Sunday Potpourri

Amazing scientific discoveries, Winnipeg 1967, FIDE Women's Grand Prix, Rogoff, and "Rematch": the movie. But no chess pope.

(1) There’s a new Pope! Alas, he’s apparently not a chess player, though his most recent namesake, Leo XIII, apparently was. So while I was hoping to make a potpourri/popery pun (with a zillion disclaimers that I’m not using “popery” in a derogatory sense but only for the sake of the homophone), the man who was Robert Francis Prevost and is now Leo XIV prefers verbal games (e.g. Wordle) to chess. Too bad.

(2) I came across a Science News article entitled “Chess players rely on familiar moves even when the game changes”, subtitled “People use past experiences to guide decision-making, even when the present is unprecedented”. Gee, I sure hope taxpayer dollars were used on that groundbreaking research! The gist is that those preferred 1.d4 in standard chess were twice as likely to use it as non-1.d4 players in Chess960 based on a large sample of games played on Lichess. Even more shocking: the more Chess960 they played, the less likely they were to make such moves automatically and the more likely they were to try to figure things out a bit rather than going by “memories” (if that’s really the right term) of standard chess.

It’s true that chess players - as with humans in general - are inclined to overgeneralize based on experience. One can find countless examples of this in normal chess. (Here’s a favorite example.) But what’s the alternative, especially given short time controls? We’ve got to start somewhere, and we adjust based on experience. In fact, if a player rejects 1.d4 in Chess960 but plays, say, 1.c4 in a certain setup because it will help clear the way for speedy development and to control the center, then that player too is relying on memory and past experience. The difference is that they’re invoking a principle rather than a particular move, but it’s still an attempt to use the familiar.

This seems to me analogous to Chesterton’s Fence, or perhaps even an application of that principle. We know that X works in standard chess, but don’t yet know what works in this particular arrangement of Chess960. Rather than assume the standard idea doesn’t work here, it’s reasonable to give it default status (particularly in the absence of enough time to work things out in the new position) and see if it’s a fence worth removing.

(3) Winnipeg 1967. My YouTube feed “thought” I might be interested in seeing this CBC program* on the tournament.It had a strong field headlined by Boris Spassky, Paul Keres, and Bent Larsen plus slightly past their prime former Candidates Pal Benko and Laszlo Szabo. On paper, an interesting tournament; in reality, one beset by loads of “grandmaster draws”, an all-too-common phenomenon in that era. No one ran away with the tournament, which finished in a tie between Klaus Darga (a big surprise) and Larsen, with Spassky and Keres half a point behind. Darga beat Larsen in their individual game, and Larsen was gifted a full point by Benko when the latter lost on time making the last move of the time control in obscenely winning position. Still, Larsen gets credit for his characteristic fighting spirit, winning his last two games to tie for first.

(4) FIDE Women’s Grand Prix in Austria. The series is a qualifier for the Women’s Candidates tournament, but I have to admit my first interest in high-level women’s events is seeing how the Muzychuk sisters have decided to make a draw. Here’s their latest effort, from round 1. (You never know - sometimes you might pick up a drawing line you can use when a draw is what you need to clinch first, or a big prize, or a norm.) The tournament as a whole, after six rounds, has been a success for Anna Muzychuk but a disaster for her sister, Mariya. Anna is in clear first with 4.5/6 while Mariya is tied for next-to-last with 2 points, half a point ahead of Nurgyul Salimova. (All the data on the Grand Prix as a whole is here; info on this specific event is here.)

(5) Ken Rogoff is a famous economist who also happens to be a long-retired grandmaster from Anatoly Karpov’s generation. (Indeed, I recall reading, years ago, that a shellacking by Karpov was one reason he gave up his chess ambitions, in part because it came at a time before he and others realized that Karpov was KARPOV. He is interviewed by Tyler Cowen, and while most of the interview is on economics (that’s also Cowen’s day job) there is an interesting segment on chess as well starting at the 50-minute mark. (Or scroll down at the link to find it in the transcript.) Rogoff talks about Gukesh, Ding, Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen, Karpov, Fischerrandom (Chess960), and more.

(6) Disney+ has a mini-series coming out on(? starting?) May 21 called “Rematch”, looking back the second match between Garry Kasparov and Deep Blue. The preview makes me want to hurl, but then I’m one of those people who rolls their eyes whenever movie-makers take “artistic” liberties with historical events and justify it with the disclaimer “based on a true story”. I’m sure I’ll fork over the bucks when it comes out in a couple of weeks, but mostly as a matter of doing my professional duty. (If I end up thinking it’s great I’ll happily report it.) If any of you have already seen it (it was released in Europe last fall), please offer your own review - especially if you think it’s worth watching.

[N.B. I originally labeled the Winnipeg 1967 video a BBC production. I have corrected the error thanks to ABoron - see the comments.]