|Jan-03-05|| ||Jaymthegenius: Why doesnt anybody post a message in the Larsen victory!!! This game is proof that Larsen, who lost to Bobby Fishcer 0-9 in a world champion qualifier, has become STRONGER then even Bobby Fishcer! As I highly doubt Fischer would be a match for this awsome super machene! |
|Jan-03-05|| ||hintza: <This game is proof that Larsen, who lost to Bobby Fishcer 0-9 in a world champion qualifier, has become STRONGER then even Bobby Fishcer!> It is no proof at all. It is an opinion that has been passed off as proof. |
|Jan-03-05|| ||square dance: <<This game is proof that Larsen, who lost to Bobby Fishcer 0-9 in a world champion qualifier, has become STRONGER then even Bobby Fishcer!> It is no proof at all. It is an opinion that has been passed off as proof.> even worse, its yet another completely stupid statement from <jaymthegenius>. btw, larsen lost 0-6 to fischer. |
|Feb-22-05|| ||Jaymthegenius: I think that Larsen had a better score against Deep Blue becaue he is stronger in positional situations. Kasparov, on the other hand, is still very strong positional player, but he is very calculating and tactical (like me!), so in my opinion Kasparov is the wrong guy to face off against a machene like Deep Blue, better are players like Kramnik and Leko. |
|Feb-25-05|| ||Jaymthegenius: Also, I wonder if Deep Shredder 9 would easily defeat Deep Blue (improved version that defeats Kasparov in a super-even match, Kasparov nowadays would easily defeat the Deep Blue from 1997, as he drew a game with Deep Fritz 8, which is stronger then Deep Blue (or so I've heard) |
|Feb-25-05|| ||chess man: <Jaymthegenius> Larsen is not better than Robert Fischer END OF STORY. |
|Feb-25-05|| ||tpstar: Well, maybe he is now ...
Nice game, especially 36. Rxc7!
|Feb-26-05|| ||chess man: <tpstar> Who knows. But I do know that Fischer was a much better player than Larsen was back then. |
|Feb-28-05|| ||Jaymthegenius: I think the opening in this game, however is horrible for black, as the excess symmetry is just sickening, and though Larsen played pretty well he traded his good minor piece for black's bad minor piece, and I'd prefer 7.Nxe5 to win a pawn, though I must admit here white has a winning endgame he has found a way to close the position, though even I must say that 23.Bxb3? is an unsound combonation, I am confident though Morphy might play this move, seems very reasonable at first glance, but 25...hxg5? isolates blacks whole queenside, I would play 25...Qxb3 or 25...Rd8 as black (though this 4 knight opening is not my cup of tea, I dont even have to study this opening because I would never get in such a possition) |
|Jul-09-05|| ||TheAuk: Saying that Larsen is better than Fischer based on this game is absurd for the following reasons. |
1)When Larsen played this computer in 1993, it was nowhere near as strong as it would become in the 1996/1997 matches against Kasparov. I'm not sure exactly how strong the machine was, but since its speed doubled between '96 and '97, it surely increased greatly between '93 and '96. Besides, if you think Deep Blue is invincible compare to its game against Bronstein in which it resigned in a a clear perpetual check situation.
3)Even if Larsen did beat the computer in this game, his Elo at the time was in the mid 2500s, showing that he was about an average GM. To claim that he "surpassed" Fischer based on a single won game and a couple more draws vs. a machine of uncertain strength is absurd. The only ones who can legitimately make that claim are Karpov and Kasparov, who have proved their mettle by beating human opponents.
BTW, 7.Nxe5 does not win a pawn because of 7...Re8 or 7...Qd4. Also, 23.Bxb3? was caused by the "window" phenomenon, in which the computer saw far enough ahead to see it would regain 4 pawns from the bishop sack but didn't have enough power to realize that after this Larsen wins two pawns back easily with a winning game. This is a mistake no 2600 human GM (including Fischer) is likely to make, and it shows why we measure playing strength by comparing to human (not computer) opponents.
|Sep-12-05|| ||n30: hahaha, larsen is better than fisher for the same reason that red is a better color than blue and 5 is a better number than 2 (or 7 for that matter).
that's all substanceless, meaningless blabble, folks|
|Sep-12-05|| ||who: Certainly one must wonder about 12...Bc8 13...Be6|
|Sep-13-05|| ||blingice: This seems kinda old skool. Is this the same computer that beat Kasparov? Identical?|
|Sep-23-05|| ||jekillandhide: hmmm.. computr is computer... human is human... how on earth.... nowadays man win against computer|
|Nov-05-06|| ||Gameoverziggy: <To claim that he "surpassed" Fischer based on a single won game and a couple more draws vs. a machine of uncertain strength is absurd. The only ones who can legitimately make that claim are Karpov and Kasparov, who have proved their mettle by beating human opponents. >
Karpov nor Kasparov can claim that they are better than Fischer for neither of them played Fischer. You can only speculate.|
|Aug-10-07|| ||waddayaplay: <blingice> No, they made Deep Blue stronger all the time.|
|Aug-10-07|| ||Ed Trice: First of all, in 1993 the program was still Deep Thought, not Deep Blue. The 1993 version was evaluating at a rate of 100 million nodes per second.|
In 1994 it was Deep Thought 2, and it was twice as fast, 200 million nodes per second.
In 1997 it was unofficially referred to as "Deeper Blue" because it was given phenomenal performance upgrades. It was the 259th most powerful computer on the planet according to this list: http://www.top500.org/list/1997/06/
And I don't mean chess computer, I mean of ALL computers on the planet. It clocked in at 11.38 gigaflops.
I know a little bit about Deep Thought :)
|Jan-24-10|| ||rich187113: i could be the this computer.|
|Apr-22-12|| ||jacobjosh14: <rich187113> No, you couldn't.|
|Jul-21-14|| ||Ke2: Larsen in his prime would be the ideal type of player to beat a computer.|
|Jul-21-14|| ||falso contacto: Somewhere I have an old magazine with his comments on the match.|
|Feb-23-15|| ||1 2 3 4: <Jaymthegenius> You must be a genius. a Danish genius.|
|Feb-23-15|| ||Zappa XP: Awesome, trolls already existed in 2005.|
|Mar-03-16|| ||PawnSac: < Zappa XP: Awesome, trolls already existed in 2005. >|
Trolls have always existed. They were just computer illiterate. In 2005 they could read and type, but couldn't think. Now they are marginally more clever, having received their higher learning at the university of Facebook.