chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
X3D Fritz (Computer) vs Garry Kasparov
Man - Machine World Chess Championship (2003), New York Athletic Club, Manhattan, rd 2, Nov-13
Spanish Game: Berlin Defense (C65)  ·  1-0

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening
find similar games 3 more X3D Fritz/Kasparov games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" button below the game.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 6 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Nov-14-03
Premium Chessgames Member
  jaime gallegos: Unfortunately on this match Kasparov was not able to see the path after the 30th mov, on the first match he moved 31 g5 ?! instead of 31. h5 and draw the game and now played 32....Rg7 ?? a blunder indeed. Chessbase said before the match that Garry could win the match with 52% of chances... This year will be remembered as the year when Garry lost in Linares with Radjabov, on the Euroclubs with Huzman ( 22 movements ) and now for this blunder
Nov-14-03  Nova1990: So Kasparov lost game 2 of this match. Does this prove that machines have at last overtaken human beings on chess? I say NO! First of all, these silicon monsters DO NOT LEARN from experience. It’s the programmers (human beings) who learned from the Kramnik match that Fritz that the main line of the Berlin Defense (in which the Qs were traded off) was an opening in which a human being could play on a level field against a computer. So they programmed the computer to not play the main line against Kasparov and the machine retained the Qs. I would venture to say that any computer program in the world can eventually be beaten by human beings consistently, once human beings delve into its play and there is no further human intervention to help reprogram the computer. Human beings, on the other hand have the capacity to learn and grow, and yes, make mistakes. Until the day that computers can learn and grow by themselves, human beings will remain SUPERIOR to computers.
Nov-14-03  Nova1990: What can we say about Kasparov’s preparation for this match? I would venture that it was not as great as if he were preparing against a human opponent (like Kramnik). I posted an interesting statistic above, which bears repeating: How many games throughout his long career has Kasparov played Ruy Lopez (ECO C60-C99) as Black? A total of 14 (including the loss yesterday) out of 2851 games. In my opinion, Kasparov put himself at a disadvantage by playing an opening that he had hardly ever played in the past. Prior to the X3D game, Kasparov played the Berlin Defense twice in his long career, once against Milos and once against Polgar (where he had a spectacular loss to her). I am guessing that in preparation for this match that he studied Kramnik’s match against Fritz in Bahrain and concluded the Berlin Defense would be a good line for him to use against Fritz. This was a huge mistake on his part. He should have realized that the programmers would have reprogrammed the computer to retain its pieces. For game 4, if 1.e4, Kasparov should forget about playing Ruy Lopez as Black and play Sicilian.
Nov-14-03  darkawakenings: I would just like to make a note to chessgames, because currently the scoresheet at the top of this page has Gary Kasparov as playing white, and winning the game. Just a heads up.
Nov-14-03
Premium Chessgames Member
  chessgames.com: Sorry about that. Thanks for pointing it out.
Nov-14-03  square dance: for those who think kaspy shouldnt have used the berlin what do they say to his position before he blundered? the game seems to be roughly equal either way and with the black pieces garry seems to be doing just fine. kasparov said that he estimated deep jr to be a 2600 player that never makes mistakes. im not sure what that would make fritz but if it is anywhere near that level kasparov could play any opening he wanted, and do just fine.
Nov-14-03  Diggitydawg: : <Nova1990> Some very good points! I'd like to respectfully point out that you may have confused Kasparov's maximum rating with the number of games. He has 2,134 games in this database.

<square dance> I think a better question is to ask whether Kasparov would have blundered so terribly had he played an opening that he had played more. He has only 14 games as Black with Ruy Lopez and his record with it is not that great (loss to Polgar and to Deep Blue). Just my opinion.

Nov-14-03  Resignation Trap: Had I not seen the first few opening moves, I would have sworn that this was a King's Indian Defense (E97). Kasparov has plenty of experience with this type of position.
Nov-14-03  Benjamin Lau: <aulero>

I disagree that playing a positional and closed position is the best way to combat a computer. If you check Jeff Sonas' research in man v.s. machine games over the last few years, it reveals a surprising statistic- most openings considered positional actually FAVOR THE MACHINES. It's incredible, you'll have to see the chessbase article for yourself.

Nov-14-03  Benjamin Lau: <Resignation Trap>

The last time Kasparov played the King's Indian at all was in 1997. That was six years ago, practically an eternity in chess. Six years ago, Kasparov would have been about 34. Six years ago, the Grunsfeld would have still be a common d4 defense. Six years ago, few would have guessed that Kramnik would become world champion soon.

Nov-14-03  MoonlitKnight: Kasparov has said in an interview that he has given up the KID because it is so easy for white to play it, and because black needs to play nearly perfect to avoid disadvantages.
Nov-14-03  Bastrikov: The general first probability one encounters as one considers computers that play chess is this: the game only allows a certain function of the pieces to occur; a computer can only work within a set of guidlines; to win humans must maximize the potential of each move and not consider abstractions taught in the past. In fact, chess might be taken to a new level by isolating the consideration to one move at a time.
Nov-14-03  billikid: benLOW...six years ago,a head grows out of a shoulder,now a toe,grows out of it.....
Nov-14-03  Benjamin Lau: <billikid>

Are you talking to Benzol or me, and what is this absurdity you are spouting?

Nov-14-03  billikid: no one expects a toe to generate ideas out of its carrot base..>benLOW<
Nov-14-03  billikid: if only chess is purely for the finest then at least everyone enjoys this game and be free from toe-biting rats ...but our planet is full of these vermins like this room right now <benLOW>
Nov-14-03  Benjamin Lau: <bilikid>

Your ludicrous insult is worse than your grasp of grammar.

Nov-14-03
Premium Chessgames Member
  jaime gallegos: I could not believe Kaspy play Berlin Defense without a superb preparation... chess world recognize that he knows openings better than anyone ( but sometimes he blunders too, remember Huzman this year )but now we are watching our first human player making wrong movements on the middle game ! Whats going on with him ? Do you remember Linares 2003 when he lost with Radjabov ?
Nov-15-03  hueypnewton: Fritz 6 running on athlon xp2.5,384ram gives 33. Bxe5 as better than 33. Rxe5 after an hours deliberation;and that's clearly not the case.
Nov-15-03  ongyj: A sad record for human chess, a great display of opening preparation against the dull Berlin Wall defence! I'm already looking forward to see X3D Fritz against Kramnik in the same opening with Kramnik as black. As a matter of fact in my personal humble opinion 4.d3 should be encouraged even in human-human games as it minimises early exchanges(which is what black wants to do to draw right from the opening). Hopefully the day in which 'perfect computer chess' will never come. [Othello, a.k.a. Reversi has dropped greatly in popularity after perfect play has been developed by the strongest software with a draw ending of 32-32. No known man has beaten that programme yet.] May humans be the ultimate victor.
Nov-15-03  caseyclyde: Toasters are better than holding bread over a fire. Cars are better than walking. Calculators are better than adding by hand. All around us are machines that do things better than people. That's why we invented them in the first place. So I don't see a big deal if machine plays chess better than people. I agree that a certain innocence has been lost since the invention of all these machines but that's a different issure. Go Gary!!!
Nov-15-03  ughaibu: But what is the point of having a machine that plays better than any human? When we play chess we try to win, it becomes a futile exercise if we have no chance.
Nov-15-03
Premium Chessgames Member
  Eggman: <All around us are machines that do things better than people.>

I'm not a big fan of all these man vs machine chess match-ups, and I somewhat resent the publicity that these events get at the expense of, for example, Linares, but I think caseyclyde is missing the boat.

Machines don't do many intellectual things well at all: music composition, linguistics, philosophy ... the list goes on. With chess we have something intellectual that not too long ago belonged on the above list, but now it doesn't. That is significant. And this progress of machines can be presented in a dramatic, competitive context. Hence (unfortunately) the appeal.

Nov-15-03  ughaibu: Until a machine convincingly beats Nemeth all this Kasparov nonsense is just eye-wash.
Nov-15-03  caseyclyde: Eggman, I agree with you. There are many things people can do better than machines. My mom's cooking always tastes better than factory prepared food. So where is the distinction? I would say that if there is an asthetic component to the activity, people will always do it better, as you correctly point out, such as in philosophy, art, music, etc. And if it's a purely brute force activity such as chopping up a sidewalk or a purely mathematical activity such as multiplication, then a machine will do it better. Maybe chess falls somewhere in the middle.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 6)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 6 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC