Most human players and chess computer engines alike select their moves through a combination of two processes: searching through the consequences of possible moves, and evaluating current and future positions. Each of us have our own talents and capabilities in performing these two tasks. But what if chess was played randomly, with no bias, ideas, experience or thought put into any moves?
Well, somebody took the time to answer this question, and did so in an impressive fashion. This report by @billautomata, generated approximately 100,000 random games, finding that a vast majority ended in a draw (85%) and lasted an average of 342 moves. This data is presented with some very neat visualizations.
While the high draw is not necessarily surprising (after all, these computer players are identically matched in skill), it would be interesting to know if White or Black had a greater share of the few wins that did occur. Unfortunately, the data from the above analysis is not freely available (as far as I know).
In light of this, I have utilized the chess.js JavaScript library to create an accessible way to generate and store random computer games. You can access this simple tool from my other site. While this may not serve any useful purpose, it could nonetheless be interesting to see which side (White or Black) ends up with a better score after random moves. I should note that others have created random moving chess programs with better visuals, such as developed by the chessboard.js team.
That's all for this week! Stay tuned for more computer analysis and links. Please share your thoughts, questions, comments and consternations below.
A few weeks ago, I was in the city on a Sunday, killing somme time while my girlfriend was recording some music (Check out her itunes page!). Naturally, I took the opportunity to get in a game of chess, and headed down to Bryant Park. There I found a player, sitting smugly with sunglasses on (it was a nice September day) taking on various opponents. Most of the opponents he played were crushed, making fairly simple mistakes and dropping pieces to simple tactics as the bespeckled player jokingly taunted them. I noticed, however, some errors in his play (both tactical and positional), and his tendency to underestimate the counterplay of his opponent.
I have posted the game below for your enjoyment. It was played with the time control of 5-0 (5 minutes each side, no increment). In hindsight, I think that this game might be a good example of the Einstellung effect. This effect is essentially when you become fixated on only certain moves or ideas, miss the optimal continuation in a position. I recently posted about some research concerning the Einstellung effect on chess players (it is a more generally phenomenon), and it brought this game back to my mind. In fact, I otherwise would have not posted the following game, because it contains some really rather sloppy play (I'm usually sharper that this tactically, I swear!), but is nonetheless instructive on several points.
In particular, I became fixated on the pressure my opponent was exerting on my King in the above position, and missed an excellent resource on move 21; I played the awkward 21.Bf4, when a combination of 21.fxg6, Rf7 and Rh7 would have easily secured the win.
Select 'Read more' or the following link to view the whole game.
The time pressure of blitz can sometimes highlight our tendency to overlook important possibilities. What examples of the missed possibilities and the Einstellung effect do you have in your own games?
Chess is everything: art, science, and sport. - Anatoly Karpov
For me, chess is at the same time a game, a sport, a science and an art. And perhaps even more than that,. There is someting hard to explain to those who do not know the game well. One must first learn to play it correctly in order to savor its richness. - Bent Larsen
Chess is a unique cognitive nexus, a place where art and science come together in the human mind and are refined and improved by experience. - Garry Kasparov
Welcome to Science on the Squares, a blog about Chess and Science, and everything in between.
I've heard on occasion the cliche "Write what you know". In some ways, it is through this phrase I arrive at this blog. I am an avid chess player (although not particularly strong, only USCF 1666 at time of writing), and I am also currently drawing my doctoral studies in molecular biology to a close. Thus, I am in position to comment on both worlds. As the quotes above (grabbed from http://www.chessquotes.com/topic-chess) suggests, these worlds may intersect in some ways.
