|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 16 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jun-17-02
 | | Sneaky: Perhaps the most famous of the "Man vs Machine" games. This opening is all theory, and must have been very well known to Kasparov. According to chessgames.com, the novelty of this game came as late as 11. ...b5. (The move 11 ...Nd5 was tried in DeFirmian vs Thinnsen, 1988 ) |
|
Feb-26-03
 | | lostemperor: Im not quick as Fischer to accuse, but its clear to me that Kasparov has sold this game (for $1million) agreeing to lose the last game (getting one win in return perhaps in the 1st game). He lost to a well known "beginners" openingstrap in an opening he knows so well. Selling the human species to the (IBM's) computer in the process.
See it this way, IBM could not afford to lose the match with 6-0. So they set a clause to give deep blue a prearrange win. Even if he lose the match Kasparov would than get $1 million anyway so who would not. |
|
Feb-26-03
| | Sneaky: An interesting and plausible conspiracy theory. Do you think that Garry had a clause with the Deep Junior people that forbade him from actually winning? |
|
Feb-26-03
| | lostemperor: No, It was an all out match over 4 games but not 6 as people think. Kasparov get a prearrange win in the 1st and Deep Blue in this last game. So IBM's supercomputer (nor Kasparov) risk being humiliated, losing with 6-0. But we chessplayers know that a match over 4 games is not reliable to determine who is the best player. Psycological factors like blunders can cost you the match. Kasparov should not take the match under these conditions in the first place. But his dollareyes wont let him. He is bought for $1 million. This explains why he didnot complain about this loss, but he was very much annoyed over his 4th game defeat. I already expected it before the match started but I thought the last game would be a draw (so the prearranged game was the 4th) and the match should end in 3-3. I was wrong.
This whole thing is a shame. Of course these things are hard to proof but it seems obvious to me. |
|
| Feb-27-03 | | ughaibu: These 'Man vs Machine' matches serve no real purpose beyond advertising, so naturally the company paying for Kasparov's service gets to tell him their requirements. Otherwise he would surely play in the style of Nemeth and slaughter the machines. It's unthinkable that his researchers haven't brought Nemeth's ideas to his attention. |
|
Feb-27-03
| | lostemperor: I like the Nemeth comparison!. Actualy the cheat can be proven! Its right there before our eyes! Im glad you gave the DeFirmian game sneaky. So 11...b5 is new. Deep Blue has not done something that is surprising or can be overlooked after that!! 12 a4 16Qd3 17Bf5 are all very logical. And since its still barely out of the opening surely Kasparov must have prepared something against it in 'the game of the century'(or does he wants to improve the loss of Thinnsen). But he lost like a child. Because he agreed to lose! Deep Blue wasnt the monster we think it was. One month before the match it loses to dwarph Fritz (version4 orso) in a 6 game tournament. So even the computer can get nervous in a short tournament. If not IBM's bosses surely did. Kasparov was much stronger than Fritz then of course. Kasparov was too confident, like he still was against Deep Junior. He was making jokes about Junior strength. One thing the computer can't do. To make a joke about Kasparov! |
|
| Apr-11-03 | | crafty: 19. ... ♘b4 20. ♕xf5 ♔d8 21. d5 ♖f8 22. ♕g4  (eval 2.63; depth 14 ply; 2000M nodes) |
|
| Jun-24-03 | | Sylvester: So lostemperor, you are saying Kasparov got a free win in game one and then even though the match would be lost, stuck to his prematch agreement and threw game six? |
|
Jun-24-03
| | lostemperor: Exactly, the match was frontpage news everywhere. If he say he has cheated it would jeopardize his reputation as a Worldchampion and yes as a sportman. Besides he won't be getting the loser's <Judas'> money of $1 million. Of his 2,162 serious games in this database this is the ONLY Kasparov lost under 20 moves and how "childishly" (one other Shorty wasn't a serious game). Kasparov did not even try to put up a fight. This was all opening'ds theory and WAS a well known opening's trap! But the biggest proof, I think, is that there is no chance on earth IBM's (Lou Gerstner) boss would risk (even the slightest one) his supercomputer being humiliated by 0-6 with so much publicity going on (which was not unthinkable if only the opponent's name wasn't Kasparov). The match was not transparent. Deep Blue knew everything about Kasparov and Kasparov knew virtually nothing about Deep blue. Besides there were grandmasters behind Deep Blue who can possibly make moves for the computer (See his complaining in his other loss about the computer's "human move"). Another safety mode for IBM. This was perhaps Kasparov's most important game of his life. Certainly the most important of mankind. And Kasparov just threw it away. |
|
| Jun-24-03 | | Sylvester: <Besides there were grandmasters behind Deep Blue who can
possibly make moves for the computer (See his complaining in his other loss about the computer's
"human move"). Another safety mode for IBM.> You mean the guy who went behind the curtain to get the move was a GM working for IBM and not a FIDE arbitrator? |
|
| Jun-26-03 | | sangfroid: Why not 17...Nb4 18 Qe2 Bd5, then Nc6 and then Kasparov may be able pull this one off. |
|
| Jun-26-03 | | sangfroid: Yeah, I think 17... Nb4! could save Kasparov in this situation... After 17... Nb4 18 Qe2 (18 Qe3? Nxc2, 18 Qa3 Bd5 19 c3 Nc6 20 QxQ NxQ) Bd5 and if 19. c3 Nc6, now this looses a pawn after 20. Bxe6 Qxe6 21. Qxe6 Bxe6 22. Rxe6, but the whole point of that maneuvering is to encourage the exchange of the queens. Even at the cost of a pawn, instead of Bishop & Rook exchange for his queen. Becuase I bet Kasparov really wished that Deep Blue didn't have his queen during that position, where is king is exposed. To me that puts Kasparov in a better position, with the queens off board. But I am also pretty sure Kasparov has gone through that line himself, and though that the Bishop & Rook for a Queen exchange would do him better. What do you think about that move crafty? |
|
| Jun-27-03 | | crafty: 17. ... ♘b4 18. ♕c3 ♔b7 19. ♖xe6 ♕d8 20. d5 ♗xd5 21. ♖e8 (eval 2.06; depth 13 ply; 250M nodes) |
|
| Jun-27-03 | | sangfroid: Ahhh yes! I looked into 18 Qc3, and thought it to be an ugly move, totally overlooking the fact that it pins the bishop. Nice work crafty. |
|
Jun-28-03
| | lostemperor: Black's position is beyond repair. Right from the start, Kasparov deliberately went straight to a losing position. Just after only 7 well known moves it was over. He did not even try to improve the 1988 game. A deceit a sportsman (worldchampion) unworthy. |
|
| Aug-04-03 | | Benjamin Lau: "In the last, sixth game, Kasparov played Black and chose a variation where White sacrifices a knight for a sweeping attack. The computer sacrificed the knight and won easily. After the game Kasparov reasoned that computers didn’t usually give material for initiative, which they couldn’t evaluate correctly. Some commentators said that this variant could have been put into the openings library of the machine. Kasparov somehow dismissed this option. Some said Kasparov just confused the order of moves. That is, he made a second move of the variant before the first. This can happen to a chess master, especially, as Kasparov was quite tired after the previous games." |
|
| Aug-04-03 | | Benjamin Lau: Citation:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/ed... |
|
| Aug-05-03 | | PinkPanther: This game is such a fixed piece of crap, even the opening itself strikes my as being phoney. Since when does Kasparov play the Caro-Kann Defense when the money is on the line? |
|
| Aug-05-03 | | Benjamin Lau: <Since when does Kasparov play the Caro-Kann Defense when the money is on the line? > ;-) It's a good point, but you have to remember Kasparov is one of the most flexible GMs and the Caro Kann is within his normal repertoire. |
|
| Aug-05-03 | | PinkPanther: <;-) It's a good point, but you have to remember Kasparov is one of the most flexible GMs and the Caro Kann is within his normal repertoire.> You bring up a good point, but seriously, the Caro-Kann isn't Garry's best opening and everybody knows it. I didn't see him playing the Caro-Kann in the last game of the Deep Junior match. |
|
| Aug-05-03 | | Benjamin Lau: <PinkPanther>
It seems to me that in the matches with Deep Blue, Kasparov was aiming for anti computer strategy. He chose to employ (1) uncommon openings (getting Blue out of book) and (2) positional openings (King's Indian Attack; Caro Kann is somewhat positional too). But later in Deep Junior, he (mostly) abandoned this strategy, thinking that it was overrated. (But you still see vestiges of anti-computer strategy- the g4!? which confused Junior in the first game and the fact that Kasparov refuses to play e4 against Deep Junior because it will lead to more tactical games) |
|
| Aug-06-03 | | myratingstinks: I think you have all made some quality points. One point that I must note. Sometimes when I know I can beat someone if I try, I just get crazy & do stupid things to try to make it interesting. It may not be a conspiracy theory, but its plausible to me that he just got bored kicking the machines butt & decided to try to make it interesting. |
|
| Aug-06-03 | | AgentRgent: <myratingstinks> I don't think a match score of +1=3-1 is <kicking the machines butt>. This was the deciding game, and Garry would have played his best for his (huge) ego alone, unless he'd already agreed to lose this game. |
|
| Aug-07-03 | | sleepkid: let's be real. Garry played this game like a total schmuck. When he played this game he had either... A)come to the board drunk, stoned, fatigued, blitzed, whatever... or B) taken IBM's money and agreed to lose this game.
It's just embarrassing. |
|
| Aug-13-03 | | ksadler: This game was annotated at http://www.chesscafe.com/text/yaz13... for anyone who is interested. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 16 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 9.O-O