Fred Wilson show 11/12/03 with GM John Fedorowicz

  Fred has a weekly show on - check it out -

Question "due to 3d glasses and voice recognition software, this is more about spectacle then chess


                   The 3D glasses and voice recognition software only heighten and transform this man vs. machine match up into it's purest form yet. In 1996 during game 2 of the Kasparov vs. Deep Blue match. The Deep Blue operator Feng Hsu miss translated the 9th move that Deep Blue had played. The Deep Blue team can running in and a "take back" occurred. Kasparov after losing the first game, was very gracious to allow the take back. Accusations were made during the 1997 Deep Blue match, that there was outside interference. Now there are no machine translators making the moves. It really is Man vs. Machine in its purest form yet. Garry Kasparov gets to see the computer make its move on the 3D board. He talks directly to the machine to make his move.  X3D is promoting its great technology, chess , and providing a great source of entertainment to the public. I put on the X3D glasses and looked at the computer screen. The 3D effects are incredible. Virtual reality is the next great frontier in entertainment. This is a real chess match, Kasparov is taking this match seriously. I saw his raw emotions at the post game 2 press conference. I saw his frustration caused by his blunder. We all know that X3D Fritz could care less about the spectacle. It will play its normal great chess. The millions of people who will enjoy this chess match will also enjoy the X3D virtual reality in the near future.  

Question : The match does  nothing to further man vs. machine that began with IM David Levy and personified by Kasparov in 1996 vs. Deep Blue.


This is just one match in a series of matches (experiments)  that will further the man vs. machine match up. No single match will answer the question of who is superior at chess, man or machine.  This is a real match, it matches one of  the greatest chess players of all time against one of the top computers. I know that Kasparov is taking this match seriously, I saw his raw emotions after his blunder in game two against X3D Fritz. The experiment of man creative artistry and intuition  versus the computers raw brute force calculation will  continue long after this match..  In order to further the man vs. machine question, we must modify the experiment. Computer progress and computer understanding of chess have transformed this match up into Man vs. near Perfection. We must give the human player more time to solve the problems presented by the machine. I would like to see the human player have an hour extra time.  These match ups have transformed chess; this is chess on a much higher level. The human player is matched up against a player who will always play up to its potential. This near perfect player will never make a short term blunder. It will put up the best defense. As Kasparov has stated, in the near future, one victory by man will signify man's superiority over the machine. We are very lucky, because this is one of the few areas where man can match his artistry and intuition against the computer brute force calculation. I thought that Deep Blue was on the threshold of answering this question, sadly that experiment was discontinued.


Question : :  casual public (even chess players) believes that chess computers are superior to humans at chess.


 Well the public is right in a sense, computers today are better at chess than 99.9999...percent of the world population. However there are a few humans left on the planet that can give the silicon monsters a great game of chess. Two come to mind, World Chess Champion Vladimir Kramnik and World's number one player Garry Kasparov . Since 1997 the best players in the world have held their own. If you look at the matches, the best human players are controlling the match, they are getting advantages in the opening and sometimes they are able to convert the advantage to win, but in most cases the computers great defensive skills hold game. In games where the human player loses, the losses  are mostly due to horrible blunders. I have only seen 2 cases where the computers took control of the game and won, these occurred in game one of the 1996 Deep Blue match and in game two of 1997 Deep Blue match. Since then, I have not been impressed with the wins by the silicon monsters. Based on the data that I have, the best human players are still the king of the chess hill.


  special thanks to fishon from ICC for his inspiration