Wednesday, January 27, 2021

HOW IDEOLOGY BREAKS IN THE CHESS: ICCF NO LONGER STORES THE PLAYER'S AGE OR GENDER

On the 20. January 2020, the International Correspondence Chess Federation (ICCF) has released a new "ICCF Privacy Notice", following decisions made at the 2019 ICCF Congress in Vilnius:

  1. ICCF no longer records or stores your date of birth;
  2. ICCF no longer records or stores your gender;
  3. Information relating to the date of birth or gender has now been removed from our database;
  4. Sensitive information collected during investigations (for example information about your health, etc.) is now destroyed six months after we have processed it.

In the "Introduction" to the full statement, the data protection law has been referred to as a justification:
"The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a regulation in European law which states that we are only able to process your personal information if we have valid reasons to do so."
Below, I shall quote the full text of the chapter "Gender":
"GENDER
We no longer store information about your gender. It is possible for visitors to our website to deduce your gender if you have participated in historical gender specific tournaments.
ICCF have historically awarded gender specific titles (such as Lady International Master and Lady Grand Master), it is possible for visitors to our website to deduce your gender from these titles. ICCF will replace ladies titles with their gender neutral equivalent on request."

 


♘♘♘

Now, however, serious logical obstacles are arising.
First of all, it seems that the data protection law should be applied to all kinds of chess (the OTB tournaments included) and, actually, to all kinds of sports.
But this is senseless, because sports events are public events, and the sportsman's age and gender are obviously relevant information. Actually, a philosophical question arises about why the state (country) and the sportsman's name will not be classified as well!
Some are arguing that all this is because of the rights and the principle of equality.
Unfortunately, such rights should be protected using corresponding laws, not using the data protection law. But if the data protection law has been made to protect women's rights, then the European Union has probably shot dead all its professors. Anyway, to protect women's rights in chess, using the data protection law seems highly artificial manoeuver.
Concerning the rights, it seems that it has never been prohibited for women to participate in the general chess tournaments. Quite to the contrary, men have been prohibited from participating in the ladies tournaments. The ladies tournaments have been the implementation of women's rights, not the violation of it.
Converting ladies' titles to their "gender-neutral equivalent" is also dubious. It is a statistical inference from the sub-class to the whole class. But the idea of sport is to find out in the real battle, who is the winner, not to make statistical hypotheses about it.
For example, Island's chess champion cannot be converted to the champion of the world.
Any such conversion will itself be a target for accusations concerning injustice. At best, such conversions can be "provisional".
To my mind, what we are witnessing is the Orwellian overwriting of the sport's history and even the deletion of it, following some obscure egalitarian ideology.
While they are talking about the "protection of sensitive personal data", the real effect of such laws and such implementation of those laws is to make it more difficult, if not impossible, to conduct scientific, statistical investigations about the correlations between the sex, nation, age, etc, and the sports results. However, this is by no means the implementation of equal rights, it is something else, a completely different thing.


Sunday, January 24, 2021

KUIDAS INIMESI MALEMÄNGUST EEMALE PELETADA — SPORTI POLITISEERIDES

Äsja Postimehes ilmunud artiklis malemängust 

" 'Kuidas sa küll tüdrukule kaotasid?' Ehk mis mõju võiks olla üleilmsel telehitil 'Lipugambiit' " 
Raul Ranne 
Postimees, 23. jaanuar 2021 

täheldasin spordi politiseerimist. Eesti noori andekaid naismaletajaid Mai ja Triin Narva on siin ära kasutatud soolise võrdõiguslikkuse ideoloogia kasuks, ma kahtlustan, et sellega kaasnevate tüüpiliste loogika- ja faktivigadega. 

Tsiteerin (minu rõhutus): 

"Kas naiste ja meeste malet kiputakse jätkuvalt hindama eri spordialadena või toimub siingi seriaali mõjul suhtumise muutus?" 

 

Postimees, 23. jaanuar 2020


Naistel ei ole keelatud üldturniiridel osaleda. Pole ka varem olnud keelatud. Nn "naiste" maleturniirid ja "naiste" järgud ning tiitlid on naiste õigus, mitte kohustus

Kui kellelgi on andmeid selle kohta, et naistel takistatakse nn "meeste turniiridel" osalemist, et seda tehakse praegu Eesti Vabariigis või tehti varem Nõukogude Liidus, siis palun esitage need faktid koos täpsete allikaviidetega. Sest sellised faktid on olulised. 

Kui mina veel maleturniiridel osalesin, siis alatasa sattusin ma mängima mõnede tugevate naismaletajatega. Tegelikult, minu ainsad võidud suurmeistrite vastu tollal olid naiste vastu. 

Kui siin kedagi diskrimineeritud on, siis hoopis mehi, sest tõenäoliselt ei lastaks ühelgi mehel võistelda naiste meistrivõistlustel males. 

Kuna see Postimehe artikkel sisaldas juba alguses väga tõsist ideoloogilist fopaad, siis ma keeldun seda lõpuni lugemast.  


ICCF uued sooneutraalsed eeskirjad 

See võib ju tunduda sääsest elevandi tegemisena, et ma sellest kirjutan, ent tegelik pilt on vastupidine. Sääsest teevad elevanti egalitarismi — võrdsuse ideoloogia — pealesurujad. 

Mõni aeg tagasi — 2020 — teatas rahvusvaheline kirimaleorganisatsioon ICCF, et nad on muutnud oma määruseid. 

Üheks oluliseks muudatuseks oli see, et kaotatakse ära erinevused meeste ja naiste vahel, selles mõttes, et mängija soovil varjatakse andmebaasides tema sugu (kuigi Irina on ikka edasi Irina ja mitte Vova!). Samuti teatati, et naismängija soovil antakse tema naiste tiitlitele ja järkudele vastavalt (mingi algoritmi järgi) talle ekvivalentsed üldtiitlid ja -järgud. 

Teisisõnu, kui keegi naisterahvas oli saavutanud kirimales naiste suurmeistri tiitli kunagi, siis tema enda nõudmisel omistatakse talle mingi vastav "meeste" tiitel ja andmebaasidest KUSTUTATAKSE kõik andmed tema soo kohta. 



ICCF sooneutraalsed reeglid 2020


Ent see on täielik absurd, kui sellel naisterahval ei olnud keelatud osaleda üldturniiridel (mida mõnikord kutsutakse "meeste turniirideks"). 

Veelgi absurdsem on aga "ekvivalendi" arvutamine ja "ekvivalentse" tiitli omistamine. Ainult naistega mänginud naisterahvale omistatakse sedasi tiitel, mille saamiseks oleks tulnud mängida suuremas seltskonnas. Sama hästi oleks võinud näiteks Iirimaa meistrile omistada maailmameistri tiitli! Ekvivalendi alusel... 

ICCF teates oli öeldud, et nad tegid oma reegleid ümber lähtudes Euroopa Liidu uutest standarditest. 

Tegemist on spordiajaloo ümberkirjutamisega, Orwelli õudusunenäoga. Rikkudes tõenäosusteooria ABC-d, upitatakse ühte alamhulka kõikide inimeste hulgast kunstlikult parematele statistilistele näitajatele. 

Selle loo tulemusena hakkasin ma ka kahtlema, kas ma soovin enam osaleda ICCF turniiridel. Kirimale on väga aeganõudev ja tänapäeval kasutatakse selles arvuteid. Iga kord, kui mõtlen, kas tasub sellele nii palju aega ja energiat kulutada, tuleb kaalukausile ka see juhtum ICCF reeglite ümbertegemisest mingi vaimuhaige ideoloogia mõju all olles või selliste ideoloogide sunnil. 


Tsensuur 

Kirjutasin sellest platvormil Reddit alamredditis "Chess", et algatada diskussiooni ja lootes teada saada, kas mingites maades on kunagi naisi malemängu alal diskrimineeritud, kas mingites maades on naistel keelatud maletada või keelatud nn "meeste turniiridel" osaleda. 

Minu postitus kustutati 5 minuti pärast. 

Seepeale ma jalamaid lahkusin subredditist "Chess", kuigi ma oleksin pidanud kontrollima, järele küsima, kas minu postitus eemaldati selle alamredditi reeglitele viidates või Redditi üldreeglitele viidates. Viimasel juhul oleksin ma pidanud loobuma kasutamast poliitilise tsensuuriga Redditit üldse. 

Fakti- ja loogikavigadega ideoloogiat, mis esitab inimestele valesüüdistusi, kaitstakse, kustutades informatsiooni, mis esitab fakte ja juhib tähelepanu matemaatika- ja loogikavigadele. 



Redditi tsensuur 



Algteadmisi ühiskondlikust "malemängust" 

Nii nagu males tuleb tunda käike, tuleb teada, et ratsu käib teistmoodi kui oda, tuleb teada, mis asi on ratsukahvel ja mis asi on äratõmbetuli  samal moel tuleb ühiskondlikes küsimustes teada mõningaid elementaarseid erinevusi, antud juhul, mis erinevus on väljenditel 


  • KOHUSTUSLIK
  • KEELATUD
  • LUBATUD 


Oluline erinevus on ka mõistetel 


  • VÕRDÕIGUSLIKKUS
  • VÕRDSUS 


Kui spordivõistlus on ausalt läbi viidud, siis võrdõiguslikkuse põhimõtet rikutud ei ole, aga võrdsuse põhimõtte rikkumine ongi võistluse mõtteks, sest eesmärgiks on välja selgitada võistlejate paremusjärjestust. 

Soovõrdsuse ideoloogid aga kipuvad neid mõisteid süstemaatiliselt omavahel segi ajama, lavastades teisi inimesi süüdlasteks ja leides diskrimineerimist sealt, kus seda pole kunagi olemas olnud. 

Võrdsuse ideoloogid keelavad spordi varsti üldse ära, sest kõik korraga ei saa ju võita. 

Või vähemalt hakkavad nad nõudma, et spordivõistluste tulemused tuleb salastada või hoida võistlejate nimed anonüümsetena (vt ka õiguskäntsler 2019). 

Muidu keegi veel solvub, et ta halva tulemuse sai. 


Thursday, December 17, 2020

KERES - ALEKHINE 1-0 (1937)



In the present position, White made an effective winning move. 


21 years old young Paul Keres (07. January 1916  05. June 1975) won Alexander Alekhine (18921946), the World Chess Champion of 19271935 and 19371946, on the 23. move. Alekhine was an ex-champion at the time of the game, but he regained his title in the same year a few months later. At the end of the tournament Margate 1937, Keres shared 1st–2nd place with Reuben Fine, having 7½/9 points 
(+6 −0 =3), and 1½ points ahead of Alekhine who earned the 3-rd place. 

It was Keres's first and last win against Alekhine, who unexpectedly died in 1946. 



Keres vs Alekhine
credit: Chessgames.com 


This game, however, is highly controversial. 

A Lot of Mistakes 


Both the game itself and also Keres's comments to it contain surprisingly many mistakes. In the 1996 edition of Keres's book The Road to the Top, there are some comments by grandmaster John Nunn, but he has mentioned only some of the previously unnoticed mistakes. 

Around 2010, the chess engines were already so developed that some previously unknown mistakes were discovered and discussed in the Chessgames "Kibitzer's Corner": 


Keres has included this game into the collections of his best games, for example, into his book Valitud partiid, 1961 [= "Selected Games"]. 

My analysis with the chess engine Komodo (Chessbase, "tactical analysis", 30 min/move) gives an astonishing statistical result: 

Precision:        White:    42% 
                        Black:    13% 

Actually, Alekhine's last three moves 20...f6?; 21...Rxf6?; and 22...Qb4?? were all mistakes. 

Some commentators guess that perhaps Alekhine was drunken  as it reportedly happened during the World Championship Match against Euwe in 1935 when Alekhine lost hist title. However, a half a year after the present game, Alekhine won his title back convincingly. 

According to comments by Keres, Keres was in a zeitnot at the end of the game. So, perhaps Alekhine was in a zeitnot as well. 

I do not know what happened. 

Methodology 


I have used the following sources: 

  • Keres, P. (1961) Valitud partiid. [= "Selected Games"] 
  • Keres, P. (1996) The Road to the Top. (Contains some comments by grandmaster John Nunn.) 

In my analyzes, I have used the chess engine Komodo. 

I have analyzed this game seriously like the correspondence chess players are doing this. It is a timeconsuming process. However, I have not been so serious as the correspondence chess players are about their own games. 

It is not the final judgement. For example, I have not used some powerful supercomputers. 

My analyzes have been presented in my Lichess study: 


I have also composed a PDF file with my analyzes. Together with the diagrams, it is a book of 40 pages. You can download it from here: 


As there have been so many mistakes both in the game and in the commentaries to it (even in 1996, only a few mistakes have been noticed), it is obvious that human beings are unable to calculate the variations in such complicated positions. At least, not during the game. 

Therefore, we should rather study the thought economics of the players: not how they did calculate the variations but how they avoided calculating the variations. For example, in several positions, the intuitive evaluations of Keres were correct although he provided the variations incorrectly. 

The Game 





If you do not see the board above correctly, switch off your advertisement blocker or use the link below: 


The Mystery of the d–Line Roentgen 


Here, I shall only partly analyze the last phase of the game. 

16...Qd8-e7! 

Finally, Black is ready to castle 0-0-0. 




Here, White can grab the pawn with the move 17. Nxg5??, but 17...0-0-0 follows. 
Keres: 

"...suddenly creating several unpleasant threats." 




Now, White's knight N/g5 is attacked, while White's queen Q/d5 is threatened by Black's rook R/d8 after any move with Black's bishop B/d7 ("roentgen"). 

It is important to note that Keres's remark above makes it evident that he was aware of such tactical motive. Therefore, it is mysterious that he has not provided any comments about that motive when commenting on Black's move 20...f6 (see below).  

Now, for example, 18. Nf3?? Bf5 and White's queen has been captured. 




Thus, Keres did not fall into Alekhine's clever trap and played 

17. Ba4xc6! 

But his comments are misleading. 
Keres provides this move with the exclamation mark "!" and writes: 

"White's main attacking idea is to keep the enemy king fixed in the centre."  

 

In the Estonian version, he even adds that White aims not to gain some little material advantage. 

In actuality, after a few moves, White grabs the pawn P/g5 and still allows Black to castle. 

The real idea of the move 17. Bxc6, as it turned out, was to win some time and improve the position of White's queen before taking the pawn Nxg5. White eliminates the knight N/c6 that attacks the central pawn P/e5 and does not allow White's queen to the squares d4, a5 and a7. 

17...Bd7xc6 
18. Qd4-d3 

From here, White's queen defends the knight N/f3 and controls the square f5. It also attacks the pawn P/h7. However, note that the pawn structure of White's king's position has been weakened because of the move made c2c4. The attack on the pawn P/h7 may be illusory because it would lead White's queen far away from White's king. The queen on h7 would be temporarily out of the play. 

18...Bc6-d7?! 

(0.72/29) Komodo 

Better was 18...g4! 19. Nd4 0-0-0! 20. Qf5+ Bd7 21. Qxf4 +/= (0.36/30). 




In the present position, Black would get sufficient initiative as compensation for the pawn P/h7: 
19. Qxh7? 0-0-0 = (0.00/29). 

The computer suggests 19. Qd4! as the only move keeping White's advantage. 
As Black doesn't threaten Bxf3 anymore, White's queen can move on the better position. The idea is to play  after Black's 19...0-0-0 castling  20. Qa7! 
Surely, it is difficult to see such manoeuvre like Qd5-d3-d4. 
However, while the computer initially assigns 0.72 centipawns to that move, later in the analysis, it is reduced to approximately 0.30. 

Note that from Keres's comments to Black's 21. move it is obvious that during the game Keres was aware of the manoeuvre Qd3-d4-a7. And it would be consistent with his claimed aim "to keep the enemy king fixed in the centre". But he has not commented on the possibility 19. Qd4. 

In the position shown above, after having exchanged Black's knight N/c6 and improved the position of White's queen (Black cannot play Bf5 anymore), Keres is finally going to take the pawn P/g5 with the move 19. Nxg5. He does not comment on this move. But it was a mistake, and Black can equalize after that. 

19. Nf3xg5?! 

Not only winning the pawn but also destroying Black's pawn structure. But White wastes time. 
Still, perhaps it was a good decision if Keres was in a zeitnot already. Now, White is a pawn up, and it is difficult to lose any possible endgames. 

19...0-0-0 

There are several threats. It is the roentgen motive. 




Here, the complications after 20. Nxh7 Bg4! 21. Qa3! = finally give Black full equality. Keres was right to avoid these complications. Moreover, he was in a zeitnot. Even Keres's and Nunn's analyzes contain some mistakes here. 

But what about 20. Ne4 with the idea Ne4-f6-d5? Then 20...Bg4 -/+
As Keres did not play 20. Ne4? was he aware of the roentgen motive? Granted, theoretically, it is possible that he did not see the move 20...Bg4, but regarded the equality after 20...Qxe5 21. Qd4 Qxd4 22. Rxd4 Bc6! = (-0.15/30) as unsatisfactory for White. 

20. Ng5-f3 



The d-line mystery position 


As we saw above, Keres was well aware of Black's motive of moving his bishop B/d7 so that Black's rook R/d8 will attack White's queen Q/d3. However, it is strange that in his comments concerning the present position, Keres has not mentioned neither the move 20...Be6 nor 20...Bh3. 

20...Be6 21. Qc2 Qc5 22. b3 Bg4 = (0.00/29) with full equality. 
20...Bh3 21. Nd4 Bxg2 22. Rhg1 f3 23. Rge1 = (0.20/30) with full equality. 

Suddenly, Alekhine made 3 mistakes consecutively: 

20...f7-f6? 

(0.75/33) Komodo 

Keres provides this move with the exclamation mark "!" 
According to Keres, Black gets rid of his doubled pawns and opens up a position to get even a little counterplay. 
However, note that White's pawn P/e5 was a weakness as well, while Black's pawn P/h7 perhaps did not need a defence, as the move Qxh7 would lead White's queen out of the play. 

21. e5xf6 Rf8xf6? 

Better was 21...Qxf6. According to Keres, Alekhine was afraid of 22. Qxh7. After sharp tactical complications beginning with 20...Bf5!, the result is an endgame. Keres evaluates that White has some winning chances. But the computer shows 0.00  full equality. 
However, Keres was prepared to avoid such complications as he was in a zeitnot. His plan was to force the exchange of the queens with 22. Qd4. The resulting endgame is better for White. 
It also demonstrates that during the game, Keres was aware of the motive Qd3-d4-a7. But neither did he play 19. Qd4 nor did he comment on this possibility. 

In this game, Black has had difficulties with castling. Finally, he managed to castle: 19...0-0-0. In such a situation, it often happens that the player forgets that one's king may be unsafe even after castling. With his move 21...Rxf6? Black has weakened his back rank. 

22. Rh1-e1 Qe7-b4?? 
23. Qd3xd7+ 

1-0 





Wednesday, December 2, 2020

UUED MALEREEGLID

Millegipärast tuli mulle mõte, et kuidas saaks malemängu aeglustada. Ja siis selline idee.
Vanad reeglid vangerduse kohta:

1) Kui kuningas on korra käinud, siis enam vangerdada ei saa.
2) Kui vanker on korra käinud, siis selle vankriga enam vangerdada ei saa.

Nüüd võiks üritada midagi ka lipu kohta arvata:

3A) Kui lipp on korra käinud, siis enam kuningaga käia või vangerdada ei saa.

See vähendaks kindlasti himu karjapoissi

1. e4 e5 2. Qh5

mängida, sest Valge ise ei saaks nüüd enam vangerdada.
Aga oh häda! Kui kuningaga enam käia ei saa, siis tuleb kuningale matt panna alati algväljal - väljal e1 valgetele ja väljal e8 mustadele. Lisaks sellele saaks siis panna ratsuga mati ka paljale kuningale, sest eest ära minna kuningas ei saa, kuna kuningaga ei tohi enam käia.
Seepärast tuleb reeglit 3A) lõdvendada nii:

3B) Kui lipp on korra käinud, siis see, kes lipuga käis, enam vangerdada ei saa.

Näiteks Hispaania avangus peetakse pärast

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6

käiku 5. 0-0 veidi tugevamaks kui käiku 5. Qe2.
Uute reeglite järgi oleks 5. Qe2 aga viga, sest Valge kaotaks sellega vangerdamisõiguse.
Uue reegli tagajärjel püüaksid kõik kõigepealt ära vangerdada ja alles siis lipuga käia.
Veelgi nõrgem oleks reegel

3C) Kui lipp on korra käinud, siis see, kes lipuga käis, enam liputiivale vangerdada ei saa.

Paraku järeldub isegi sellest nõrgemast reeglist see, et liputiivale polegi üldse võimalik vangerdada - pikk vangerdus on alati võimatu.
Nii ma jõudsingi ideele tuua sisse - lisaks VANGERDAMISELE - uus käik nimega LIPUTAMINE.
Kui Valge liputab, siis ta vahetab oma lipu ja kuninga algasukohad, nii et tema kuningas on nüüd väljal d1 ja tema lipp välja e1.
Võib-olla on seda käiku mõnes seisus vaja.
Uus reegel oleks nüüd selline:

3D) See, kes lipu välja käis, enam liputada ei saa.

Paraku ei õnnestunud mul sedasi malemängu aeglustada, sest see reegel rakendub ainult uuele käigule, mida varem ei eksisteerinud.



"...and with King and Queen reversed, Black wins easily."
- Fischer (1961)