|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| May-10-08 |
| calmarten: <sallom89: if i'm not mistaken.> The B on g3 is missing in your diagram. So I think it's your mistake |
 |
| Jun-10-08 |
| FoxMcWeezer: On move 8, Nxe6, why did white do that? What if Kasparov took it with the pawn? |
|
| Jun-11-08 |
| Ed Trice: 8...fxe6? 9. Bg6+! Ke7 10. O-O
The castled rook will be coming to e1.
10...Qc7
The queen vacates d8 for the king and is the only reasonable choice. 11. Re1
Now how do you hold onto e6 successfully?
If 11...Qd6? 12. Nh4 intending Nf5+ looks strong. There may be even stronger choices for white which makes 11...Qd6? look bad. Black can't move the knight @ c6 to reveal the bishop behind it to guard e6 since 11...Nb6? allows 12. Ne5! which preps 13. Bf4 to come in behind it and allow the knight a free move when it hits on the queen. Black's position can only go downhill from here. |
|
Jun-11-08
 |
| ajk68: It would seem that Kasparov was caught off guard by an opening where the theory was not complete. It is virtually impossible for humans to have a recollection of every significant game ever played. For a computer, it is a matter of programming. This game plays right into the strengths of the computer in that it is tactical and the opponent is not versed in all the nuances. The computer had the computational advantage. Kasparov should have been using a positional game - taking a structural advantage into the endgame. Also, I remember following the event when it happened. It really seemed Kasparov had lost his mental/emotional balance - or perhaps he was just exhausted. |
|
| Jun-11-08 |
| littlefermat: <Also, I remember following the event when it happened. It really seemed Kasparov had lost his mental/emotional balance - or perhaps he was just exhausted.> Yeah, that's what I think too. I believe the only other time this occured was the Kramnik match in 2000. It was the only other instance he crumbled, psychologically speaking. |
|
| Jun-12-08 |
| Ed Trice: It was also reported that Kasparov, who rarely plays this opening as black, simply forgot a common move order. |
|
| Jun-12-08 |
| MichAdams: As if Kasparov would admit to throwing the game.... |
|
| Jun-19-08 |
| AAAAron: After the computer move 8. Nxe6, Kasparov was emotionally beat. Before that, however, I'm sure he was doing his best to try and catch the computer offguard with a different opening variation. Yeah after that collapse he knew their was no beating the computer, so he simply gave up. His reaction afterwards was very immature, similar to the game when Radjabov beat him, and he refused to shake the kids hand. Or when he cheated against Polgar when he quickly took back a move he had just made, then denied it, only to have Polgar sue and with the help of a video, won. So although Kasparov may be the best chess player ever, he is definately not the most composed and mature. |
|
| Jul-22-08 |
| RookFile: <Ed Trice: It was also reported that Kasparov, who rarely plays this opening as black, simply forgot a common move order. > He played 27 games with the Caro Kann in his career, to say nothing of authoring at least two books on the Caro Kann defense. |
|
| Oct-05-08 |
| TheMacMan: another example that kasparov isnt even close to being the best another example is when he ceated against judit polgar |
|
Dec-16-08
 |
| PugnaciousPawn: My fellow patzers,
Most of you are not seeing the big picture here. It was only a matter of time before Deep Blue or Fritz or the latest sophisticated computer was to finally beat the best human. Deep Blue was a massively parallel, RS/6000 SP Thin P2SC-based system with 30-nodes, for a total of 30 120 MHz P2SC microprocessors (one microprocessor per node), enhanced with 480 special purpose VLSI chess chips. It was capable of evaluating 200 million positions per second, twice as fast as the 1996 version!! Kasparov lost fair-and square here. No, IBM didn't cheat. No, the computer didn't cheat. No, humans weren't intervening in the games, etc. Credit is due to the designers of Deep Blue. Simple as that. |
|
| Dec-16-08 |
| slomarko: <No, IBM didn't cheat. No, the computer didn't cheat. No, humans weren't intervening in the games, etc.> how the hell would <you> know? |
|
| Dec-16-08 |
| Alphastar: <RookFile: <Ed Trice: It was also reported that Kasparov, who rarely plays this opening as black, simply forgot a common move order. > He played 27 games with the Caro Kann in his career, to say nothing of authoring at least two books on the Caro Kann defense.> Yes, but this is the only game he ever played in this variation as black, in this database at least, and the only book I know of that he wrote on the caro-kann was about the classical variation. Don't know about any other caro-kann book, can you point me towards it? |
|
| Dec-25-08 |
| WhiteRook48: this pun is hilarious |
|
| Dec-25-08 |
| HannibalSchlecter: The Deep Blue team was obnoxious and unsporting. They were so unfriendly that Kasparov didn't even want to be there. Joel Benjamin, the Benedict Arnold of chess, did IBM's bidding. They told Benjamin not to smile, so he didn't smile. The perfect pawn. Whether IBM cheated or not we may never know but one thing is for sure, they acted very suspiciously by not letting anybody physically come near so the public couldn't verify if it was The Turk all over again. Dismantling the computer after winning...nah that's not suspicious. The whole thing smelled of poor sportsmanship and slimy behavior by the IBM team for that which I will not forgive them and I have boycotted buying their products. |
|
| Jan-11-09 |
| WhiteRook48: Kaspy blue this game big-time. |
|
| Jan-13-09 |
| WhiteRook48: 17...exf5?? why did Kasparov play this? Or was he so uncomfortable that he didn't notice the pin on the e6-pawn? |
|
| Feb-07-09 |
| WhiteRook48: did Kasparov have to blunder his queen? |
|
| Feb-26-09 |
| WhiteRook48: well, at least he still won the match |
|
| Feb-26-09 |
| Shams: no, he lost the match. this was the decisive game. |
|
| Apr-23-09 |
| pawnmonster: First I just want to say that WhiteRook48 is an idiot. (read his posts above) This rematch ultimatley illuminated the computerīs greatest strength perfectly: that it is a computer and not human. This rematch showed how Kasparov lost this rematch due to the human brainīs ability to be destracted or phsycologically beaten. He lost the second game when he could have drawn. He drew the next three games from advantageous positions, and clearly was already defeated before even starting to play the 6th and decisive game. The Computers greatest advantage is that it cannot be fatigued, destracted, or phsycologically defeated. Kasparov was clearly playing well below his true ability. Who knows if that was from the immense media preasure, the fact that he was playing for manīs last stand against Artificial intelligence in a true benchmark for the rest of eternity, or from IBMīs unsporting behavior. What is important is that this match showed once and for all that the computers greatest strength is in its ability to focus on one chess match at a time and nothing else. This is ultimatley the difference between human and artificial intellegence. This matchup was more about man vs. machine intellegence, and the chess was just the means in which to compete. Furthermore, it was extremeley fascinating in understanding how computers and humans play chess. Deep blue could calculate more than a million possibilities a second, far more than any human, but Kasparovīs insight, creativity, and long term strategical play is an absoluteley amazing testemant to the human brain. This match shed true insight into intellegence and the game of chess itself. And for that I have been captivated. |
|
Apr-23-09
 |
| acirce: What unsporting behavior are you talking about? |
|
| Apr-29-09 |
| TheTamale: <pawnmonster: First I just want to say that WhiteRook48 is an idiot. (read his posts above)> Leave that kind of comment out of here, please.
:- ) |
|
Nov-05-09
 |
| Eyal: Apparently the non-disclosure agreement that was signed by those who were part of the IBM team has expired, so Miguel Illescas has recently published an article in NIC about his experiences during the match. I haven't actually read it, but I heard Mig Greengard mention two interesting details from it in the live ICC broadcast from the 1st round of the Tal Memorial. First, that they happened to feed to the computer the Caro-Kann variation played here, with the instruction to sac the knight on e6, only the very morning of the day this game was played; second, that the IBM people were so motivated to win this match, that after they asked Illescas for all kinds of ideas and he told them jokingly that it would be nice to know what Kasparov was discussing with his seconds, he was amazed to discover that they actually sent someone dressed as a security man, who knew Russian, to try and spy after them. |
|
| Nov-06-09 |
| Mostolesdude: <Also, I remember following the event when it happened. It really seemed Kasparov had lost his mental/emotional balance - or perhaps he was just exhausted.> I remember this game very well and Kasparov left the room very very angry. He complained that "the computer had been programmed to play at an incredibly high level for the match". Much too dificult I guess (even for him). |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
sac: 9.O-O
