|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 16 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-26-06 | | RookFile: I think Kasparov's logs for this game should examined. Somebody obviously reprogrammed his brain for him to play an opening like this. It's the only possible explanation. |
|
| Jun-26-06 | | sixfeetunder: <Somebody obviously reprogrammed his brain for him to play an opening like this> I would rather say then 'deprogrammed'.Maybe it was Karpov since he plays 4. ...Nd7 |
|
| Jun-26-06 | | RookFile: Well, reading some of the earlier arguments, what they basically amount to is: Kasparov was gambling that the computer wouldn't know about Nxe6. |
|
| Jun-28-06 | | RookFile: Did you know that if you go to the Smithsonian museum these days - they've actually got Deep Blue there, in a case, and there is a video monitor replaying this game in it's entirety? It's really interesting to watch Kasparov's facial expressions as the computer detonates his position with Nxe6, or Kasparov waving his arms around when he's forced to resign. |
|
Aug-03-06
 | | lostemperor: Kasparov inexplicable blunder, was not because of nerves, black out or because of he was gambling. In his whole career Kasparov never suffered such a foolish loss. This was Kasparov's "most miserable loss" as Mig Greegard put it. And he added "It's like someone trying to bat, holding the wrong end of the bat." I said that I believe that Kasparov threw away this game deliberately. Now, recently, we finally got something concrete that this was indeed the case! A personal confession of Garry Kasparov himself. From the "game over" DVD. He probably did not realise that he was incremenating himself in an interview. This is what Kasparov said. "What happened in game 6, I mean there was no game. I just didn't want to play and I didn't want to face these guys. You know , I didn't I didn't care. I only thought, ok if I just play for a draw, if I try to make a draw and we end up at 3-3, I have to shake their hands (put an ugly face). I have to smile. And it's, I don't, it's .. I just want to get it, you know, off my back" There can be no misunderstanding. By his own admission he didn't want to play! He didn't care! He didn't like to even try to draw! Can you believe that?! He wanted to say, you don't actually think that I, Kasparov, can lose, so foolishly do you? I never thought that. A game even an amateur would be ashamed of. Whether or not he was paid to lose, perhaps offered some IBM stockgain percentage, or just gave away this game for nothing, is not so relevant for now. Frankly I don't know which of the two is worse. This combined with what he said before this last game "the match is over" leave us no doubt. Kasparov threw away this game on purpose. Letting down his millions of fans and chesslovers all over the world. But then again he didn't care. He made one of the biggest sin a sportman can do. Giving away a match. I know this farce is almost unbelievable. |
|
| Aug-03-06 | | spirit: <lostemperor>what u are saying really interests me.Me have come to love GAZZA and respect his style of play.Me think GAZZA is the strongest human player chess has ever seen.His defeat in 1997 by Deep blue made me see him less as a demi chess god and more as a human that he really is.Your comments above scare me to nuts.If GAZZA lost his match to deep blue on purpose then we'll have to take a deeper look at his title match against kramnik in 2000 that he lost.There is rumor that GAZZA lost that match on purpose too.lets look at his last game before retirement,i mean his game against topalov that the later won.I am beginning to see all GAZZA's losses after 1997 as poetic and beautiful in itself.If all these is proofed true then me believe chess has lost a true gem...a thousand subtle voices whisper now to me: "FOR CHRIST'S SAKE NO HUMAN YET CAN BEAT GARRY KASPAROV IN A MATCH!" |
|
Aug-04-06
| | lostemperor: <spirit> I don't think Kasparov's loss to Kramnik was prearranged. Kasparov was very sad about that loss especially since he expected to win. But he made no excuses. |
|
| Aug-04-06 | | positionalgenius: <Lostemperor>You're correct.Garry should have tried to win the sixth game.How embarrassing!Losing in just 19 moves! |
|
| Aug-04-06 | | spirit: <lostemperor> me believe there's something about the man we'll never know... |
|
Aug-15-06
| | lostemperor: <LPeristy> in reply of your post: it was Frederic Friedel, who said that. He also filmed this whole last game RookFile mentioned. Friedel: "Remember one thing. Deep Blue didn't win this match. Garry Kasparov lost it. In the very last game, he gave it to them. They didn't win the match. The last game was won by Deep Blue before it started to calculate a single move. It was still playing out of his opening's book and it was over already." |
|
| Aug-29-06 | | argishti: you know what this game was? it was stupid. Does this game look like Garry's play!! ever!! i believe Garry lost the game, before even the stupid computer even started to calculate!! It was all part of their game. Garry Kasparov does not play a game like this. And if he does, we immediately should think: THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG HERE!!, Like Garry said for many times: 1. Game was not properly supervised! where are the files he wanted to see! 2. Why was the computer playing non-computer like, you dont agree? "how can the computer play all those wanderfull moves at game 2, and blunder to a drawing possibility K to f1!! this is no computer, computers done make this obvious mistakes!! 3. Why did they cancel a rematch? Garry gave them a rematch when he won the 1996 match.
4. If deep blue is a very strong opponent, why did it lose the first game SOO eeasily?? this just doesnt make any sense.
So, ladies and Gentlemen, this is group work tto put down the best player in the world, and then IBM could run with billions of dollars of extra $$$ because they basically have cheated and won an impure match against him.
I believe, Garrys mistake wasnt that he played the 1997 match, but that he played the 1996. He should have made sure that the match was fully supervised and he could access the computer for whatever purpose. In that way everyone could use this match as an opportunity to appreciate its scientific and social significance.
I have analyzed Garry's games against deep blue with chessmaster 10th edition. And It shows that Garry plas with 100% accuracy. I am amazed, he is the one, and he understands chess better than deep fricking blue or any other stinking computer. Heoutplays computers, and so did in 1997, i believe. I beleive he won the 1997 match! why? because, with all the pressure they put on him, and coming to his door at the hotel and arguing with him. Dispite all of that, he played just a great game!! he won the forst game very easily, the second game, he was thrown off, he could have drew the game if there wasnt lots of pressure. he drew 3rd, 4th, 5th games, which were excellent, and the 6th game, ladies and gentlemen, you all chess fans out there, was a pupet show. He didnt want to play, thats all there is to it. HE did not care at all. So as he said, he was a "sitting duck" there. |
|
| Oct-16-06 | | sfm: <argishti: you know what this game was? it was stupid. Does this game look like Garry's play!! ever!! i believe Garry lost the game, before even the stupid computer even started to calculate!! It was all part of their game.>
Were they enforming mind control to have GK making the moves he did? <Garry Kasparov does not play a game like this. And if he does, we immediately should think: THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG HERE!!>
Right: GK played the moves and were humiliated, and he doesn't like that. <Like Garry said for many times: 1. Game was not properly supervised! where are the files he wanted to see!>
You can always ask for more in an most insulting manner and when finally refused you say: "See? They have something to hide!" <2. Why was the computer playing non-computer like, you dont agree? "how can the computer play all those wanderfull moves at game 2, and blunder to a drawing possibility K to f1!! this is no computer, computers done make this obvious mistakes!!>
This statement is not supported by computer game history, recent and early. <3. Why did they cancel a rematch?>
Should I ever win a match over someone who later accused me of cheating he could forget about any rematch... <Garry gave them a rematch when he won the 1996 match.>
... but if IBM had accused him of cheating would he still have? <4. If deep blue is a very strong opponent, why did it lose the first game SOO eeasily?? this just doesnt make any sense.>
If GK was the strongest player in the world why did he lose this game in 19 moves? <So, ladies and Gentlemen, this is group work tto put down the best player in the world, and then IBM could run with billions of dollars of extra $$$ because they basically have cheated and won an impure match against him.>
There's absolutely nothing to support that statement, apart from airy comments made by GK, which will always be enough to convince some people. "Computers don't do like this and this..." <I believe, Garrys mistake wasnt that he played the 1997 match, but that he played the 1996. He should have made sure that the match was fully supervised and he could access the computer for whatever purpose. In that way everyone could use this match as an opportunity to appreciate its scientific and social significance. I have analyzed Garry's games against deep blue with chessmaster 10th edition. And It shows that Garry plas with 100% accuracy. I am amazed, he is the one, and he understands chess better than deep fricking blue or any other stinking computer.>
Agree. However, computers have other methods, like deep calculations. Sometimes this comes out to their advantage. <He outplays computers>
Frequently. Then, sometimes computers outplays him.
<and so did in 1997, i believe. I beleive he won the 1997 match! why? because, with all the pressure they put on him, and coming to his door at the hotel and arguing with him. Dispite all of that, he played just a great game!! he won the forst game very easily, the second game, he was thrown off, he could have drew the game if there wasnt lots of pressure. he drew 3rd, 4th, 5th games, which were excellent, and the 6th game, ladies and gentlemen, you all chess fans out there, was a pupet show.
He didnt want to play, thats all there is to it. HE did not care at all. So as he said, he was a "sitting duck" there.> I see a bad loser.
The two greatest chess geniouses of all times behaved like kids when things did not turn out their way. Maybe this is a part of their will to win. As an American saying goes "Show me a good loser and I will show you a loser." |
|
| Oct-16-06 | | RookFile: You know, at the time this game was played, this opening variation was considered a little dubious for black, but they weren't sure. White does sacrifice a piece, and with something less than precise play, white loses. For example: Wolff vs Granda-Zuniga, 1992
So, Kasparov before the game may have thought the computer would play like Wolff did, and that he was using an 'anti-computer' strategy..... |
|
| Oct-16-06 | | crazy monk: I'm wondering what's the excuse that IBM made when they dismantled DEEP BLUE. I can only think of one reason that they had cheated, they afraid that the computer can't replicate it's moves under scrutiny |
|
| Oct-16-06 | | RookFile: That must be why DEEP BLUE is sitting in the Smithsonian museum right now, and they are proudly showing replays of the final game on a daily basis. |
|
| Nov-01-06 | | sergiovv: I think in the future computers will be able to beat all Grandmasters and even World Champions. A recent example is the Adams-Hydra match, the second Kasparov-Deep Blue match and even the Kramnik-Deep Fritz in Bahrain that ended in draw. |
|
| May-22-07 | | actionhero56: 7...h6 is not a blunder garry played it right up to move 11 when he should have played 11...b6 instead of ...b5 |
|
| Oct-02-07 | | centercounter: This wasn't a blunder, it was a fix. Kasparov is the one who popularized 5. Ng5 and his goal was to "lose" the match, but give a signal to his fans that he didn't really lose it. This would set up a "rubber match," and thus more money. He knows this system like Milli Vanilli knows how to lip-sync. Unfortunately, he hadn't contacted IBM (a reputable company that wouldn't agree to cheat) about his plans, and after this match, there was no "tiebreaker" match. |
|
| Oct-14-07 | | xrt999: <Sneaky: <8.Nxe6! must have been a bolt out of the deep blue> Actually, that sacrifice is very well known to theory, which is why many people say that Kasparov playing into this line was very odd.> 5.Ng5 looks pretty tough to deal with in this system. I can see why GK would play this system as white, and therefore echo the consensus...why would GK play 4...Nd7 with the black pieces? |
|
| Oct-15-07 | | xrt999: < centercounter: This wasn't a blunder, it was a fix. Kasparov is the one who popularized 5. Ng5> Oddly enough, I did a search of Kasparov games as white in which HE played 5.Ng5 in response to 4...Nd7 and he NEVER once played the system 8.Nxe6. He always retreated the Knight to e4 and developed the light square bishop to d3, and was unbeaten in this system. Here he gets crushed with 5.Ng5. Fascinating. |
|
| Nov-25-07 | | thestigchess: 7 h6 seems like an odd move, I would have left the pawns there as a wall for my king to castle, instead of h6 as the 7th move I would have developed, perhaps Bd6 or Bb4+ |
|
| Mar-06-08 | | sallom89: New game - Fritz 11
click for larger viewAnalysis by Fritz 11:
1.  (-4.94): 17.Be4 Qd6 18.Nd2 N7b6 19.b3 b4 20.Nc4 Qc7 21.g3 Bd6 22.Bg6 Bd7 23.Nxd6+ Qxd6 24.Ra5 Kb7 25.Qa6+ Kb8 26.Rc5 Bc6 2. (-5.12): 17.b3 Nf4 18.Qc3 Qd6 19.Be4 Nd5 20.Qd3 b4 21.Nd2 N7f6 22.Nc4 Qc7 23.g3 Bd6 24.Bf3 Re8 25.Ra6 Kb8 26.Nxd6 Qxd6 3. (-5.14): 17.Qf1 Kb7 18.Bd3 Nc7 19.Qe2 Qf7 20.Be4 Bxe4 21.Qxe4+ Nd5 22.Qxe6 Qxe6 23.Rxe6 Bb4 24.c3 Nf4 25.Re4 Bd6 26.g3 Nd3 4. (-5.17): 17.g3 Qf6 18.Be4 Bd6 19.c4 Nb4 20.Qc3 Bxe4 21.Rxe4 Rf8 22.Re3 bxc4 23.Qxc4+ Kb7 24.Qe2 Rac8 25.Rea3 a6 26.Rb3 i don't know why Kasparov sac his queen..its either he want to show that he is better than a computer which he failed(by the queen sac), or he didn't want to play as he said in game over "game 6 there was no game, i just didn't want to play!" if i'm not mistaken. |
|
| 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. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 16 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
sac: 9.O-O