< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Jan-02-11|| ||OhioChessFan: I just beat it and it didn't seem that hard. 44. Rg1 might be better than the suggested line. Anyway, my game went 44. Rg3 Rd5 45. f6 Rf5+ 46. Ke2 Rg8 47. g7 Rf3 48. <Be5> Rxg3 (This can't be best) 49. f7 R3xg7 50. Bxg7 Ra8 51. f8Q Rxf8 52. Bxf8 Kg4 53. Ke3 Kf5 54. Bg7 Ke6 55. Kxe4 Kd6 56. Bf8+ Kc7 57. Kd4 Kb6 58. c4 (the winning move for White in a whole bunch of lines) bxc4 59. Kxc4 Kb7 60. Kc5 Kc7 61. Bd6+ Kd7 62. Bh2 Ke6 63. Bc7 Kd7 64. Bb6 Ke7 65. Kxc6 1-0|
|Jan-02-11|| ||OhioChessFan: I tossed this in Fritz and at lower plies, he slightly prefers 48...Kh6 to Rxg3. That seems more in line with the intended blockade.|
|Jan-02-11|| ||OhioChessFan: 44. Rg3 Rd5 45. f6 Rf5+ 46. Ke2 Rg8 47. g7 Rf3 48. <Be5> <Kh6> 49. Rg1 Kh5 50. Kd2 Rd8+ 51. Kc1 and I sure wouldn't want to be Black.
click for larger view
|Feb-23-12|| ||Everett: If I remember correctly, I think Kasparov was very critical of his 24.f3, preferring 24.Nxg4 Bxg4 25.Ne3 where he felt he had a clear plus. Does anyone have a computer evaluation handy? Thanks in advance.|
|Apr-11-12|| ||kontoleon: exchange sacrifice to push the pawn ouaou!|
|Oct-09-12|| ||sagahelten: "Deep Blue's 44th move in this game puzzled Kasparov, and he attributed it to "superior intelligence". In fact, the move was a result of a bug in which Deep Blue, unable to determine a desirable move, resorted to a fail-safe. Nate Silver proposes that Kasparov experienced anxiety over this particular move, which led him to lose the second game." [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...|
|Oct-09-12|| ||diceman: <SirChrislov: I like my pun a lot more. |
Appetite for Deepstruction.>
Appebyte for Deepstruction.
|Jan-04-14|| ||thegoodanarchist: < sagahelten: "Deep Blue's 44th move in this game puzzled Kasparov, and he attributed it to "superior intelligence". In fact, the move was a result of a bug in which Deep Blue, unable to determine a desirable move, resorted to a fail-safe. Nate Silver proposes that Kasparov experienced anxiety over this particular move, which led him to lose the second game.">|
Indeed, that is the topic of today's QOTD:
"What had inspired Kasparov to commit a mistake? His anxiety over Deep Blue's forty-fourth move in the first game: the move in which the computer had moved its rook for no apparent purpose. Kasparov had concluded that the counterintuitive play must be a sign of superior intelligence. He had never considered that it was simply a bug."
--- Nate Silver
|Sep-20-14|| ||nitramnomae: am i crazy or is 33.Nc4 (instead of Bc3) an immediate win for Kasparov?|
|Sep-20-14|| ||Tartalacreme: 33.Nc4 Qf2|
|Sep-20-14|| ||nitramnomae: Tartalacreme, you're right. I missed that.|
|Oct-22-14|| ||Chuckles: Following up on the <Nate Silver> quote above, Nate's site FiveThirtyEight has produced a 15-minute film about the match:|
|May-11-15|| ||thegoodanarchist: A beautiful exchange sacrifice by the human.
But nowadays any free engine on a laptop could beat Deep Blue from 1997
|May-29-15|| ||Alan Vera: ┐Komodo 9 o Deeper Blue? ┐Quien gana?|
|May-29-15|| ||latvalatvian: Kasparov's great faith in computers stemmed from this match. In his volumes of My Great Predecessors, he used computer analysis regularly--a deep tragedy as computer don't know how to play chess.|
|May-29-15|| ||AylerKupp: <<latvalatvian> a deep tragedy as computer don't know how to play chess.>|
I suppose it all depends on how you define "know how to play chess". Would you agree that computers are "capable" of playing chess?
|May-30-15|| ||latvalatvian: In order for a computer to play chess they would have to know:
1 What chess is.
2. What their opponent looked like.
3. chess psychology
4. what is was like to be excited.
5. What it felt like to move a piece
6. What it felt like to win and lose
Because computers don't know these things, they are not chess players. Whatever they do in the realm of chess is without importance and humans should never play them. Humans should never use computers for chess.
|May-30-15|| ||latvalatvian: 4 should read "what it's like to be excited"|
|May-30-15|| ||latvalatvian: A human learns chess but a computer is programmed. If your playing someone or something that hasn't learned chess, you are not playing chess.|
|May-30-15|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi latvalatvian,
If I may add:
7. Have no knowledge of previous wins/defeats/draws against an opponent (no desire for revenge.)
8. Cannot be put off by OTB facial gestures etc... or noise.
9. Cannot swindle, knowingly play a bad move in a lost position hoping for a blunder. Humans win this way everyday.
10. They don't even know they are playing a game.
Computers have their part to play in chess but this is overrated. Constantly playing them will lose you the art of playing v a human and (unless you set the position up on a full sized board) it will destroy your full board vision.
|May-30-15|| ||alexmagnus: <latvalatvian> What about self-learning programs? :D|
Or a human who has no idea of the things you mentioned but good at chess?
|May-30-15|| ||alexmagnus: I once wrote a self-learning program which learned to play quite decent Tetris. And that knowing just the very basics of learning algorithms.|
|May-30-15|| ||OhioChessFan: I am sure I'm not the only person who's been surprised how strong the engines have gotten. An opening book, endgame database, decent evaluation algorithm, pruning to increase depth, and the tactical chops to destroy any mistake are all it takes to be better than the best human players. A bit depressing, really, but there you go.|
|May-30-15|| ||alexmagnus: <OCF> Moder engines would probably not even need opening book and endgame TB.|
|May-30-15|| ||Penguincw: Analysis of this game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yB....|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·