< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jul-29-04|| ||Knight13: I don't think Deep Thought is stronger than Fritz or Deep Blue. Old computer. Good game. |
|Jul-30-04|| ||alexandrovm: What a crazy Kasparov game! It seems that he is just making fun over the computer, wow.
Here it was played the Queen's Gambit Accepted. Back in the 80's there was a controversy over a variant of this opening. Some GM's supported the QGA with the Botvinnik system (for black), while Kasparov supported white's position. This debate was won by Kasparov (playing this system as white) several times, in chess competitions at that time. That's why not to many dare to play this opening with him, choosing the Queen Gambit Declined instead. |
|Dec-01-04|| ||allanon880: Computers make many poor moves. They are no match for the human brain. It goes to prove that the computer is only as smart as the man that programs it. |
|Dec-02-04|| ||acirce: <They are no match for the human brain.>|
Tell that to Kasparov and Kramnik.
|Dec-02-04|| ||offramp: I can't do it myself but I think that by playing known anti-computer lines that nearly all GMs can beat computers. Why they don't play these lines is a mystery to me.
We must all know the lines that I mean; the ones that either close up the position completely or those that offer a piece on g5 with a pawn on h4 before you've castled, thus opening up the h-file.
They really can do it - GMs I mean.
Why don't they do it - well, where else is chess sponsorship coming from?
|Jan-03-05|| ||Jaymthegenius: I play 1.a3 on Yahoo! at times because they use computers to cheat alot, and 1.a3 is an anti-computer move. |
|Jan-03-05|| ||Bobsterman3000: Well, at least Deep Thought did manage to inflict doubled A-Pawns on Garry. |
|Jan-28-05|| ||Jaymthegenius: In youre profile you say "Kasperov is best of all time!, get over"
I disagree, as Kasparov has lost to Karpov, Anand, Ivanchuck, and Kramink in the past. I think it would be better to say Kramnik, Polgar, Karpov, Leko, Svidler, Larsen, Kasparov, Anand, and Ivanchuck are the best of all time, and the fact that Kramnik is world champion but Kasparov is highest rated player proves how flawed the ELO system is. |
|Jan-28-05|| ||square dance: <jaymthegenius> you moron, kasparov has also beaten all of those people too. |
|Jun-04-05|| ||Knight13: Hey man. This game is played in 1989. At that time computers weren't strong enought to beat GMs.|
|Sep-27-05|| ||Averageguy: Why not 18.dxc6 Bxa3 19.cxb7+ K moves 20. bxa8Q ? I know that 18.Bxc6+ wins, but I was just wondering.|
|Sep-27-05|| ||stephenw: <Knight13> Not true about computers not defeating GMs. See Larsen vs Deep Thought, 1989|
|Sep-27-05|| ||PhilFeeley: Interesting interview with Kasparov in the Harvard Business Review (Coutu, Diane L., April 1, 2005, Vol. 83, Issue 4, p. 49)|
|Mar-27-06|| ||vesivialvy93: i think the best dedicate chess computers of today's can play as good as deep thought (tasc r30 or mephisto atlanta)|
|Jun-15-08|| ||iccsumant: < Jaymthegenius: In youre profile you say "Kasperov is best of all time!, get over" I disagree, as Kasparov has lost to Karpov, Anand, Ivanchuck, and Kramink in the past. I think it would be better to say Kramnik, Polgar, Karpov, Leko, Svidler, Larsen, Kasparov, Anand, and Ivanchuck are the best of all time, and the fact that Kramnik is world champion but Kasparov is highest rated player proves how flawed the ELO system is.>|
Hmmm...you seem like a genius...are you showing off that you just memorized a bunch of leading grandmaster names or a super genius trying to make a conclusion that Kasparov is not the strongest of all time?
|Jul-07-09|| ||JointheArmy: What a beating.|
|Jul-04-11|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: Chessmaster's introduction to this game:
<The World Champion was invited to New York to face off with the world's leading main-frame computer program in a two-game exhibition at the Marshall Chess Club. The first game was a typical grandmaster crush, as Deep Thought was tied down to defense of the King pawn. In this, the second game, Kasparov opens the game up tactically and shows how a hesitant computer can be hung out to dry.>
|Jul-07-12|| ||HeadCrunch: A brilliant work of art by Kasparov against a fumbling Computer.|
|Jul-07-12|| ||kingfu: Black sacrificed his Queen for positional beauty. Chess Computer programs have come a long way since then.|
|Jul-07-12|| ||RookFile: Well, the fumbling computer was probably 2500 FIDE. Kasparov just smashed it as he would any other GM that strength, but the rest of us would not have done as well against Deep Thought.|
|Jul-07-12|| ||Jim Bartle: How would white win after 12...a6?|
|Dec-16-12|| ||Conrad93: 2500 FIDE. Err... Wrong! Robert Byrne (a brilliant GM) said he had to play the best game in his last ten years in order to defeat Deep Thought.|
|Dec-17-12|| ||beatgiant: <Jim Bartle>
<How would white win after 12...a6?>
I wasn't able to find an immediate win either, but White probably continues in gambit style: 12...a6 13. Rg1 Nf6 14. Be2 Bxe2 (looks safest) 15. Kxe2. White has a big lead in development in exchange for a pawn and a shattered kingside.
|Jun-14-14|| ||Shams: The two games of this mini-match are the "we'll always have Paris" of man vs machine play.|
<SetNoEscapeOn> <Chessmaster's introduction to this game:
<The World Champion was invited to New York to face off with the world's leading main-frame computer program in a two-game exhibition at the Marshall Chess Club. The first game was a typical grandmaster crush, as Deep Thought was tied down to defense of the King pawn.>>
Strange comment given that Deep Thought's king pawn left the board on move 4 in that game:
Deep Thought vs Kasparov, 1989
|Jul-15-15|| ||Zhbugnoimt: I love reading over past comments from years like 2004, where people still thought people could always get engines. The engines have progressed more than us humans in the past 11 years! More correctly, though, the programmers are progressing faster than the chess players.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·