Au lendemain de la sortie du documentaire consacré à la journaliste russe assassinée le 7 octobre 2006 (le jour de l’anniversaire de Vladimir Poutine !), rencontre avec le réalisateur Eric Bergkraut et la sœur d’Anna Politkovkskaïa, Elena Kudimova. Largement commenté, ce film-hommage à une héroïne du journalisme politique engagé, passe doucement mais sûrement du portrait intimiste dévoilé aux yeux du monde, à l’enquête exposant diverses théories sur l’identité des commanditaires de l’assassinat, sur fond de corruption, d’excès de pouvoir des oligarques et de collusion, complicité génocidaire ou affairisme destructeur, entre le Kremlin et les nouveaux dirigeants tchétchènes (l’inquiétant et barbare Ramzan Kadyrov). En dressant le parcours d’une combattante de l’information et de la vérité, Lettre à Anna ne verse pas dans la chronique de la mort annoncée d’une figure du contrepouvoir russe (dissidence que représente aussi un Gary Kasparov par exemple, présent dans le documentaire) mais dans sa continuité vivante et mémorable. C’est la force du film de Bergkraut : raviver la flamme du personnage (ses idées, sa vie, ses actions, son incarnation) à une heure où les autorités caucasiennes ont tendance à l’éteindre prétextant une résolution de l’affaire. Seul bémol dans cette entreprise où l’émotion s’insère parfaitement dans un récit explorant les grandes questions de la société civile russe voire mondiale (car universelle) : on reste sur notre faim concernant les hypothèses du « qui ? » et du « pourquoi ? » ; et l’image du film, peu esthétique reconnaissons-le, ne rend pas justice au genre documentaire qu’une formalisation un peu moins brute sépare en principe très nettement du reportage télévisuel « de base ». Le travail de Bergkraut n’en demeure pas moins exemplaire, mais au regard de productions plus soignées, notre déception visuelle méritait d’être signalée. Au-delà de cette lumière inesthétique par endroits et d’une faible profondeur de champ inadaptée au grand écran, tout fait sens et c’est ce qui nous fait regretter le manque de cinématographie de ce Lettre à Anna qu’une brève rencontre avec ses initiateurs et / ou acteurs nous a permis d’approfondir.

Versus : Vous donnez la parole dans le documentaire au « célèbre » homme d’affaires Boris Berezovsky qui a cette phrase déroutante : « les Russes ont une mentalité d’esclaves ». Quel rapport entretenez-vous avec cette vision pessimiste, fataliste, du peuple de Russie ? C’est un peu le même réflexe déclaratif que le « fameux » atavisme africain.

Eric Bergkraut : Je ne partage évidemment pas cet avis et encore moins celui des autorités ! Même s’il connaît le système de l’intérieur – un système de presse, de mass-media –, Berezovsky se montre plus cynique que lucide. Ce que je pense, c’est que la Russie n’est pas ancrée dans la tradition d’une société civile, les Russes n’ont pas fait l’expérience fondamentale de l’État respectant le citoyen. Ma vision, avec ce film, tend vers une peinture de l’apprentissage de la gestion de la liberté. Il s’agit pour moi de poser plus de questions que de donner des réponses. De digérer ce que je vis, de faire des expériences pour le spectateur ; des notions contraires à tout endoctrinement. J’essaie toujours d’être exemplaire. Ce film raconte l’histoire d’une femme qui va jusqu’au bout dans un pays qui ne l’attend pas. Je tenais à balancer entre le concret et l’exemplaire, l’humain et le politique.

Elena Kudimova : Je ne vis plus en Russie depuis plusieurs années ; mon point de vue est celui de la partie civile, du côté familial. Mais j’ai quand même un avis sur la situation. Cette citation de Berezovsky est révélatrice de l’état d’esprit d’un personnage qui s’intéresse plus aux pouvoirs qu’aux droits humains. Il ne faut pas oublier cependant que le servage n’a été aboli qu’en 1861 en Russie. Depuis lors, le pays n’a connu que de brefs épisodes de développement et de valeurs bourgeoises, avant la Révolution. La Révolution d’Octobre a introduit une nouvelle religion interdisant les pluralismes. La divergence a ensuite mené aux camps staliniens ; il fallait le courage de s’opposer à la tendance « majoritaire ». Staline a éliminé toute opposition et utilisé le gouvernement à son avantage. Le système électoral a été amendé dans son sens.

Eric Bergkraut : C’est vrai que donner la parole à un oligarque comme Berezovsky permettait de varier les points de vue mais en aucun cas c’est une illustration de la dissidence exilée. Berezovsky n’a aucune crédibilité ni aucun véritable intérêt à bâtir la société civile russe. Contrairement à un Gary Kasparov.

Versus : Votre documentaire ne présente en effet pas l’homme d’affaires comme un contrepouvoir même si lui se verrait volontiers comme tel. S’agissant de contrepouvoirs, Anna en est l’incarnation parfaite, une héroïne moderne de la réalité que les autorités ont cherchée à faire taire, dès sa tentative de médiation lors de la prise d’otages de Beslan [en septembre 2004, des terroristes séparatistes tchétchènes armés prirent en otages des centaines d’enfants et d'adultes dans l'école numéro 1 de Beslan en Ossétie du Nord] : elle fut empoisonnée dans l’avion qui l’emmenait vers les négociations, à Rostov-sur-le-Don. Quelles sont les thèses que vous explorez à propos de son assassinat par balles deux ans plus tard ?

Eric Bergkraut : Je ne voulais pas mener une enquête. Je souhaitais explorer des pistes (la question tchétchène entre autres), dont chacune correspond à une vérité. Au cœur de cette histoire demeure un outsider représenté par Anna… Je ne sais pas qui l’a tuée, bien sûr, sinon je ne serais pas là pour en témoigner ! Mais les autorités disposent des photos du tueur, et pourtant… Il y a un complot ourdi par des gens très influents. Mais le pouvoir n’est pas un monobloc, il ne s’agit pas de dire « c’est Poutine et voilà ». J’ai cherché l’aspect humain, l’émotionnel, sans pour autant nier les contradictions. L’idée centrale de mon documentaire, c’est qu’Anna est toujours vivante. Le derushage a d’ailleurs été difficile, ces images qui la montraient pleine de vie… son courage magnifique… Anna nous montre qu’il faut assumer ses responsabilités jusqu’au bout.

Elena Kudimova : C’est vrai qu’Eric montre un aspect bien précis de la vie d’Anna. Ces scènes un peu intimistes même dans son travail sont touchantes, avec des situations de conversations personnelles. Les voir à l’écran contribue à la rendre plus proche encore.

Versus : …Et plus universelle, aussi, comme la construction de votre documentaire tend à le signifier, avec un parallèle, une confusion constante, presque, entre le personnel et l’universel. Comme si un glissement s’opérait d’une qualité à l’autre.

Eric Bergkraut : Oui, tout à fait. Mais je ne dirais pas qu’elle a échappé à l’idée intime, familiale, en devenant une personnalité politique. C’est quelqu’un qui fut toujours proche de ses enfants…

Elena Kudimova : …très impliquée dans sa vie familiale. Engagée sur ce point aussi, toujours présente et les relations étaient très fortes entre Anna et les siens.

Eric Bergkraut : Son histoire vaut pour tous les engagements, politiques, sociaux, quel que soit le pays. Elle avait choisi d’aller au plus profond et moi aussi j’ai appliqué cette approche, pour aller plus loin dans la volonté de comprendre le personnage, l’héroïne qui au nom de son engagement, a mis aussi ses enfants dans une situation difficile.

Versus : Comme un legs d’engagement, en somme. Ainsi, l’histoire continue et l’héroïsme du personnage se transmet, se perpétue.

Eric Bergkraut : Oui. Mais justice ne sera jamais faite.

Propos recueillis par Stéphane Ledien
> Lettre à Anna > sorti en salles le 17 novembre 2009

Bande-annonce de Lettre à Anna

Nel 1988 un computer nato per fini militari e riadattato al gioco sconfisse Bent Larsen, un Grande Maestro Internazionale di Scacchi. Il computer in questione si chiamava Deep Thought, ed era in grado di analizzare 500.000 posizioni per secondo.

Facile immaginare che ormai era solo questione di anni… e che ben presto Deep Thought sarebbe diventato il miglior giocatore di scacchi della Terra. Ma Gary Kasparov non la pensava allo stesso modo, anzi poco prima della sconfitta del grande Larsen aveva addirittura annunciato

se qualche Grande Maestro avesse davvero difficoltà a giocare contro un calcolatore, sarei felice di dargli qualche consiglio.

Ma dopo la sconfitta di Larsen le cose cambiano. I creatori del super-computer sfidano i mostri sacri Karpov e Kasparov, ma la superiorità dei due appare ancora netta. Le grandi multinazionali dell’informatica vedono però nel progetto un grande strumento di guadagno (anche in termini di popolarità), così l’IBM, allora soprannominata the Big Blue, entra di prepotenza in scena, ribattezza il computer Deep Blue in proprio onore e risfida Kasparov. L’incontro, su 6 partite, si tiene nel ‘96 a Filadelfia. Kasparov sottovaluta l’avversario e perde la prima partita, ma poi si rifà vincendone 3 e pareggiandone 2. L’umano esce nuovamente vincitore, ma stavolta non senza difficoltà. L’IBM ha potenziato il proprio calcolatore tanto che ora analizza 30 milioni di posizioni al secondo, ma la genialità umana è riuscita nuovamente ad avere la meglio. La prima partita aveva evidenziato la supremazia tattica di Deep Blue, in grado di analizzare a fondo il gioco e impostare le mosse in modo da trarne il maggior beneficio, ma Gary coglie un dettaglio: il suo avversario non è un buon stratega! Ovvero, quando le mosse non portano ad evidenti vantaggi, Deep Blue non sa come comportarsi e non è in grado di fare il gioco. L’aggressività e l’esperienza di Kasparov allora annientano l’avversario.

Ma l’IBM non ci sta, e poi queste sfide stan facendo balzare il titolo altissimo in Borsa. Decide di impegnarsi a fondo nel potenziamento del calcolatore e stavolta si avvale anche della collaborazione di un altro Grande Maestro, Benjamin, il quale migliora appunto gli aspetti strategici di Deep Blue.

Nel 1997, l’anno successivo, Kasparov accetta nuovamente la sfida dell’IBM. Il campione è appena tornato da una serie di incontri nei quali ha battuto alcuni tra i migliori scacchisti al mondo e prende l’incontro un po’ sottogamba. L’atmosfera è incredibile: il mondo ha gli occhi puntati sulla scacchiera… e tutti sembrano tifare per Deep Blue: tutti vogliono diventare testimoni dell’Evento. La scacchiera è lì in un angolo. Deep Blue è coccolato, riverito e servito. Tutte le regole son state decise quasi per favorire psicologicamente il freddo calcolatore. Anche il fatto di avere 3 minuti a testa a mossa per pensare. E’ l’ideale per Deep Blue: ora analizza 200 milioni di mosse al secondo, che in tre minuti equivalgono a 360 miliardi di posizioni. L’IBM procura luogo, pubblico, assistenti, giudice, tutto. Gary si ritrova all’improvviso nella tana del lupo, è accerchiato. L’atmosfera è davvero pesante. Nella prima partita Kasparov usa i bianchi e stravince con straordinaria eleganza: esclusi i pedoni nessun pezzo bianco supera mai la metà campo. L’uomo si limita ad un controllo assoluto del centro della scacchiera e schiaccia i neri con una avanzata inarrestabile dei pedoni, supportati da dietro da un alfiere. La superiorità di Kasparov appare netta, ma la situazione si ribalta alla seconda partita. La macchina batte l’uomo: 1-1. Le analisi post-partita han poi evidenziato che Deep Blue avrebbe potuto pareggiare la prima partita, cosa che avrebbe potuto fare anche Kasparov nella seconda. Anche gli scontri tra i due giocatori di scacchi più forti al mondo non sono privi di errori. I due sembrano alla pari, ed infatti pattano la terza e la quarta partita. La quinta si rivela una vera battaglia campale, con i bianchi “umani” all’assalto della fortezza nera. Ma anche questa finisce in parità.

1 a 1 dopo 5 partite. Tutto si decide nella sesta.  Kasparov utilizza il nero. In genere le sue mosse di apertura con questi pezzi seguono la difesa Siciliana. Così si comporta con avversari umani e così aveva fatto finora contro il calcolatore. Ma stavolta no: all’improvviso decide di optare per una insolita difesa Caro-Kann. Questa apertura è una innovazione abbastanza recente, strana perché prevede di muovere due volte lo stesso pezzo, e abbastanza conservativa (non nello stile del campione dunque). Forse Gary ha pensato che la macchina fosse stata programmata non per giocare a scacchi, ma per giocare a scacchi contro di lui. Tutto procede per il verso giusto fino alla sesta mossa, quando il nostro eroe compie una piccolissima leggerezza: una inversione. Infatti la sequenza esatta avrebbe imposto a Gary di spostare l’alfiere di re davanti al re a interporsi tra regina e cavallo, e solo alla mossa successiva di spingere il pedone di torre a minaccia del cavallo bianco. Il campione fa al contrario e muove il pedone.

Un uomo forse non avrebbe neanche notato una cosa del genere, nella concitazione delle mosse iniziali, ma Deep Blue non ha neanche bisogno delle sue formidabili 360 miliardi di posizioni analizzabili: tutte le aperture note alla Teoria, e qualcosa in più, sono inserite nella sua memoria sotto forma di librerie (lo stesso vale per le partite didattiche, quelle dei campioni contro altri campioni). Deep Blue coglie l’occasione e scardina la difesa nera sacrificando il proprio cavallo.

Qui non si tratta della potenza di Deep Blue: l’errore di Kasparov è noto anche a lui che l’ha commesso, e a tal proposito qualche anno prima aveva scritto articoli nei quali lo descriveva e suggeriva come contromossa proprio il sacrificio di cavallo!

Kasparov entra in difficoltà. Riesce a mantenere una situazione di sostanziale parità di pezzi, ma si ritrova con una difesa totalmente scardinata e i pezzi sparpagliati e isoltati sul campo. Deep Blue invece è padrone della situazione con la regina, al centro della scacchiera, che domina completamente il gioco.

Kasparov abbandona alla diciannovesima mossa. Si alza dal tavolo e se ne va. Non c’è avversario con cui congratularsi (l’inserviente che muove i pezzi?). Ne ne va seccatissimo. Non è come perdere contro un uomo: se ad esempio avesse perso contro Karpov sarebbe stato diverso. Quando due eroi si scontrano, anche chi perde può sentirsi coperto di gloria. Come Ettore contro Achille. Ma Deep Blue non è un eroe: non imposta il gioco, studia semplicemente la mossa dell’avversario e attende un suo errore.

Kasparov chiede la rivincita, ma a condizioni eque (giudice neutrale anziché un avvoltoio che gli ronza attorno, terreno neutrale, …), ma l’IBM non accetta. Kasparov giocava per il gusto del gioco e per il gusto della sfida. L’IBM no. Alla multinazionale interessava solo avere i riflettori puntati su di sé e battere almeno una volta il Campione del mondo di scacchi. Poco importa chi sia realmente il più forte, l’uomo o la macchina. L’IBM ha subìto rialzi spaventosi in borsa e ha avuto un ritorno pubblicitario stimato in oltre 500 milioni di dollari.

Gary si sente usato, sfruttato dall’IBM, ma a poco valgono le proprie recriminazioni. L’IBM è pur sempre una multinazionale e Deep Blue più che un giocatore di scacchi è uno strumento per far soldi. A testimonianza di ciò dopo la sfida è stato riconvertito in una macchina per analizzare il mercato finanziario.

- Continuing with our series of posts about the war between the White House and Fox News, check out this alternative viewpoint from Joe Klein. Even though he fits into the camp of people who think Fox “peddles a fair amount of hateful crap,” he still maintains that the administration is making a big mistake in focusing on attacking Fox and diverting attention away from the real issues.

- Bilmes has a good list of recommendations for improving homecoming (yeah, for those of you who didn’t know, we do have homecoming at Cornell).

- Cornell admins have decided not to reinstate Ujamaa Housing Director Ken Glover.

- A cool graphic from MetaEzra on the geographic distribution of Cornellians.

- Garry Kasparov, leader of The United Civil Front in Russia, criticizes the ineffectiveness of Obama’s “goodwill bubble.”

- An interesting post/discussion on grade inflation over at the Stanford Review Blog.

- Senator Gillibrand says cap and trade commissions will be good for NYC, fails to mention anything about carbon caps destroying the American economy.

Kasparov wins Book of the Year Award
“The book can be read on several levels – as a dramatic story, or as providing insights into opening theory, or as great games enhanced by deep analytical annotations. Kasparov succeeds triumphantly in illuminating every aspect of this historic struggle. He is establishing as formidable a reputation as an author, as he did as a player.” The English Chess Federation’s 2009 Book of the Year Award went to Kasparov vs Karpov 1975-85.
Garry Kasparov on Modern Chess, Part 2 – Kasparov vs Karpov 1975-1985, published last year by Everyman, has won the English Chess Federation’s 2009 Book of the Year Award. In this book Garry Kasparov analyses in depth all pre-1984 games with Anatoli Karpov (including one simul!) and the Moscow clashes from 1984 and 1985, giving his opinions both on the political machinations surrounding the matches as well as the games themselves.

Chess masters Gary Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov shake hands before an earlier match. The two masters are playing a 12-game exhibition series on the 25th anniversary of their first contest.

They’re at it again.

A quarter century after they waged the first of their epic battles that spanned six years and saw the beginning of the downfall of the Soviet Union and its empire, Anatoly Karpov and Gary Kasparov are back at the chess board.

The stakes are lower than when they met to decide the identity of the world champion-Kasparov is now an outspoken governmental opponent, while Karpov recently was ranked among the world’s top 100 chess players, but has not been a major factor for close to 20 years-but that does not mean that they are taking the contest any less seriously than they did in 1984.

In all, Kasparov had a minor edge over Karpov in games won, 21 to 19, with more than 100 games ending in a draw.

This time, Kasparov has bolted out to a 2-0 lead in a timed format that appears to have worked to his advantage.

People wishing to learn more about these two warriors and the different parts of the Soviet Union would be well advised to read Daniel Johnson’s White King and Red Queen: How the Cold War Was Fought on the Chessboard. 

I wrote about this book, which friend and reader Evan Kaplan kindly gave to me, in March.   Johnson traces the rise of chess and the gradual emergence of a series of Soviet champions.  As the title suggests, the games on the board had heightened meaning in the post World War II period, when the Cold War raged between the world’s two superpowers.

While much of the book’s focus is on the famous 1972 contest between Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky, each of whom represented their own countries, Johnson does have extensive material about Karpov, the ultimate product of the Soviet chess system, and Kasparov, a half-Jewish, half-Armenian and full outsider. 

In addition to this entertaining material, Johnson also writes about Vladimir Nabokov’s The Luzhin Defence, which I have not yet read, and Stefan Zweig’s collection of short stories, The Royal Game.

The exhibition between Kasparov and Karpov is slated to be a best of 12 game series.  Whether you read White King and Red Queen before or after their battle is over, it is definitely worth the time and energy.

By Jaime Pilapil
Chess lovers all over the world are now excited to witness the much anticipated 12-game match between old-time rivals Gary Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov from September 21 to 24 in Valencia, Spain.
The last time the two tangled was in 2002 when Karpov, 58, defeated Kasparov, 46, in a rapid time control match 2.5-1.5.
In 2006 the two tied for first place in a blitz tournament, ahead of Victor Korchnoi and Judit Polgar.
Kasparov has not been involved in playing serious chess and lately has been busy coaching young Norwegian GM Magnus Carlsen, aside from his busy stint as a politician.
Karpov, for his part, usually limits his play to exhibition events, and has revamped his style to specialize in rapid chess. He was world champion from 1975 to 1985 (undisputed) and from 1993-1999. His peak rating was 2780 achieved in July 1994.
Kasparov was undisputed world champion from 1985 to 1993 and bolted FIDE to establish his own championship. His peak rating of 2851 was achieved in July 1999.
The controversial rivalry between Karpov and Kasparov started in the 1984 world championship match which was eventually abandoned after FIDE president Florencio Campomanes called off the match because of players’ fatigue. The grueling match was extended to six months only to end abruptly.
The two again faced each other in the years 1986 (london, Leningrad), 1987 (Sevilla), 1990 (New York, Lyon), with Kasparov retaining his title.
All in all, Kasparov and Karpov battled each other five times in seven years for the world championship title.
The Sevilla, Spain match was regarded as the most widely televised chess match in the world. In 2000 after 15 years, Kasparov’s reign as World Champion ended with a loss to Kramnik in London.
Kasparov announced his retirement from competitive chess in March 2005 after twenty years as the number one ranked player in the world.
Karpov had a chance to challenge American chess wizard Bobby Fisher in 1975 but the championship match was nipped in the bud due to misunderstanding to resolve the winner in case of a tie after the agreed number of games.
In their five world championship matches, the score was 21-19 in favor of Kasparov with 104 draws.
Organizers of the Valencia match said on day one there will be a press conference early in the morning wherein the audience will be allowed to have autograph signing with Kasparov and Karpov. The day will finish with a simul by Kasparov and Karpov.
For the next two days, the two will play rapid games (25 min time control) and on day 4, the players will compete in blitz games (5 min time control), making the total number of games to 12. On the last day there will be a closing ceremony.
The match will be covered live by a leading chess website.
Various media entities, including broadcast and print, will cover the event. -30-

Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov will play a 12 games match from 21 to 24 September, 2009, in Valencia. It will consist of 4 rapid (or semi rapid) and 8 blitz games and will take place exactly 25 years after the mythical encounter between the two players.

Anatoly Karpov revealed some important details about the match to the Russian newspaper Izvestia. Bellow is an excerpt from the interview, courtesy of e3e5.com. More related news.

Izvestia: Mr.Karpov, whose idea was to organize your matches with Kasparov?

Anatoly Karpov: I can’t remember exactly, I only know that it was in May of this year. I met with Kasparov in Moscow to discuss various issues not directly related to chess. During the conversation it came up that we have anniversary of our world championship match. Then we decided to meet over the board to celebrate the occasion.

Q: Does that mean that you and your great rival meet very often?

A: Of course, not very often. But perhaps a few times a year we speak about various subjects.

Q: A couple of years ago after the arrest of Kasparov you saw him in the detention center and even tried to bring a chess magazine in. Was that an act of solidarity?

A: That was the least I could do. In that situation, the police clearly overreacted. So Kasparov and his supporters did not have the permission to come out on the streets? It should normally result in a fine, but not with a three days arrest. Yes, Kasparov holds very sharp political opinions, but his actions did not deserve that response.

Q: How many games planned?

A: The initial plan is to play for about six months in all countries where we once had world championship matches. That is, Spain, Russia, Great Britain, France and the United States. Actually, the first rapid match was planned for London, but the negotiations on the organization took a bit longer, and the Spaniards were glad to jump in and take the initiative.

Q: But why Valencia? Your most dramatic match for the title took place in 1987 in Seville.

A: Partly because Seville never had a rich chess tradition. Valencia is entirely different, it is enough to say that one of the city squares is named after me. In addition, Rita Burberry Nola, the mayor of Valencia who manages the city for the last 18 years, loves sports. It is not by incident that they have established a powerful football club, which recently was Spanish champion.

Q: Where will be the playing venue?

A: In the new Opera, in one of the rooms which accepts about 350 spectators. Naturally, it will be packed. Large screens will be installed outside of the building and the passers will be able to watch our game. Incidentally, just before our interview, it has been confirmed that our next match will take place in the Louvre, Paris.
Hopefully, early next year we will play another match in Moscow.

El 25 de Noviembre de 2006 tuvo lugar el primero de los seis enfrentamientos  entre el campeón del mundo de ajedrez, el gran maestro ruso Vladimir Kramnik y el computador de la empresa alemana Chessbase, Deep Fritz. La apuesta era la siguiente: Kramnik cobraba automáticamente por jugar medio millón de dolares y podría doblar esa cifra si ganaba en el cómputo: un millón de dólares por seguir demostrando que los seres humanos somos mejores que nuestras creaciones digitales. No era la primera vez que se encontraban. Ya en el año 2002  empataron en Bahrein. Habían pasado cuatro años y un computador mejora muy deprisa. ¿Vencería esta vez la máquina al hombre? Veamos a los dos púgiles:

Vladimir Kramnik: era el candidato idóneo para esta prueba ya que no es un jugador agresivo y temerario como pudiera ser el actual líder de la FIDE VeselinTopalov o el valiente Viswanathan Anand. Kramnik es calmado, frío, conservador. Alguien que más que a ganar juega a no perder (sobre todo si juega con negras), jugador teórico, lógico y sistemático antes que intuitivo o fogoso. Según Kasparov, representa el triunfo del pragmatismo de mercado en el ajedrez mezclado con la tenacidad de Karpov. Con estas características no había nadie mejor que él para vencer a Deep Fritz. Aquí tenéis algunas de sus mejores partidas.

Deep Fritz: era capaz de procesar nueve millones de posiciones por segundo. Uno esperaría encontrarse a un mastodonte como, por ejemplo, su homólogo Deep Blue de IBM, pero en vez de eso uno ve poco más que lo que tenemos en la fotografía: no se necesita más que la potencia de  un Pentium III para tener una fuerza bruta suficiente para derrotar al campeón del mundo.  Y es que hoy en día no hace falta demasiado. A mí no deja de maravillarme como en mi Nintendo DS, el juego de ajedrez Chessmaster, que apenas ocupa 30 megas de memoria y que usa el pequeño procesador de la DS (de 32 bits y 66 Mhz), juega a un nivel Elo de 1850, es decir, mejor que cualquier persona inteligente que no esté  entrenada seria y prolongadamente en el juego. Y, por supuesto, el juego Fritz 10, que es el que tengo en mi ordenador, será invencible para mí y para el 99,9% de la población mundial, hasta el fin de nuestras vidas.

Primera partida: tablas

Segunda partida: gana Deep Fritz por error intantil de Kramnik. Aquí ocurre otra cosa interesante. Hay muchos que no se creyeron esto. ¿Cómo era posible que Kramnik, digno sucesor de Kasparov, no viera un mate en uno? Y es que las máquinas también nos superan en otra cosa: la honestidad. En esta competición había en juego intereses económicos de peso: la venta de videojuegos, la posibilidad de una lucrativa revancha… Yo no sé lo que realmente pasó, pero sí estoy seguro de que la realmente inocente en este asunto era Deep Fritz, la única que no se puede dejar llevar por las bajas pasiones humanas.

Tercera partida: tablas.

Cuarta partida: tablas.

Quinta partida: tablas.

Sexta partida: gana Deep Fritz

Aquí tenéis las seis partidas visualizadas y con sus respectivas crónicas (muy breves por cierto) por parte de EL PAÍS

Aquí podéis comprar la versión multiprocesador del programa que venció al campeón del mundo por unos 120 euros.

En la actualidad, el mejor programa informático de ajedrez se llama Rybka con un Elo ponderado en 3150 (A julio de este año, el jugador humano con mayor Elo según la clasificación de la FIDE era Topalov con 2813… ¡la máquina tiene la friolera de 337 puntos más!). Sin embargo, Rybka  perdió sorprendentemente contra el número 28 del mundo Vladim Milov. Quizá el hombre tenga aún cierta esperanza, yo creo que no, e incluso me atrevería a pronosticar que dentro de unas décadas el ajedrez habrá sido agotado por las computadoras. Lamentablemente, el número de jugadas, aunque sea astronómico, no es infinito.

June 10, 2009: Barry Cauchon

Anthony Robbins and crew from the 2008 UPW event in Toronto. I can be found in the last row, second from your right.

When I worked at Tony Robbins’ event last year, I was in the mindset of making sure that the ‘paying guests’ were well taken care of and that I, and my teammates, did everything we could to make the event as successful as possible.

But even as a volunteer you can’t help but soak in much of the content that Tony shares with his participants. And that got me thinking. Did my life change in the past year since the last time I did this event? The answer is a resounding YES!

Here are some of the highlights that have occurred for me in the last year.

1. I started this blog “A Little Touch of History” in May, 2008. But it really didn’t take off until August, 2008  just after I did Tony’s event.

2. I wrote about 100 articles and the contents for a book which I am currently in the process of producing. Neither of these things were on my ‘to do list’ last year.

3. I made some great new friends and colleagues this year. Something that I truly cherish in my life. You gals and guys know who you are.

4. I gave up coffee (and have only had 3 cups since last July, 2008). The desire is no longer there. Prior to that I was doing 3-4 cups a day.

5. I was welcomed into the Lincoln research community which blew me away. I had always been in awe of the great work that these fine folks have done and to be treated with great respect and kindness by them was humbling. Thank you to you all. I’m proud to rub elbows with you all.

6. I met and spoke with President Bill Clinton, former World Chess Champion Gary Kasparov and Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Muhammad Yunus. I never thought that would ever happen!

7. I started doing public speaking presentations at schools and even at a conference. It is one of my real passions.

…and the list goes on.

Perhaps it was just ’MY YEAR’ for these things to happen.  Or can they be attributed to Tony’s influence? Honestly, other than giving up the coffee (which is directly related to the event) I can’t say for sure. But I believe things happen for a reason and I will continue to read the signs that have been placed in front of me to act upon.

I can’t wait to see what the next year brings but I’ve got a pretty good idea that this train will continue to roll down the tracks and gather more and more steam. Whatever happens, I’m really looking forward to the experience.

I’ll speak to you upon my return next week. If you have stories like this that you’d like to share, please feel free to drop me a line here and I’ll be happy to post them.

Best

Barry

outreach@awesometalks.com

——————————————————————————-

NOTE: If you are interested in joining my mailing list for updates on the progress of my book, The Lincoln Conspirators Execution Photos: A Study in Detail please send me your email at the outreach@awesometalks.com and I will be happy to add you to the list.

February 10, 1996

Kasparov loses chess game to computer

On this day in 1996, after three hours, world chess champion Gary Kasparov loses the first game of a six-game match against Deep Blue, an IBM computer capable of evaluating 200 million moves per second.  Man was ultimately victorious over machine, however, as Kasparov bested Deep Blue in the match with three wins and two ties and took home the $400,000 prize. An estimated 6 million people worldwide followed the action on the Internet.

Kasparov had previously defeated Deep Thought, the prototype for Deep Blue developed by IBM researchers in 1989, but he and other chess grandmasters had, on occasion, lost to computers in games that lasted an hour or less. The February 1996 contest was significant in that it represented the first time a human and a computer had duked it out in a regulation, six-game match, in which each player had two hours to make 40 moves, two hours to finish the next 20 moves and then another 60 minutes to wrap up the game.

Kasparov, who was born in 1963 in Baku, Azerbaijan, became the Soviet Union’s junior chess champion at age 13 and in 1985, at age 22, the youngest world champ ever when he beat legendary Soviet player Anatoly Karpov. Considered by many to be the greatest chess player in the history of the game, Kasparov was known for his swashbuckling style of play and his ability to switch tactics mid-game.

In 1997, a rematch took place between Kasparov and an enhanced Deep Blue. Kasparov won the first game, the computer the second, with the next three games a draw. On May 11, 1997, Deep Blue came out on top with a surprising sixth game win–and the $700,000 match prize.In 2003, Kasparov battled another computer program, “Deep Junior.” The match ended in a tie.

Kasparov retired from professional chess in 2005.

“Kasparov loses chess game to computer.” 2009. The History Channel website. 10 Feb 2009, 07:04 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=52362.

Mississippi Fred McDowell:

 John Henry

On This Day

1763 – The Treaty of Paris ended the French and Indian War. In the treaty France ceded Canada to England.

1846 – Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints began their exodus to the west from Illinois.

1934 – The first imperforated, ungummed sheets of postage stamps were issued by the U.S. Postal Service in New York City.

1967 – The 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified. The amendment required the appointment of a vice-president when that office became vacant and instituted new measures in the event of presidential disability.

1989 – Ron Brown became the first African American to head a major U.S. political party when he was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

2005 – North Korea publicly announced for the first time that it had nuclear arms. The country also rejected attempts to restart disarmament talks in the near future saying that it needed the weapons as protection against an increasingly hostile United States.February 10, 1962

Soviets exchange American for captured Russian spy

Francis Gary Powers, an American who was shot down over the Soviet Union while flying a CIA spy plane in 1960, is released by the Soviets in exchange for the U.S. release of a Russian spy. The exchange concluded one of the most dramatic episodes of the Cold War.

Powers had been a pilot of one of the high altitude U-2 spy planes developed by the United States in the late-1950s. Supposedly invulnerable to any Soviet antiaircraft defense, the U-2s flew numerous missions over Russia, photographing military installations. On May 1, 1960, Powers’ U-2 was shot down by a Soviet missile. Although Powers was supposed to engage the plane’s self-destruct system (and commit suicide with poison furnished by the CIA), he and much of the plane were captured. The United States at first denied involvement with the flight, but had to admit that Powers was working for the U.S. government when the Soviets presented incontrovertible evidence. In retaliation, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev called off a scheduled summit with President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Powers was put on trial, convicted of espionage, and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. In February 1962, the Soviet Union announced that it was freeing Powers because of a petition from the prisoner’s family. American officials made it quite clear, however, that Abel was being exchanged for Powers-a spy-for-a-spy trade, not a humanitarian gesture on the part of the Soviet Union. The U.S. government announced that in exchange for Powers, it would release Col. Rudolf Abel, a Russian convicted of espionage in the United States. On February 10, Abel and Powers were brought to the Gilenicker Bridge that linked East and West Berlin for the exchange. After the men were successfully exchanged, Powers was flown back to the United States.

In an announcement, the Soviet Union declared that its release of Powers was partially motivated by “a desire to improve relations between the Soviet Union and the United States.” U.S. officials were cautious in evaluating the Soviet overture, but did note that the action could certainly help lessen Cold War tensions. The exchange was part of the ongoing diplomatic dance between Khrushchev and President John F. Kennedy. Both men seemed earnestly to desire better relations, and the February 1962 exchange was no doubt part of their efforts. Just a few months later, however, the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which the Soviets helped construct missile bases in Cuba, erased the memory of these diplomatic overtures and brought the two powers to the brink of nuclear conflict.

“Soviets exchange American for captured Russian spy.” 2009. The History Channel website. 10 Feb 2009, 07:04 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=2573.

Déjà impliqué dans le monde des médias, le milliardaire russe Alexandre Lebedev tente actuellement de créer un nouveau parti démocratique. Ayant annoncé sa décision dès le mois de septembre 2008, il sélectionne aujourd’hui ses futurs adhérents et leurs lettres de motivation…

L’annonce d’une tentative de création d’un énième parti estampillé démocratique en Russie pourrait passer inaperçue. D’autres se sont essayés à l’exercice et bien peu ont réussi à se maintenir sur un échiquier politique acquis à Russie Unie et aux formations conçues par ses membres. Chacun garde le souvenir d’Andrei Bogdanov, candidat surprise sorti de nullepart à l’occasion des élections présidentielles de 2008. Son score, tout comme la profondeur abyssale de ses thèmes de campagne, reflétaient alors le bien fondé d’une candidature qui avait au moins le mérite de rendre le scrutin valide au regard de la loi. Garry Kasparov s’érige comme le leader d’une opposition démocratique aux côtés d’Edouard Limonov, fondateur du Parti National Bolchévik récemment converti aux thèses des droits de l’Homme chères à l’ancien champion d’échecs. Hautement médiatisé en Europe et en Amérique, il ne bénéficie que d’une exposition confidentielle au sein de la Fédération et sur les chaines nationales. Malgré cela, il fédère sous l’étiquette “l’Autre Russie” des associations et organisations comme l’Association des mères de soldats, la Voix de Beslan, le groupe Helsinki et bien d’autres.

Loin des partis ultra minoritaires dans le paysage politique russe, le projet que Lebedev (proche des hautes sphères du pouvoir) souhaite mettre en place avec Mikhail Gorbatchev pourrait perdurer. Les deux hommes sont étroitement liés en affaires, possédant notamment le bi hebdomadaire Novaïa Gazeta. Ami intime de l’oligarque le plus puissant du moment Oleg Deripaska et ancien officier du KGB, Lebedev tente de rallier des partisants à l’aide d’un procédé atypique. Ayant lancé un grand appel à candidature en septembre dernier, il sélectionne à présent les lettres les plus pertinentes. “Concernant le parti, nous avons lancé un concours de sélection des candidats. Les gens nous écrivent, adhèrent au parti, nous leur posons des questions. On a déjà reçu quelque 150 lettres”, a déclaré M.Lebedev interrogé jeudi par RIA Novosti lors d’une conférence de presse à Moscou. Il a appelé les citoyens à “n’écrire que des lettres étoffées”.

Sa puissance financière pourrait également jouer un rôle majeur dans la pérennité du parti. Classé par Forbes parmi els plus grandes fortunes du monde, il jouit d’actifs et de soutiens importants en Russie. Cette aventure politique n’a décidément rien à voir avec les sketches de Bogdanov et la tentavive de fédération de Kasparov. Que vient faire un proche du Kremlin, ancien membre de Russie Unie, sur le terrain de formations anonymes politiquement?

I saw a feature on Kasparov last year on 60 Minutes. Being who he is, I’m sure he’s got a stratagem up his sleeve. I hope he closes well.

Garry Kasparov was one of the most exalted names in Russia when he made the most fateful decision of his life.

It would lead to him being arrested, beaten and thrown into jail. The mention of Mr Putin’s name produces a remarkable transformation from brooding chess genius to a master of rhetorical fury.

“Putin’s regime is doomed,” he declares. “My country will pay a huge price for having this regime ruin the country, looting it, destroying it.”

BBC audio interview.