I found this one, but the age/authenticity of the clip, I can't confirm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0HZ...

This one, with the scratchy music, seems to be quite old. Then I found out that (Lotta Lenya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotte_...) she played the villainous Rosa Klebb in a Bond movie! 'From Russia with Love': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G63...

Now, this one, is very modern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotte_...

You are playing with the Li'l Partner for free, the game maker have spent their time and energy to make the software, and you get to use/play with it for free.

See GM Nickel's victories over Hydra, and how The World uses the sliding strategy for ensure the horizon isn't 'lost' when using computer's assistance.

Let's assume for the moment that we have a computer that has access to an unlimited amount of space, and that we can run it for longer than the universe has existed (and we won't even have to die watching since this is imaginary!) (in case anyone believes this to be a really short time for religious purposes, let's just pretend the universe is 13.7 billion years old).

Ok, now that we have that set, what will the computer be doing? Simple -- making a tree of every possible move. So we have at the start of the game 20 branches for the 20 possible moves white can make. For each of those 20 branches, we have 20 branches for all the possible responses by black. And so on (the number of branches from there on depend on the actual moves).

Eventually, each branch MUST reach an end -- either a draw, a win for white, or a win for black. Also, it is important to note that every possible chess game is contained within this tree. That is simply the way it is constructed as I have described. We will use numbers here too: draw is 0, win for white is +1, and win for black is -1.

And now bear with me as I attempt to explain the Minimax algorithm without the use of diagrams: suppose we have a node (node A) where it is white's turn to move and so he can choose from any of the branches from this node. Suppose that for each of these branches, we reach a leaf node (that is, the end of the game -- either a draw=0, win for white= +1, or win for black=-1). White will choose the branch that maximizes the score (so if there is a +1 branch, he will take it, if not he will take a 0 branch, if not he is stuck with a -1 branch), and we will call this score X. We can now assign the value X to node A -- when we reach node A, we know that white will choose a move that produces value X (or worse than X if he doesn't want to win).

Now, let's say that node B is a node where it is black to move. From node B, there are several branches, one to node A (value X), and others to other nodes that also have obtained values similar to how A did it. Therefore, at node B, black can choose from a number of branches that lead to nodes with scores (0, +1, or -1). Since he wants to win, he chooses the branch that minimizes the score (call it Y). And so just like we gave A the value X, we can give B the value Y.

So then at the top of the tree, we will see that for each of the 20 moves for white, there are various scores associated with each move. These scores represent the outcome if both sides play perfectly. Now, as before, white simply chooses the branch that maximizes the score. That branch, followed all the way down the tree, is a perfect game.

Important notes on this:

1) There are only 3 possible scores, but many branches per node. Therefore, it is reasonable that many times, several moves will be best. Choosing any of these moves will have the same end result (win, draw, or loss).

2) This algorithm is perfect given near infinite time and space. Research the Minimax algorithm more if you don't believe it can work that well. Modern chess computers basically work like this, only they have severely limited time and space, so they cut off the tree and just apply evaluation functions (instead of going to a draw, win, or loss). No evaluation function is applied here.

3) The perfect game (or games) can be a draw, win for white, or even win for black. No matter what you think about chess now, there is no reason that any of these results would be impossible. This is a simple statement of fact unrelated to computers. Maybe hard to accept, but a FACT nonetheless.

Why? Machines are faster and stronger than people. They can see farther and smaller. They can hear fainter sounds. They can do complex math quicker. They can print faster and more accurately.

Instead of fearing that machines are taking over, we should stand back in awe, recognizing that it was we who built those machines and programmed those computers to do things our own bodies simply can not. Computers can play chess better than the human brain, but it was the human brain that gave computers that power. It's not that we've lost a battle, but instead it's that we've accomplished another amazing feat.

Instead of fearing that machines are taking over, we should stand back in awe, recognizing that it was we who built those machines and programmed those computers to do things our own bodies simply can not. Computers can play chess better than the human brain, but it was the human brain that gave computers that power.>

In other words we should quit playing Chess (together with a score of all other kinds of things, including emotional, spiritual and sexual, too).

Which is the equivalent of allowing the take-over. As a compensation, we can stand back (in Awe), and enjoy the sight.

Biologists aren't afraid of computers that can solve genetic sequences, doctors aren't afraid of computers that can scan/image a patient faster than human, chess players shouldn't be afraid of computers that can play chess better.

Thanks God, I won't be around to see it.>

No, not at all. We can still enjoy chess with other people or with computers (sex with computers is not to be recommended, however). People still run races, have weight-lifting comptetitions, throw darts, etc. We just shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking computers can't do all that better, or that that somehow removes the fun from it.

<WannaBe: My 2 cents. and I think <ganstaman> wrote some wonderful posts. Thank you.>

Half done with "Einstein", and <It is a marvelous/wonderful/great/stupendous read!> I don't think my knowledge of English can accomplish what I want to describe.

<<<WannaBe> Maybe something for you to consider for next year!>

<<WannaBe> <brankat> Only if it's in Vancouver, and I get to meet you and the lovely <jessicafischerqueen>! :-))>

<If I go, can I be 'cheap' and stay with you?? I'll buy the beers down at the bar.>>

I don't believe Canadian Open will be held in Vancouver. As far as I know for last few years it has been held in Ottawa.

But we do have a "Paul Keres Memorial" taking place in Vancouver every year, in the month of May. As You may know Paul Keres died in Vancouver back in '75, just after winning his last tournament here.

The Memorial tourney usually happens sometime between May 20-25. The main tournament is not as strong as the C. Open, but there are always a few, GMs, IMs etc. And, of course other groups, like U1,600, 1,600-1,800 etc. Depending on the group and the time of entry, the rates are, I think, somewhere between $85-125 Can. I can find out.

Actually, Vancouver is not that far for You, and it's beautiful here in May! I don't think it's more than 2 hours flight from LA. Driving would probably take too long. Some 20 hours straight driving at least, plus rest, sleep, lunch, dinner etc = 2 days. A waste of time.