of chess is not harmonized with the natural (given by human evolution) development of child&#8217;s mental abilities. The actual trends in the game of chess insist on short-term memory (fifteen years ago, when I was in that period of life, You must have hade high level of critical resoning and in some degree, the ability to estimate unknown position on Your own ,original way (this is an indication of chess talent).<br />
 The enormous flow of information and dominant role of computers in modern society has created that kind of problem (there are also big ecological problems connected with this).<br />
The development of Quantum computers will resolve previous mentioned problems.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Casper EAC Clemence (maninalift) 's status on Wednesday, 02-Sep-09 17:03:25 UTC - Identi.ca</title>
		<link>http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/kasparov-versus-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-25762</link>
		<dc:creator>Casper EAC Clemence (maninalift) 's status on Wednesday, 02-Sep-09 17:03:25 UTC - Identi.ca</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:03:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=267#comment-25762</guid>
		<description>[...]  http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/kasparov-versus-the-world/        a few seconds ago  from  choqoK   in context [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  <a href="http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/kasparov-versus-the-world/" rel="nofollow">http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/kasparov-versus-the-world/</a>        a few seconds ago  from  choqoK   in context [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nukedoom</title>
		<link>http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/kasparov-versus-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-25382</link>
		<dc:creator>Nukedoom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:23:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=267#comment-25382</guid>
		<description>And he still won? Hmm, I wonder how a game of that caliber today would play out (considering how connected we are with the internet).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And he still won? Hmm, I wonder how a game of that caliber today would play out (considering how connected we are with the internet).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 科学的未来 &#124; azalea says</title>
		<link>http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/kasparov-versus-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-21659</link>
		<dc:creator>科学的未来 &#124; azalea says</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 05:08:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=267#comment-21659</guid>
		<description>[...] 在科学届以外，互联网改变文化的例子有很多[1]。比如，1991年，无名的芬兰学生Linus Torvalds在论坛上发表了一篇短文，为扩展他业余时间开发的“玩具”操作系统寻求帮助; 在志愿者的回应下，Linux诞生了。2001年，无名的Larry Sanger发表了一篇短文，为建立在线百科全书寻求帮助; 在志愿者的帮助下，维基百科诞生了。1999年，著名国际象棋大师Garry Kasparov与“世界队”进行了象棋大战，最终获胜，他对手的每一步棋都是上千人投票选出来的。这局棋被他称为“国际象棋史上最伟大的对局”。 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 在科学届以外，互联网改变文化的例子有很多[1]。比如，1991年，无名的芬兰学生Linus Torvalds在论坛上发表了一篇短文，为扩展他业余时间开发的“玩具”操作系统寻求帮助; 在志愿者的回应下，Linux诞生了。2001年，无名的Larry Sanger发表了一篇短文，为建立在线百科全书寻求帮助; 在志愿者的帮助下，维基百科诞生了。1999年，著名国际象棋大师Garry Kasparov与“世界队”进行了象棋大战，最终获胜，他对手的每一步棋都是上千人投票选出来的。这局棋被他称为“国际象棋史上最伟大的对局”。 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Nielsen &#187; Update on the polymath project</title>
		<link>http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/kasparov-versus-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-17775</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Nielsen &#187; Update on the polymath project</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 05:01:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=267#comment-17775</guid>
		<description>[...] collaborative projects make it easy for late entrants to make a contribution. For example, in the Kasparov versus the World chess game, new participants could enter late in the game and come up to speed quickly. This was in [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] collaborative projects make it easy for late entrants to make a contribution. For example, in the Kasparov versus the World chess game, new participants could enter late in the game and come up to speed quickly. This was in [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Meadon</title>
		<link>http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/kasparov-versus-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-16818</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Meadon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:29:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=267#comment-16818</guid>
		<description>I hadn&#039;t heard about this previously - fascinating stuff and a great analysis! Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hadn&#8217;t heard about this previously &#8211; fascinating stuff and a great analysis! Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
