Mediaboss Marketing

On May 29, the worlds top 16 chess players competed in the FTX Crypto Cup. Hundreds of thousands of fans tuned in to Chess24.com, Twitch, YouTube and the Champions Chess Tour website to watch their favorite players duke it out in the nine-day event. But unlike prior tournaments of this scale, where the prize pool is almost always denominated and paid in U.S. dollars, the FTX Crypto Cup was different. Thanks to cryptocurrency derivatives exchange FTX and its CEO, Sam Bankman-Fried, the tournaments $220,000 prize was supplemented by 2.1825 BTC, split among the winners.

Bitcoin enthusiasts have spent the better part of a decade advocating for the currency. They argue that bitcoin will transform the world, democratizing finance by mitigating and decentralizing the power currently wielded by Wall Street, politicians and technocrats. Skeptics have called bitcoin a scam, a ponzi-scheme and a speculative bubble. Nevertheless, over time bitcoins most ardent critics have slowly flipped their positions, institutional investors have bought in and the digital gold continues to permeate throughout our society. The FTX Crypto Cup represents just another example of bitcoins move into the mainstream. On the surface, thats all the news there is to report a crypto company sponsored a chess tournament with bitcoin.

But I think theres a deeper story here. What else do bitcoin and chess have in common? What can chess players learn from bitcoin and what can Bitcoiners learn from chess? Is there an overlap between the two communities? Does Magnus Carlsen hold bitcoin? How good is Sam Bankman-Fried at chess? To answer these questions, I interviewed world champion and #1 rated player Magnus Carlsen, FTX Founder and CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, prominent YouTubers GothamChess and BTCSessions, vice president at BTC Inc. Flip Abagnale and Bitcoins wunderkind, Jack Mallers, who plays a mean game of chess himself.

More than 1,600 years ago, the Gupta empire reigned over a prosperous India. Trade with kingdoms in south and southeast Asia was flourishing. For the first time in human history, the number zero was incorporated into decimal place numerical systems. Scientists hypothesized that the Earth revolves around its own axis and that the moon reflects light from the sun. Great poets, sculptors and architects altered the course of art forever. Significant strides made in science, culture and technology laid a foundation for the trajectory of Indian civilization. And it was here, sometime as the Gupta empire began to wane, that two people sat in front of a board and played the first game of what would come to be called chess.

Originally known as Chaturanga, the early predecessor to chess bears a striking resemblance to its modern counterpart. Kings, generals (queens), chariots (rooks), elephants (bishops) and horses (knights) spanned the back rows of an 8-by-8 grid, shielded by a row of foot soldiers (pawns). The rules of the game changed significantly when Chaturanga arrived in Europe. By the year 1500, the modern game of chess was capturing southern Europe by storm. That game was, barring some rule changes made in the 18th and 19th centuries, the same chess played today. How does a game born in the sixth century and solidified hundreds of years ago retain its integrity over hundreds of years? The answer is hard rules and soft forks, principals the Bitcoin world knows all too well.

As chess rose in popularity, mathematicians and theorists of the game began the slow process of introducing, advocating for,and solidifying a set of rules that all could agree on. Critically, these changes were additive optimizations rather than changes that altered the fundamentals of chess such that it became a different game entirely. This process unfolded until the 1800s, after which the rules of chess have not really changed. Now the core components of chess, the 8-by-8 board, the placement of pieces and their legal moves and the winning conditions, will likely not change. Balancing a rigid adherence to a set of rules while leaving room for optimizations and slight changes is what has given chess its longevity and its timelessness. According to Flip Abagnale, VP at BTC Media, this model of change is quite similar to Bitcoins concept of soft forks. The whole idea is backwards compatibility," said Abagnale. With soft forks were not dramatically changing bitcoin, were adding optimizations. Without soft forks, we would be at a standstill. Wed never be able to learn from advancements in math and computer science. This process is delicate, as the critical element of Bitcoin is its immutability. The decentralized networks ledger cannot be altered, only 21 million bitcoin will ever exist, etc. Like chess, Bitcoins hard rules will never change, but soft forks create the breathing room necessary for optimizations. If the success of chess is any indication, then Bitcoins balancing act of hard rules and soft forks affords it the unique ability to persist through the ages.

As news of COVID-19 began dominating the headlines last March, the world as we knew it came to a halt. With large portions of the economy effectively shut down, millions of people across the world found themselves at home, online and looking to kill time. These factors in 2020 and the early months of 2021 set the stage for massive booms in both the chess world and in bitcoin. The sale of chess boards rose by more than 1,000%, top grandmasters raked in sponsorships through streams on Twitch and YouTube and viewership of those streams shattered previous highs. Similarly, the meteoric rise in bitcoins price garnered the asset increased coverage on the national scale and millions of people heard about and invested in bitcoin for the first time. As the online communities surrounding both chess and bitcoin experienced a massive influx in first-time players and investors respectively, prominent content creators shifted to capture this entry-level viewership. I sat down with two of them to talk about chess and bitcoin.

Levy Rozman is a 25 year-old chess International Master from New York. During the onset of the pandemic, he quit teaching private chess lessons and focused full time on his YouTube Channel, GothamChess. I channeled all my energy from convincing six year olds that chess is important to convincing everyone from the age of 6 to 99 that chess was important and cool," said Rozman. The chess boom was nuts. I went from around 110,000 views every 48 hours to 1.8 million. Rozmans channel reached 300 million impressions in a month during the chess boom and his account now has over 1 million subscribers.

Ben Perrin, known on YouTube as BTC Sessions, is one of Bitcoins largest content creators. Ben struggled to find beginner level content about bitcoin in 2013 and 2014 and worked as a breakdancing instructor before deciding to work on a YouTube channel geared toward people new to the world of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. The transition from teaching complex dance movements to kids to teaching complex technology to adults was actually relatively similar, said Perrin. I started off making one video a week that would answer a common entry-level question about Bitcoin. The BTCSessions account has grown quickly over the years and now, with nearly 60,000 subscribers, YouTube is Bens full-time job.

Both Rosman and Perrin took full advantage of their respective communities spectacular growth over the past year or so. I built around the beginner audience and wanted to welcome them and make my channel their destination for all things chess, said Rozman. Similarly, Perrin told me, I had a year's worth of content before the boom, and a lot of that evergreen content helped get subs. As things took off, I shifted content to tutorials, re-did many of my basic videos on things like hardware wallets, fees, the Lightning Network, Liquid and all the new aspects of Bitcoin that are relevant now. I want new people to be able to come in and have all the information they need laid out for them in playlists.

While both communities grew independently of each other, overlaps between the world of chess and Bitcoin have grown. Rozman, who years ago bought bitcoin at $750, sold at $900, and felt like a genius at the time, saw the bitcoin price dip at the start of 2020 as an opportunity to buy at a discount. Another popular chess YouTuber, Agadmator, has been accepting donations in bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies from his 1 million subscribers for years. Magnus Carlsen, the worlds best chess player told me, together with my father we have made some investments in cryptocurrencies over the last seven months, and it's fascinating to watch their development. Rozman noted, I get asked a lot to put a bitcoin address up to accept donations...Im working on it.

Both chess and bitcoin share a commitment to hard rules and soft forks. Both communities saw massive growth in demand for beginner-level content during the pandemic. But now, more than ever, the two groups are colliding. On his way to the Indy 500 to support the Bitcoin car he designed, Strike CEO Jack Mallers FaceTimed me to talk about chess and Bitcoin. Both chess and bitcoin are some of the most inherently global things, Mallers said. Youve got the best players spread out across the world. Anyone can participate, anyone can learn what they need to learn for free online. Mallers, whos rated around 2,100 ELO in chess, is excited about future intersections and possibilities between chess and Bitcoin.

FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried has apparently never been that good at chess. But that didnt stop the 29-year-old billionaire from adding $100,000 in bitcoin to the prize pool of an elite chess tournament. When asked why he did it, Bankman-Fried told me, For the same reason youre writing this article. Theres a large overlap between the audiences interested in crypto and in chess, and this gave us a chance to help bring the two worlds together. The FTX Crypto cup may have been the first major crossover between chess and bitcoin, but it likely wont be the last. When asked about the future of chess tournaments with bitcoin prizes, Magnus Carlsen said, Including an additional bitcoin prize fund for this tournament is a fresh element that I hope will create added attention for the FTX Crypto Cup tournament and for the Tour. Im generally positive about innovation and testing out new opportunities in the elements surrounding chess.

While Bankman-Fried didnt promise more prize sponsorships, he noted that crypto-based prizes are easy and natural for chess.

This is a guest post by David Zell. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.

Here is the original post:
Chess Tournaments, Tech Giants And $100,000 In Bitcoin - Bitcoin Magazine

Trae Young shocked the Bucks in Game 1, but Milwaukee's brilliant defensive tweaks helped push momentum back in their direction. As expected before the series, the battle between Young and the Bucks defence has defined the Eastern Conference Finals thus far.

As this unexpected Eastern Conference Finals matchup heads to Atlanta tied at one game apiece, we've already seen the first two games in Milwaukee hinge on the exact pivot point many highlighted before the series.

Trae Young has been the breakout star of these playoffs. His iridescent Game 1 performance helped Atlanta steal home court advantage for the third straight round. Milwaukee managed to counter back in Game 2, but their hopes of reaching the franchise's first Finals in 47 years rest on their defensive tactics against Young.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR: Bucks-Hawks series shifts to Atlanta for Game 3

The Bucks entered Game 1 with two distinct courses of action to slow Young down, each catered to the personnel on the floor at that time.

The first centred around Brook Lopez. With Lopez acting as a traditional defensive anchor, the Bucks used drop coverage on pick-and-rolls to take away shots at the rim. Jrue Holiday hounded Young on the perimeter and funnelled him into the paint where Lopez was waiting to cut off lobs and contest shots in the restricted area.

Their other option was to use a switching scheme built around small-ball. Lineups featuring PJ Tucker, Giannis Antetokounmpo or Bobby Portis at center are more mobile and can more easily exchange defensive assignments with perimeter players. This type of defence has dominated the last half-decade of the NBA, and Milwaukee's desire for that flexibility was the impetus behind acquiring Tucker in March.

Against a player as dynamic as Young, both strategies have their strengths and weaknesses. Drop coverage allows Holiday to go all out to prevent pull-up threes knowing there is a rim-protection safety net behind him, but it does grant Young freedom from floater range. Switching is better at preventing those mid-range looks but it can leave centers on an island against Young and guards alone to try to box out Clint Capela and John Collins.

Young was clearly not fazed by those two options in Game 1. In 41 minutes, he scored 48 points on 17-for-34 shooting while dishing out 11 assists, dismantling the Bucks' defence. For every in-game adjustment the Bucks made, Young had an immediate and devastating response.

BY THE NUMBERS: Young's historic Game 1

12 of Young's 34 shots were floaters in the mid-range opened-up drop coverage. He made seven of those shots, with six coming directly over a contest from a dropping center. He looked completely at home in the space the Bucks provided, leaning on his now trademarked floater to carry the Hawks back in a game they trailed most of the way.

It would have been easy for the Bucks to walk away from Game 1 with the belief that drop coverage was the problem. In Young's 41 minutes, Milwaukee was -16 when Lopez was on the floor and +2 without him. By the end of the game, the Bucks had no choice but to play small because Young had effectively shot them out of their base defence.

Drop coverage is a calculated risk. It is designed to allow the exact shots that Young has mastered. It's built to be effective over the long haul of an 82-game season but a playoff series can easily become an outlier. On balance, allowing semi-contested floaters is a good defensive strategy but Young is capable of breaking that math.

The Bucks could have reasonably held course based on the belief the numbers should eventually flip back in their favour. That system rigidity has been Mike Budenholzer's game plan - a much-maligned one at that - for almost all of his time in Milwaukee.

To his credit, that wasn't the path he chose in this series.

In Game 2, the Bucks showed they had a third defensive option. Not a dramatic strategic overhaul, but a blend of their two systems together.

Milwaukee started the same lineup in Game 2 and had Lopez play largely the same drop coverage. Instead of instructing the four perimeter players to play straight-up around him, though, the Bucks started to switch one through four on every interchange that didn't involve their center.

This hybrid switching system is incredibly hard to pull off. It requires a ton of coordination and can look catastrophic if communication breaks down. When done successfully, though, it's a nearly perfect defence to slow down a modern offence with a paint-bound center.

With Lopez stationed on Clint Capela around the rim and the other four Bucks swarming the perimeter, the Hawks looked flummoxed. Atlanta had just five points in the first six minutes of the game and just 45 at halftime.

This seemingly straightforward tweak gave the Hawks fits all night. Young scored just 15 points on 6-for-16 shooting, but his season-high nine turnovers are a far more concerning number. The Bucks cut off every passing lane, doubled at every opportune moment and pressured every dribbler. In a complete inverse of Game 1, Milwaukee was +31 in the minutes when Lopez and Young were on the floor together.

Young has proven every doubter wrong so far in these playoffs and he'll have an answer for what the Bucks showed him in Game 2. Both sides have plenty of moves left to make and the story of this series is far from finished.

The views on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of the NBA or its clubs.

Read the original:
NBA Playoffs 2021: The chess match between Trae Young and the Milwaukee Bucks' defence is only beginning - NBA CA

In 1997, Garry Kasparov became the first world chess champion to lose a match to a computer, I.B.M.s Deep Blue. Other than Mr. Kasparov and Joseph Hoane, the engineer running the computer, the only other person in the room, at the Equitable Center in Midtown Manhattan, was a woman named Carol Jarecki.

She was in the room two years earlier, too, when Mr. Kasparov defended his world championship by beating Viswanathan Anand of India in a match on the 107th floor of the World Trade Center.

Ms. Jarecki wasnt there as a rich patron of the game; she was there as the match arbiter, or referee. In a game that is dominated by men, Ms. Jarecki was one of the worlds most respected arbiters because of her practical, no-nonsense approach.

Organizing a successful chess tournament was easy, Nigel Freeman, who for years organized the Bermuda Open, wrote on Facebook after Ms. Jareckis death on Sunday at 86. One selected the right players, looked after them properly, invited Carol Jarecki to be the arbiter and did whatever she told you to do!

Her death was announced by the World Chess Federation on its website. The announcement did not say where Ms. Jarecki died. She revealed on Facebook in December that she had pancreatic cancer.

Ms. Jarecki first became interested in tournaments in the 1970s when her son, John, started playing chess and quickly became a noted prodigy. She earned her certification as a tournament director, or arbiter, from the United States Chess Federation, the games governing body, and was certified as an international arbiter by the World Chess Federation in 1984.

Her job as an international chess arbiter was just one of several lives she lived.

Carol Fuhse was born in Neptune, N.J., on Feb. 13, 1935. Her parents had a chicken farm in Freehold, N.J. She was their third child. Her brother died in childhood, and her sister died in a car crash in the 1990s.

When she was 8, she contracted polio. At the time, there were no treatments for the disease, and she had to stay in bed for several months, but she recovered. I guess I was just born tough, she said last year in an interview for this obituary.

Ms. Jarecki went to Asbury Park High School, studied anesthesia at the Graduate Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and began working as a nurse in New Jersey. It was there that she met Richard Jarecki, a doctor who had also grown up in Asbury Park and who was doing his residency. They married in 1964.

Three years later, the couple moved to Heidelberg, Germany, where Dr. Jarecki had received his medical degree, so that he could continue his studies in electrophoresis, a procedure that uses electricity to separate DNA, RNA and other protein molecules.

While in Germany, the Jareckis embarked on a rather unusual career: frequenting casinos and discreetly keeping track of the spins of the roulette wheels. Sometimes they recorded more than 10,000 spins for a particular wheel. They found that the wheels tended to land on some numbers more than others, because of minute manufacturing defects or normal wear and tear. They then used this information to bet against the house.

They were wildly successful, winning more than $1.2 million (more than $8 million in todays dollars) in casinos throughout Europe in the late 1960s and early 70s. A casino in San Remo, on the Italian Riviera, caught on to the Jareckis scheme and managed to have them barred from the country for a while, though they successfully appealed the decision to the government.

Dr. Jarecki died in 2018. Ms. Jarecki is survived by her son; two daughters, Divonne Holmes Court and Lianna Jarecki; and six grandchildren. She had homes in Las Vegas and Boulder, Colo.

With the Jareckis new wealth, Ms. Jarecki fulfilled a childhood dream: She learned to fly and obtained her pilots license. Ms. Jarecki, who bought a 1979 Cessna Turbo 210 in 1986 that she owned for the rest of her life, estimated at one point that she had flown more than 4,200 hours, including 41 round trips across the United States, 13 round trips between the United States and the British Virgin Islands, and a round trip from Nevada to Alaska.

Many of those trips were solo, accompanied only by Cricket, her Jack Russell terrier. He hated flying because of the noise, she said last year, but he hated more to be left behind.

In 1974 the Jareckis moved back to the United States, where John started playing chess. In 1981, at age 12, he became the youngest master in United States history, a record that has since been broken many times. Ms. Jarecki took to shepherding John around to his tournaments, sometimes flying him there.

Though John quit competitive chess in his teens, Ms. Jarecki stuck with her new profession, rising up the ranks and sometimes flying herself to work. In 1989, she became the first woman to officiate a match in the cycle for the world championship when she was the arbiter for the quarterfinal contest between Anatoly Karpov of Russia and Johann Hjartarson of Iceland.

Over the next few decades, she would direct or be the deputy director of more than 100 prestigious national and international tournaments, including the womens division of the 40th Chess Olympiad in Istanbul in 2012; the Womens World Chess Championship in 2013; the United States Chess Championship in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2016 and 2017; and the top sections of the Millionaire Open in Las Vegas in 2014 and 2015, the only tournaments to ever offer a prize totaling $1 million.

She was also among the directors of the annual Amateur Team Championship in New Jersey, the largest team championship in the world, every year for decades.

Over the years, Ms. Jareckis daughters urged her to write her autobiography, but she never found the time. She did come up with a working title, however: The Happy Wanderer.

Originally posted here:
Carol Jarecki, Respected Chess Referee, Dies at 86 - The New York Times

The Kite application, developed by the Zerodha Commodities Pvt.,

Nikhil Kamath, Indias youngest billionaire, cheated in a charity chess match. What else about his life story and wealth is built on lies?

In 2000, a 14-year-old Nikhil Kamath, the son of a bank manager and music teacher, dropped out of school and got a job.

In 2010, he co-founded Zerodha, a discount brokerage outfit. By 2019, with no external financing, Zeroda became the largest retail stock broker in India. Current daily turnover has reached $10 billion.

With such success comes fame. Nikhil made the Forbes 30 under 30. He won the Chivas 2017 Entrepreneur of the Year Award. He appeared in GQ India.

Various accounts of Nikhils youth tout his chess-playing and how the games mental discipline contributed to his success.

Five-time former world champion Viswanathan Anand agreed to an online charity chess match against several Indian celebrities, including Nikhil.

As is typical of such events, Anand played these opponents simultaneously.

Incredibly, Nikhil beat Anand, who resigned after 34 moves.

Computer analysis of Nikhils play calculated his efficiency at 98.9%. This means that 98.9% of Nikhils moves matched the top moves recommended by computer chess engines.

Some readers may recall North Korean news reports of leader Kim-Jong Uns sporting achievements. In his first round of golf, he reportedly scored 38 under par, including at least five holes-in-one. He also rolled a perfect 300 score his first time bowling.

Nikhils playing at 98.9% efficiency to beat a former World Champion represents a similar accomplishment. It is super-human.

Now for the kryptonite. Nikhils games on Chess.com show him playing at 0.6-10.9% efficiency. At least three chess novices wiped him out in anywhere from 4-12 moves.

Chess sites around the world had a field day. Check out here and here for starters. (Spoiler and nerd alert.)

Clearly, Nikhil did not play on his own, but used a computer chess engine to suggest his moves.

Theres nothing lower in the chess world than cheating by using an engine. Nikhil confessed. Chess.com blocked his account.

Blocking actually represents a mercy since it prevents people from analyzing his other games.

Whats odd here is how on earth Nikhil believed that he could get away with using an engine to beat a former world champion.

This begs two questions.

Nikhil constructed a legend for himself as a chess prodigy who turned to business only after his dreams of becoming a world-class player fell through. His mind sharpened and toughened by chesss intellectual demands, Nikhil went on to make a fortune in finance.

Journalists accepted this story at face value. They enthusiastically propagated it.

Yet, Nikhils online games show him getting hammered in short order by novices.

So, what other parts of Nikhils legend are BS?

Having lied repeatedly over the years about his chess abilities, Nikhil didnt want to be taken apart by Anand in a highly publicized event.

Still, Nikhil could have cheated enough to save face, though not by so much as to make his cheating obvious.

Which raises the second question. What other successes in Nikhils life stem from cheating?

Nikhil was willing to cheat to win a meaningless charity event. What would he do for a billion dollars?

Liberace

Globally humiliated, Nikhil the billionaire will, to quote pianist showman Liberace after receiving harsh reviews, laugh all the way to the bank.

Maybe Nikhil cant play chess. But hes definitely proven himself a world-class liar.

The real novices in this tale seem to be those of us in media, in business, and in society who bought into his legend.

Nikhil may or may not learn from his mistake.

Will we?

#therightwaytowin

Originally posted here:
Liars Chess: Unraveling The Legend Of Indias Slumdog Billionaire - Forbes

Chess is one sport that has checkmated the pandemic. In-person contests are still difficult but by moving online, chess has not only survived but thrived. There are around 100 online competitions every month in India and I am possibly being conservative here, said Dibyendu Barua, Indias second Grandmaster after Viswanathan Anand became the first.

GrandmastersIndia now has 67 and 20 Women Grandmasters--too join in such competitions, said Barua on Tuesday. Added to the thrill of playing without having to step out, there is the possibility of making a quick buck, said Barua. Most online chess competitions have games that last three to 10 minutes meaning you can finish a tournament in two hours, he said.

But while over-the-board contests have established supervision rules and the presence of arbiters in the tournament hall, how are participants monitored when they play remotely? Usually, open competitions are held on established chess platforms such as chess.com. These platforms have an expert team who fire up chess engines (softwares that analyse positions) and monitor moves, said Barua.

Also read | Zerodha co-founder beats Anand in charity game, then admits he cheated

Openings are usually not scrutinised because anyone who knows an opening will play the first 12-15 or 20 moves like any engine would recommend. It is the middle games that are scrutinised because that is where you need to apply your mind. That phase determines outcomes. The odd brilliant move is often ignored as it could be due to a stroke of luck. But when a player consistently moves pieces like they would be recommended by engines, they are tracked. An engine can in a minute scan all the possible moves and list the best three or four.

Once it is established the moves are too sophisticated for the players rating, the participant account is blocked and their result nullified, said Barua. Of course, the decision can be challenged but most people dont because they wont be able to explain how they consistently played, say, 50 moves with such accuracy.

When amateurs are using, say, Stockfish (a popular engine), it is easy to track them. But sometimes in open tournaments, help from coaches and parents too are sought and then it gets difficult to detect. Also, when established players cheat, they will often not take the best option recommended by the engine and may then get the benefit of the doubt, said Barua.

Also read | Zerodhas Kamath admits to cheating after beating Anand in charity chess

When national and international tournaments are held online, players are instructed to install cameras in the room which need to be turned on when they are playing. No other device that can access the internet is allowed in the room, said Barua. At the highest level, they may even be asked to share their screens.

On Monday, Telanganas G Keerthi and Riya Mishra of Uttar Pradesh, who had finished first and second respectively in the national under-18 rapid online tournament, were found to have used unfair means by a fairplay committee comprising three GMs and two International Masters. Two other participants in the junior womens competition too were barred on Saturday.

After it was found that he had violated its the Fair Play policy while playing Anand in an online event, chess.com shut the account of businessman Nikhil Kamat. Kamat had got Anand to resign in a simultaneous event and later tweeted that he had sought expert advice.

Read the original:
Not perfect, but cheating can be tracked in online chess meets: GM Barua - Hindustan Times