|Nov-18-03|| ||shadowmaster: Well, this was an interesting event but I'd much rather see two human players going at it. Fritz's play in game 3 looked ridiculous and I think that Kasparov lets himself get too intimidated by the computer so that we don't see the best chess from him. But I'm happy to have the bread crumbs of tv coverage of chess in the US. But I'd really love to have a World championship reunification (if that ever happens) match in New York. But it's probably a pipe dream.|
Chessgames.com, I'm not sure why you ordered the games like that. It might be a little confusing for future reference if people try to figure out the chronological order of the games. But thank you, once again for your coverage.
|Nov-18-03|| ||chessgames.com: <ordered the games like that> The search output presents the games in an almost random order. Sorry about that, but for now it's just the way the software works. |
|Nov-19-03|| ||lostemperor: World Chess Championship Tournament!? I did not know Kasparov is worldchampion...|
I thought Fischer is...
|Nov-19-03|| ||Minor Piece Activity: Wow, another Fischer fanatic. They seem to spawn from nowhere...|
By the way, I thought the Deep Junior match was more interesting. It featured some really fine attacking and uncompromising chess. The 4th game in this match was dull at best. The 2nd and 3rd were just kind of stupid. Kasparov misses a simple pin in the 2nd and Fritz reveals its silicon stupidity in the 3rd.
|Nov-19-03|| ||PinkPanther: I think this match was far too short. I liked the 6 game format featured in the Kasparov-Deep Junior match earlier this year. I suppose Kasparov was just afraid of fatigue and decided to opt for a shorter match. I would certainly like to have a little more chess played between the two. |
|Nov-19-03|| ||Tigranvp: Indeed this match was anti-climatic. The Candidates' Matches were generally more exciting. Tal v Larsen 1965, Portisch v Petrosian, 1974, Korchnoi v Geller, 1971, Karpov v Korchnoi, 1974, etc. They were not perfect, but that's comes with being human. I guess I expected too much from Herr Fritz. |
|Nov-19-03|| ||Spitecheck: Any chess match of less than 10 games is almost a lottery between masters. I mean one blunder somewhere (like Kasparov did) and he lost 25% of the match. That coupled with the propensity for draws at that level meant that match could literally be decided by one blunder. Mind you isn't every move a blunder if it's not the best one :).|
|Nov-20-03|| ||numlock31: Does anyone else think that ESPN.com should have a section for chess?|
I do, especially since the IOC (International Olympic Committee) recognizes chess as a sport.
Its a shame that ESPN televizes chess to boost rating yet has made no attempts to devote a section of espn.com to the game.
|Nov-20-03|| ||shadowmaster: ESPN thrives on ratings and I'm sure they care about fan reaction. So if enough of us write...|
Contact: http://msn.espn.go.com/sitetools/s/... http://msn.espn.go.com/sitetools/s/... http://msn.espn.go.com/sitetools/s/...
|Nov-20-03|| ||Master of Sacrifice: Back to the games themselves.....
Three Queen's Gambits?!!?!?!?!? Is that the only game they play that isn't Ruy Lopez?!?!?!
|Jan-28-04|| ||mickey bitsko: Kasparov seems to lose his nerve in many of these computer games going back to IBM Blue. I think it has a lot to do with time pressure and I think the human should have more time than the machine or else should be allowed to confer with "seconds". After all, they have more than one processor cranking out moves at millions of moves a second so it seems unfair. |
|Jan-28-04|| ||DavidDylanRoberts: I think Mickey Bitsko is right. Since man and machine are different, let the rules accommodate that. |
I have some questions about computers that play chess. To start with: is there a rule against programming into the computer a complete memory of all games as with Opening Explorer here as chessgames.com? It would make no sense to deprive a computer of having knowledge of openings. But it does not seem fair to let it have such a complete knowledge -- unless we follow Mickey Bitsko's idea and let human opponents have seconds or access to their books and databases. What do other people think?
|Jan-28-04|| ||square dance: if you want to change any rules to favor the human, especially kasparov, you should allow him a computer with blunder check analysis. |
|Jan-28-04|| ||PinkPanther: No, they shouldn't allow the human any "other" advantages. That is the entire point of the match, to see whether the human with his intuition and knowledge can overcome the brute calculation, opening books and endgame tablebases of the computer. |
|Feb-05-04|| ||Lenks: That's why I find human vs. computer matches uninteresting. Computers have all our databases for referance, and even specific grandmaster help as to which they should prefer. If it was computer vs human it may be interesting - but just give it all human chess history and knowledge, it's not pure brute calculation anymore; the only good side of these games is increasing the general public's interest in chess :) |
|Jun-30-04|| ||mahmoudkubba: How much is the depth of X-3D FRITZ i.e. how many movements it thinks in advance please?? and what is its advances? where to find such news? |
|Jun-30-04|| ||mahmoudkubba: <DavidDylanRoberts>: I know of some players play with an open from the book games but it is difficult when the judge refuses that to cheet such Judges. also some play having in mind a connection to a team by telepathy methods and ways and styles!. |
|Jun-30-04|| ||mahmoudkubba: and the machines never can think when it is an imposible move yet it is allowed theoritically or when there is a match or a tournament between two squares or a rook to take a pawn say for example! |
|Jun-30-04|| ||mahmoudkubba: U c a machine can never solve a problem of e to the power x trouble mathematically unless it is been guided by humans! |
|Oct-12-05|| ||jojiao: Amazing Database .I am 10000000 thankful to who it made!!!!!!!!. I love thi site very much|
|Oct-12-05|| ||Kriegspiel: But even ostensibly, it isn't human vs. computer: it's human vs. a team of human programmers and the chess grandmasters offering their talents as consultants. The computer simply implements their heuristics, albeit incredibly fast.|
|Aug-22-08|| ||PinnedPiece: World Chess Championship....
Well, did either of these contestants play any qualifying rounds?
Cheap marketing BS. Chess lovers beware.
|Aug-22-08|| ||VaselineTopLove: If the best chess program today (Rybka or Shredder or Fritz etc.) running on a top notch machine/processor were to play the best human player (Anand) or say Kasparov at his prime, (after factoring in all the novelties and new games that have been played out when he was past his prime) in a long match (say 14-16-20) classical games, who would win?|
|Aug-22-08|| ||norami: The computer, unless the human had a long time to practice against it and using trial-and-error come up with a plan of attack that was successful against that particular program.|