5 ms·

Chess - A Quandary for the Game in a High-Tech Era

74 points by gebe 14y ago

betterunix 14y ago
If it is that much of a concern, perhaps we should focus more on games that remain difficult for computers. Go, Arimaa, and Texas Hold'em (but perhaps not for much longer) all come to mind.
- binarymax 14y ago
  Who is the 'we' in that sentence? Having spent the majority of my teenage years studying and playing tournament level chess, I can attest that your statement is likely to draw ire among the devotees. You may as well suggest Baseball players start playing football because of Bill James and Nate Silver.
  - wslh 14y ago
    Another way to think about it is why run if a F1 car beats any human runner?
    - DoubleMalt 14y ago
      The problem is not that computers are better per se, but that help from computers is getting harder and harder to detect. I would more liken it to the development of doping in the endurance sports.
      - binarymax 14y ago
        Excellent analogy.
  - DoubleMalt 14y ago
    Having spent the majority of my teenage years studying and playing tournament level chess, too, I must say that the fact, that computers breezed by the best humans disenchanted me with the game somewhat. I would not play in a tournament where I cannot be sure that my opponents aren't more than straw men for their computers. I suspect chess is on the way down the bicycle lane, as much as it pains me to admit this.
    - binarymax 14y ago
      I agree it is disheartening. I stopped playing in tournaments shortly before Kasparov's fateful defeat by Deep Blue. But I still love the game and am always up for playing a friendly match. However the suggestion that we give it up because machines are better is, in my opinion, insulting. If people still want to play in tournaments against humans, then they should be allowed to.
      - DoubleMalt 14y ago
        Well, of course, and I still love to play sometimes. But I would not play in any game where the stakes are high enough that I would suspect my opponent to try to pull an Ivanov.
    - pk2200 14y ago
      Please don't let stories like this discourage you from playing tournament chess. There are tens of thousands of tournaments each year, and typically just 1 or 2 incidents of cheating. There will always be some element of cheating in any competitive endeavor, whether it's business, academia, sports, video games, etc. If you enjoy chess, play chess! :)
- martinced 14y ago
  Texas Hold'em, contrarily to chess or Go, is a game of imperfect information. So psychology comes into play and that is basically impossible to "solve" unless we have real AI (not anytime soon and the implication would be way broader than "beating Hold'em"). Fixed-limit Hold'em is easier to play because the decision tree is trivial. It's still an imperfect information game but the best bots can already beat some of the best professional players. But No-Limit Hold'em is another thing entirely: the decision tree is so huge that it's impossible to bruteforce. Impossible as in: unless a major scientific discovery we'll never ever be able to bruteforce it (there's not enough entropy in the know universe to do so). So we're stuck and waiting for amazing discoveries in the AI field (and psychology field).
  - DoubleMalt 14y ago
    That was said about Chess vs. Dames. And along came Deep Blue.
  - nicpottier 14y ago
    Chess bots don't know the 'perfect' move for most of the game either (only start and end games), that doesn't mean they can't beat human players. Can you be more specific as to what is so impossible about building a smart betting poker bot?
  - DanBC2 14y ago
    I'd be interested to see the results of two bots playing against humans. Bot One just plays the odds. Bot Two just plays the odd, but has a small chance of bluffing - it has a poor hand but plays as if it has a great hand. I'd be interested to see the results after several thousand hands. And if people could tell the bots apart from people. This is, obviously, nothing like AI. But sometimes trivial tricks are powerful. Look at the early discussions about ELIZA for an example. I don't play poker, but my friend tells me that it's fun to play in tournaments because it's not just odds. You get people who have terrible poker faces, who are easy to read. That same friend also plays (and makes a little bit of money) from online poker. I have no idea how the psychology works there.
    - 14y ago
- nicpottier 14y ago
  I'll give you Go, but Texas Hold'em? I am only a casual player of both chess and poker, but I don't see any way that the difficulty in building an extremely good automated Texas Hold'em bot is anywhere on the same order of difficulty as building an extremely good Chess bot. What am I missing? Isn't the rage with Hold'em lately that the internet players who play mostly straight are cleaning up vs those who try to read people?
  - shasta 14y ago
    I'm not an expert, but I believe the difficulty with Texas Hold'em is modeling the other human players. "Heads up", where there is an optimal strategy, is essentially solved.
    - heyitsnick 14y ago
      This is not the case. Firstly, although it is proven that there is an optimal (game theoretic) strategy to play (Nash), we are not close to 'solving' it. There are attempts to solve limit hold'em, and the current systems beat human players, but they are not close to fully solving the game tree. Attempts to solve big-bet games (NL, PLO) are not even "solved" at a rudimentary level. Modelling human players is the much easier part. There are winning cash game bots in both FL and NL up to midstakes games, and they are a serious issue. Many use default exploitative strategy that perform well against common opponents.
      - bromang 14y ago
        do you know if there have been any attempts to solve other perhaps simpler forms of poker? in particular, five card draw seems like it could be "solved"...
        betterunix 14y ago
        We discussed this in a course I took a few years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuhn_poker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuhn_poker
- heyitsnick 14y ago
  Chess players are switching to blitz/rapid chess. It dominates online on the main chess servers. For high level tournaments, they just need to ensure controlled environments so issues of cheating are minimized.
  - rpearl 14y ago
    It only dominates (and has dominated for basically the whole existence of internet chess) because games are short, fun, and non-committal. Playing a tournament game means spending hours on one game. That's exhausting and not something people "do for fun." On the other hand, you can get in a dozen 5 minute games in around an hour. Computers still overpower humans on 5 0 chess. Even a crappy non-optimized bot I wrote can get 12 levels of the tree plus quiescence essentially instantly.
martinced 14y ago
It's sad that an article targeted at people playing a smart game forces you to use a Java applet to replay moves : ( Hint: smart people disable Java applets nowadays ; )
- pavs 14y ago
  Its easier to embed dozens of java applets that are freely available then to write a custom solution just for one small moderately interesting article.
  - dougk16 14y ago
    True, but nytimes has proven they have some HTML5 chops (http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/#/?part=tunnel-creek http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/#/?part=tunne...), and JavaScript-based chess viewers are readily available (http://code.google.com/p/pgn4web/ http://code.google.com/p/pgn4web/). Considering the recent Java scare, I think it's reasonable to be mildly surprised by them using applets. I'm starting to be surprised even when I see Flash these days, much less applets.
SparrowOS 14y ago
You like guns, right, God? God says... and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel sat in the gate of the king. 3:1 Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. 3:2 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes, the governors, and the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. 3:3 Then the princes, the governors, and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up.
kjhughes 14y ago
Clearly it's cheating to use computers in pure human chess tournaments or to use humans in pure computer chess tournaments. However, I'd find the idea of a hybrid tournament (human+computer vs human+computer) to be fascinating. Imagine the challenge of excelling in searching the space, evaluating positions, selecting strategy, etc when it'd be legal to creatively combine human and computer capabilities in the game.
- S4M 14y ago
  There were matches like what you describe already. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess
- absconditus 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess
  - dfan 14y ago
    Also known as Centaur Chess.
- tubbzor 14y ago
  This has been the norm since computers could play board games. I read Blondie24[0] about a year back about 2 guys who build a complicated neural network for a checkers program which teaches itself to play by playing against itself and is eventually entered into 'Human' tournaments. It's a really fast read even if you have no experience in AI. There is also Deep Blue[1], which is famous for once defeating Garry Kasparov in a high profile match. [0] http://www.amazon.com/Blondie24-Playing-Kaufmann-Artificial-Intelligence/dp/1558607838 http://www.amazon.com/Blondie24-Playing-Kaufmann-Artificial-... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_%28chess_computer%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_%28chess_computer%29
  - DanBC2 14y ago
    Deep Blue was one computer against one human. The comment you're replying to is suggesting teams with two members: Computer A and Human A VS Computer B and Human B. Thanks for the link to the Blondie24 book!
js2 14y ago
I'm a bit confused. It is strongly implied that Ivanov cheated by using computer assistance. But I don't understand how he would have done this. He is playing at the same chessboard as another player, correct? How could he have received assistance unnoticed?
- a3_nm 14y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_chess#Cheating_with_technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_chess#Cheating_wit...
- gort 14y ago
  Some combination of covert communications and/or trips to the toilet.
- megablast 14y ago
  Radio receiver in his ear, device in his shoe, audience giving signals, sign writers in the sky, what is there to understand? There are lots of possibilities.
- dmd 14y ago
  How I did it: Moves are transmitted by squeezing the right toes (1 to 8 squeezes for rank, long pause, another 1-8 for file). Computer comes up with countermove, which is transmitted by vibration pulses in the same encoding scheme.
  - pinko 14y ago
    "How I did it"... that is begging for a story. Got one?
    - dmd 14y ago
      Not really; I built a thing, I tried fooling some people with it, but the trouble with a system like that is it makes you extremely inflexible. If you make a mistake and get out of sync, you're screwed. And it's really obvious that something is up, because it takes you suspiciously long to make a move even when it's blindingly obvious what to do - because you still have to do the round trip in order to stay in sync.
jeresig 14y ago
It's fascinating to read the report by the professor mentioned in the article: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ACPcover-and-report.pdf http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ACPcover-an... The relevant conclusion: "My model projects that for a 2300 player to achieve the high computer correspondence shown in the nine tested games, the odds against are almost a million-to-one. The control data and bases for comparison, which are wholly factual, show several respects in which the performance is exceptional even for a 2700-player, and virtually unprecedented for an untitled player." A NYT article from last year on his methodology: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/science/a-computer-program-to-detect-possible-cheating-in-chess.html?ref=science http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/science/a-computer-program... and more details on his site: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/
- gwern 14y ago
  It's quite unlikely, but... 1 in a million doesn't sound so amazing when you recall how many thousands and maybe millions of games get played over the last decade, and how people are going to pay the most attention to anyone who wins a proverbial chess lottery.
pk2200 14y ago
You can replay Ivanov's games (halfway down the page): http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8751 http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8751
tolmark12 14y ago
This is an excellent analysis of Ivanov's suspect games by FIDE master Valeri Lilov. His conclusion–there is little doubt Ivanov was cheating. He also details several low cost plausible methods Ivanov could have used. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Jr0J8SPENjM http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=J...
- dfan 14y ago
  Lilov's analysis is good but he is a little quick to jump to conclusions. I wasn't convinced until I saw Regan's data.
jeffem 14y ago
"One of Ivanov’s losses was in a long game in a closed position (the kind where computers perform poorly)..." The top computer engines have been strong in closed positions for many years now. If this person did cheat, he most likely was selectively using the engine in this game, or not at all. There's a reason we don't see computer vs. human matches these days. The computers are too good. You can beat today's elite grandmasters with a free engine running on your laptop.
nsxwolf 14y ago
As a chess outsider, this sentence gave me pause until I noticed the capitalization: "Though he was Black, Ivanov achieved a slight edge after 11 moves"

74 points by gebe 14y ago

If it is that much of a concern, perhaps we should focus more on games that remain difficult for computers. Go, Arimaa, and Texas Hold'em (but perhaps not for much longer) all come to mind.

binarymax 14y ago
Who is the 'we' in that sentence? Having spent the majority of my teenage years studying and playing tournament level chess, I can attest that your statement is likely to draw ire among the devotees. You may as well suggest Baseball players start playing football because of Bill James and Nate Silver.
- wslh 14y ago
  Another way to think about it is why run if a F1 car beats any human runner?
  - DoubleMalt 14y ago
    The problem is not that computers are better per se, but that help from computers is getting harder and harder to detect. I would more liken it to the development of doping in the endurance sports.
    - binarymax 14y ago
      Excellent analogy.
- DoubleMalt 14y ago
  Having spent the majority of my teenage years studying and playing tournament level chess, too, I must say that the fact, that computers breezed by the best humans disenchanted me with the game somewhat. I would not play in a tournament where I cannot be sure that my opponents aren't more than straw men for their computers. I suspect chess is on the way down the bicycle lane, as much as it pains me to admit this.
  - binarymax 14y ago
    I agree it is disheartening. I stopped playing in tournaments shortly before Kasparov's fateful defeat by Deep Blue. But I still love the game and am always up for playing a friendly match. However the suggestion that we give it up because machines are better is, in my opinion, insulting. If people still want to play in tournaments against humans, then they should be allowed to.
    - DoubleMalt 14y ago
      Well, of course, and I still love to play sometimes. But I would not play in any game where the stakes are high enough that I would suspect my opponent to try to pull an Ivanov.
  - pk2200 14y ago
    Please don't let stories like this discourage you from playing tournament chess. There are tens of thousands of tournaments each year, and typically just 1 or 2 incidents of cheating. There will always be some element of cheating in any competitive endeavor, whether it's business, academia, sports, video games, etc. If you enjoy chess, play chess! :)
martinced 14y ago
Texas Hold'em, contrarily to chess or Go, is a game of imperfect information. So psychology comes into play and that is basically impossible to "solve" unless we have real AI (not anytime soon and the implication would be way broader than "beating Hold'em"). Fixed-limit Hold'em is easier to play because the decision tree is trivial. It's still an imperfect information game but the best bots can already beat some of the best professional players. But No-Limit Hold'em is another thing entirely: the decision tree is so huge that it's impossible to bruteforce. Impossible as in: unless a major scientific discovery we'll never ever be able to bruteforce it (there's not enough entropy in the know universe to do so). So we're stuck and waiting for amazing discoveries in the AI field (and psychology field).
- DoubleMalt 14y ago
  That was said about Chess vs. Dames. And along came Deep Blue.
- nicpottier 14y ago
  Chess bots don't know the 'perfect' move for most of the game either (only start and end games), that doesn't mean they can't beat human players. Can you be more specific as to what is so impossible about building a smart betting poker bot?
- DanBC2 14y ago
  I'd be interested to see the results of two bots playing against humans. Bot One just plays the odds. Bot Two just plays the odd, but has a small chance of bluffing - it has a poor hand but plays as if it has a great hand. I'd be interested to see the results after several thousand hands. And if people could tell the bots apart from people. This is, obviously, nothing like AI. But sometimes trivial tricks are powerful. Look at the early discussions about ELIZA for an example. I don't play poker, but my friend tells me that it's fun to play in tournaments because it's not just odds. You get people who have terrible poker faces, who are easy to read. That same friend also plays (and makes a little bit of money) from online poker. I have no idea how the psychology works there.
  - 14y ago
nicpottier 14y ago
I'll give you Go, but Texas Hold'em? I am only a casual player of both chess and poker, but I don't see any way that the difficulty in building an extremely good automated Texas Hold'em bot is anywhere on the same order of difficulty as building an extremely good Chess bot. What am I missing? Isn't the rage with Hold'em lately that the internet players who play mostly straight are cleaning up vs those who try to read people?
- shasta 14y ago
  I'm not an expert, but I believe the difficulty with Texas Hold'em is modeling the other human players. "Heads up", where there is an optimal strategy, is essentially solved.
  - heyitsnick 14y ago
    This is not the case. Firstly, although it is proven that there is an optimal (game theoretic) strategy to play (Nash), we are not close to 'solving' it. There are attempts to solve limit hold'em, and the current systems beat human players, but they are not close to fully solving the game tree. Attempts to solve big-bet games (NL, PLO) are not even "solved" at a rudimentary level. Modelling human players is the much easier part. There are winning cash game bots in both FL and NL up to midstakes games, and they are a serious issue. Many use default exploitative strategy that perform well against common opponents.
    - bromang 14y ago
      do you know if there have been any attempts to solve other perhaps simpler forms of poker? in particular, five card draw seems like it could be "solved"...
      - betterunix 14y ago
        We discussed this in a course I took a few years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuhn_poker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuhn_poker
heyitsnick 14y ago
Chess players are switching to blitz/rapid chess. It dominates online on the main chess servers. For high level tournaments, they just need to ensure controlled environments so issues of cheating are minimized.
- rpearl 14y ago
  It only dominates (and has dominated for basically the whole existence of internet chess) because games are short, fun, and non-committal. Playing a tournament game means spending hours on one game. That's exhausting and not something people "do for fun." On the other hand, you can get in a dozen 5 minute games in around an hour. Computers still overpower humans on 5 0 chess. Even a crappy non-optimized bot I wrote can get 12 levels of the tree plus quiescence essentially instantly.

martinced 14y ago

It's sad that an article targeted at people playing a smart game forces you to use a Java applet to replay moves : ( Hint: smart people disable Java applets nowadays ; )

pavs 14y ago
Its easier to embed dozens of java applets that are freely available then to write a custom solution just for one small moderately interesting article.
- dougk16 14y ago
  True, but nytimes has proven they have some HTML5 chops (http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/#/?part=tunnel-creek http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/#/?part=tunne...), and JavaScript-based chess viewers are readily available (http://code.google.com/p/pgn4web/ http://code.google.com/p/pgn4web/). Considering the recent Java scare, I think it's reasonable to be mildly surprised by them using applets. I'm starting to be surprised even when I see Flash these days, much less applets.

SparrowOS 14y ago

You like guns, right, God? God says... and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel sat in the gate of the king. 3:1 Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. 3:2 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes, the governors, and the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. 3:3 Then the princes, the governors, and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up.

kjhughes 14y ago

Clearly it's cheating to use computers in pure human chess tournaments or to use humans in pure computer chess tournaments. However, I'd find the idea of a hybrid tournament (human+computer vs human+computer) to be fascinating. Imagine the challenge of excelling in searching the space, evaluating positions, selecting strategy, etc when it'd be legal to creatively combine human and computer capabilities in the game.

S4M 14y ago
There were matches like what you describe already. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess
absconditus 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess
- dfan 14y ago
  Also known as Centaur Chess.
tubbzor 14y ago
This has been the norm since computers could play board games. I read Blondie24[0] about a year back about 2 guys who build a complicated neural network for a checkers program which teaches itself to play by playing against itself and is eventually entered into 'Human' tournaments. It's a really fast read even if you have no experience in AI. There is also Deep Blue[1], which is famous for once defeating Garry Kasparov in a high profile match. [0] http://www.amazon.com/Blondie24-Playing-Kaufmann-Artificial-Intelligence/dp/1558607838 http://www.amazon.com/Blondie24-Playing-Kaufmann-Artificial-... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_%28chess_computer%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_%28chess_computer%29
- DanBC2 14y ago
  Deep Blue was one computer against one human. The comment you're replying to is suggesting teams with two members: Computer A and Human A VS Computer B and Human B. Thanks for the link to the Blondie24 book!

js2 14y ago

I'm a bit confused. It is strongly implied that Ivanov cheated by using computer assistance. But I don't understand how he would have done this. He is playing at the same chessboard as another player, correct? How could he have received assistance unnoticed?

a3_nm 14y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_chess#Cheating_with_technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_chess#Cheating_wit...
gort 14y ago
Some combination of covert communications and/or trips to the toilet.
megablast 14y ago
Radio receiver in his ear, device in his shoe, audience giving signals, sign writers in the sky, what is there to understand? There are lots of possibilities.
dmd 14y ago
How I did it: Moves are transmitted by squeezing the right toes (1 to 8 squeezes for rank, long pause, another 1-8 for file). Computer comes up with countermove, which is transmitted by vibration pulses in the same encoding scheme.
- pinko 14y ago
  "How I did it"... that is begging for a story. Got one?
  - dmd 14y ago
    Not really; I built a thing, I tried fooling some people with it, but the trouble with a system like that is it makes you extremely inflexible. If you make a mistake and get out of sync, you're screwed. And it's really obvious that something is up, because it takes you suspiciously long to make a move even when it's blindingly obvious what to do - because you still have to do the round trip in order to stay in sync.

jeresig 14y ago

It's fascinating to read the report by the professor mentioned in the article: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ACPcover-and-report.pdf http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ACPcover-an... The relevant conclusion: "My model projects that for a 2300 player to achieve the high computer correspondence shown in the nine tested games, the odds against are almost a million-to-one. The control data and bases for comparison, which are wholly factual, show several respects in which the performance is exceptional even for a 2700-player, and virtually unprecedented for an untitled player." A NYT article from last year on his methodology: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/science/a-computer-program-to-detect-possible-cheating-in-chess.html?ref=science http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/science/a-computer-program... and more details on his site: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/ http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/

gwern 14y ago
It's quite unlikely, but... 1 in a million doesn't sound so amazing when you recall how many thousands and maybe millions of games get played over the last decade, and how people are going to pay the most attention to anyone who wins a proverbial chess lottery.

pk2200 14y ago

You can replay Ivanov's games (halfway down the page): http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8751 http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8751

tolmark12 14y ago

This is an excellent analysis of Ivanov's suspect games by FIDE master Valeri Lilov. His conclusion–there is little doubt Ivanov was cheating. He also details several low cost plausible methods Ivanov could have used. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Jr0J8SPENjM http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=J...

dfan 14y ago
Lilov's analysis is good but he is a little quick to jump to conclusions. I wasn't convinced until I saw Regan's data.

jeffem 14y ago

"One of Ivanov’s losses was in a long game in a closed position (the kind where computers perform poorly)..." The top computer engines have been strong in closed positions for many years now. If this person did cheat, he most likely was selectively using the engine in this game, or not at all. There's a reason we don't see computer vs. human matches these days. The computers are too good. You can beat today's elite grandmasters with a free engine running on your laptop.

nsxwolf 14y ago

As a chess outsider, this sentence gave me pause until I noticed the capitalization: "Though he was Black, Ivanov achieved a slight edge after 11 moves"