Hacker News Reader

Comment by GreedCtrl | Hacker News Reader

A bit off topic, but I'd caution against using business tactics in chess.

> While the opportunities Rockefeller capitalized on are unlikely to come about again, they show how chess strategies can translate into business acumen.

India's youngest billionaire Nikhil Kamath played chess when he was younger, and he used his chess background much as this article does to promote his business acumen.

Just yesterday, he played in a charity simul against 5-time world champion Viswanathan Anand. He was the only player to defeat Anand, an obvious sign of computer assistance.

That's what can happen now that computers are better than humans at chess. Maybe one day they will outclass us at business too?

View on HN

> He was the only player to defeat Anand, an obvious sign of computer assistance.

Ok this is a bit much. This was a celebrities simultaneously against the grandmaster match, and this guy is a serious player who competed when he was young, and likely plays regularly for fun and practice. Given this was an exhibition fundraiser, and the guy had nothing to prove (already runs a very successful brokerage and hedge fund, India’s youngest billionaire and all) why make an accusation of cheating?

He has already publicly admitted and apologized for it [1].

[1] https://www.thehindu.com/sport/other-sports/chess-fundraiser...

Ah, thanks. Yeah, makes sense. I still don't get how everyone jumped to the conclusion that he was cheating before, though. Is there something so utterly impossible about the situation that make it obvious? Do grandmasters never lose games to non-GM players even when playing multiple people for fun?

Anand isn't a regular-ol GM; Anand is a former world champion. These super-GMs spend thousands and thousands of hours studying the game. Generally super-GMs don't lose to anyone except other GMs in classical time formats.

If a super-GM does lose, then it's probably because they blundered. That's not what happened — Anand played well, but Kamath played basically a perfect game with an accuracy of 99%. There are a handful of people on the planet who can do that consistently in classical, and they are all rated 2700+.

> Do grandmasters never lose games to non-GM players even when playing multiple people for fun?

Pretty much, yeah. Especially when they don’t make any big mistakes, as was the case here.

There is a considerable gulf between "someone who competed when they were young" and a world champion. Looking at their rankings, Kamath is/was about 2055 and Anand is about -2753-. He is among a handful of players who have managed to peak above 2800. [0]

As to why people cheat, there are a plethora of reasons. Running a brokerage or hedgefund is whatever, nothing really special to anyone. Being able to defeat someone like Anand -is- an incredible feat to have under one's belt. The thrill of dominating and/or getting key victories in a competitive sport far surpasses things like running a successful business or being rich. Money can't get you that. Business acumen can't get you that. Only your personal knowledge and skill can get you that.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_players_by_peak_...

The guy didn't just cheat, he blatantly cheated, using the computer for every move outside of his first move blunder. Then he bragged about winning in the post-game interview.

The guy obviously lied about his chess background, he lost to a scholar's mate (4 move checkmate) in one of his recent games. He probably just said he had a chess background to sound smart. Arrogant narcissist.

The difference is that business has no particular win condiion or let's say "end" - the goal of it is in the name itself: to keep busy.

What do you want a computer to do: to sell as many apple as the trees can grow ? To change the way people consume so they start eating berries instead because they're cheaper to grow ? To diversify into building the collection machine and not just the apple sales infrastructure ? To sell to far away outsiders ? To cultivate in more and more places ?

It seems just so arbitrary and tied to human interest that a computer would have to have its own desires to satisfy to start doing "business" and then be so isolated from human desires that we d have no interest in keeping them online.

Or we d have to imagine very clever yet obedient machines that would stick and readapt to our changing desire and assist us, but then are they doing business or we are ?

James Carse has a theory[0] about this: “There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play.”

[0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/189989

I agree; business tactics and chess tactics are different worlds.

The big difference between chess and the real world is that in chess you lack resource production: the pieces you have are the pieces you will always have, and no more. This makes the hypermodern strategies viable: let your opponent occupy the middle while you prepare to attack from the flanks. While I am sure there is a business metaphor there waiting to be realized, a game with resource management like Settlers of Catan probably has metaphors that don't break down as easily under scrutiny.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com