|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 16 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-04-10 | | rwbean: Rybka 4: 11... Nh7 12. Bg3 Ng5 13. Nh4 Nf6 14. Qd3 Bd7 15. f4 Nf7 16. Rae1 Kc8 17. f5
Ng5 18. Nf3 Nxf3+ 19. Rxf3 Qd8 (1:27.08)[%eval 37,23,rybka] * I wonder if 8 ... fxe6 would be much better than 8 ... Qe7. Let's see... |
|
| Dec-04-10 | | woodthrush: Friends play chess,
Foes play chess,
but a computer, its not a person.
It does not revel in the battle, exalt in victory, despair in defeat.
Its a tick-tock,
and its programmer worships computation, not the game of chess.
Chess was a game, a challenge, a contest between two people, now no more.
Computer and programmer have subjugated a game between people, made it a lifeless multiplication table.
Leave the game of chess to chess players to enjoy, a game between two people today,
with all its glories and thrills, its errors and flaws to be discovered by a player, not a tick tock and a faceless, game-less programmer. |
|
| Dec-04-10 | | rwbean: after 8... fxe6 9. Bg6+ Kd8:
10. O-O Qc7 11. c4 Kd8 12. g3 b5 13. b3 Bb7 14. Re1 Bb4 15. Bf4 Qa5 16. Re2 Nf8
17. Qc2 Ke7 18. Ne5 Rg8 (3:16.35)[%eval 21,23,rybka] * So a little bit better ...
Computers find everything these days ... I remember back on rec.games.chess.computer ... even in 2003, people were saying things like "computers will never find Shirov's ... Bh3 move" from Topalov - Shirov ... |
|
| Mar-08-11 | | Garech: IMHO, there *is* something fishy about this game. I'm uncertain of Deep Blue's database but I doubt there were many (if any) games in it that follow this opening up to 8.Nxe6. Sacs on e6 - as we all know - are common for white vs. the Caro Kann. The point is that Deep Blue wouldn't be aware of the theory and thus playing the e6 sac would be unlikely - unless there was human involvement in conjunction with Deep Blue. Perhaps I am wrong and engines give the sac as best play - but I doubt it. This leads me to believe, as I said, that something was rotten in the state of New York. -Garech |
|
| Mar-08-11 | | Kinghunt: I am quite certain that 8. Nxe6 was in Deep Blue's opening book. It did not need to find the line by itself. |
|
| Mar-08-11 | | Kinghunt: Hmm, maybe I'm just not letting it go deep enough, but my engine is saying that Kasparov was holding on just fine as late as move 12, and had the possibility of holding a draw for another few moves. He needed to play b4! at some point in there to prevent Deep Blue's later c4 and stop white's rooks from penetrating. It makes me wonder how a modern chess engine would do in a match against both a top human player and an older computer like Deep Blue. They just see so much... |
|
| Mar-08-11 | | Garech: <Kinghunt> - Yeah, maybe you're right. There are 15 games in the cg database - I hadn't checked before my earlier post. In actual fact, it's fairly remarkable that Kasparov played 7...h6. Presumably he was expecting the knight sac and prepared to defend and simplify to a superior endgame. Going by the stats though white apparently does very well - my engine's tied up at the minute so I can't check it. I guess if it gives good stats in the database then the engine was bound to play it. Perhaps Kasparov had something prepared in the line, as other kibitzers have noted the Caro Kann was a rare defence from him. Probably we'll never know. Unless Garry takes to kibitzing on chessgames himself! |
|
| Apr-02-11 | | natno: Early one morning the sun was shining,
kasparov was laying in bed,
wondering if IBM cheated at all,
should he have played sicilian instead? |
|
| Apr-17-11 | | sergeidave: Why would IBM cheat?
I mean, today we have software way better than Deep Blue of 1997. It was just a matter of time for humans to get beaten by computers.
Why would IBM put at risk his reputation just to throw a stunt like beating the world champion of chess early rather than later? It would be like saying "oh, we are so dumb that since we cannot program a computer that plays good chess we will use a hidden human to play game 6 for us..."
I mean, come on! |
|
| Apr-17-11 | | BobCrisp: <Why would IBM cheat?> Dunno. Why would <Enron>? |
|
| Apr-17-11 | | I play the Fred: An ill-tempered titled player loses a game to what he believes is the combined efforts of a human and a computer, and his subsequent complaints give the contest an artificially-extended discussion period. Even today, people are adding pages of kibitzing to a fairly forgettable game. Is Kasparov a LIFE MASTER?? |
|
| Apr-23-11 | | AVRO38: The only way to lose a chess game is by making a mistake. Kasparov has nobody but himself to blame for his loss. No computer can win a game against sound moves. Unless Kasparov can provide proof of cheating it's just sour grapes. |
|
| May-03-11 | | ADDADZ: Perhaps there is an agreement between the manufacturer and Kasprov because the company lost a lot of money for the development of the program |
|
| May-04-11 | | Jim Bartle: I'll bet IBM is happy with the publicity they got in exchange for its investment in Deep Blue. A lot of bang for the buck. |
|
| May-18-11 | | Helicon: Anyone know the clock times to this game? Very interested in knowing how much time it took each player to come to their next move. |
|
| Jul-31-11 | | King Radio: I won't comment on possible IBM chicanery, or any other ancillary stuff, but it is interesting that Houdini running on my relatively fast quad-core thinks Black is fine until 11... b5, where Black noticeably is worse. This makes sense to the eye, even without looking too deeply -- 11... b5 is a deeply ugly move, and appears to make Blacks position a shambles. I have no idea whether or not Kasparov intentionally played into this line (it's hard to believe, but possible), but if he did, and 11... b5 was his idea, it was terrible. |
|
| Jul-31-11 | | BobCrisp: <I'll bet IBM is happy with the publicity they got in exchange for its investment in Deep Blue. A lot of bang for the buck.> Because it was a little known company beforehand. |
|
| Jul-31-11 | | BobCrisp: <King Radio>, so what moves does <Houdini> prefer (with evaluations)? |
|
| Jul-31-11 | | JoergWalter: That time, if I remember correctly, Kasparov (in his words) was fighting for nothing less than the honour of the human race. Korchnoi, the old sarcastic man, commented: nobody asked him to fight for the honour of the human race and more important, nobody asked him to loose it. |
|
Jul-31-11
 | | scormus: <King Radio> I was a bit curious about this myself, so I did the same as you, only with Rybka. Didnt choose 8 Nxe6 (Ne4 instead) but playing it from 8 Nxe6 gave the same eval (+0.20) and the same continuation as in the game until 11 ...b5. 11 ... b5 might look bad but Rybka need to go to d=13 to find a better move, the none too obvious ... Nh7 which it rates at +0.12 (in favor of W) at d=19. GK might be forgiven for not playing it. Surely IBM were delighted with the outcome and no doubt took max profit. If you take <pawnmonster's> interpretation at face value (I agree completely with the comment and I seem to remember seeing similar a long time ago) then it says a lot about the relative strengths and weaknesses of human and machine. My take ... GK was a supreme player against a human opponent (Nige, you agree?) But what made him so good in comparison with other players might have been a weakness against a machine. Yet somehow my street smarts cause a little bell to ring in my head. I think GK was caught off guard, he knew the position and didnt think any machine would choose 8 Nxe6. So why did it make this "human" choice? |
|
| Jul-31-11 | | JoergWalter: man vs. machine
http://youtu.be/y9UMt-8gfW8
http://youtu.be/TdykHC93PrA
http://youtu.be/cUqXr9Jlhwc |
|
| Jul-31-11 | | JoergWalter: Sometimes you loose and sometimes you do not win. Resigning a game has a new interpretation: "Deep Blue did not win one of the first 5 games."
"gsme 2 I resigned when I can force a draw. force a draw. I resigned in a completely drawn position" That the final position in Game 2 was a draw was told Kasparov by Dochojan after the game on the way to an italian restaurant. |
|
| Jul-31-11 | | BobCrisp: <I think GK was caught off guard, he knew the position and didnt think any machine would choose 8 Nxe6. So why did it make this "human" choice?> I assume it was still in book. Anyway, the game logs are still available: http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblu... The same ones that <Kasparov> didn't know about for five years whilst still calling for their release! http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt... |
|
| Aug-23-11 | | SeanBurdine: Kasparov lost this match the day before, when his KN pawn had a clear path to become a Queen and he *thought* he had the game won -- only to see Deep Blue salvage a miraculous draw by perpetual check. Kasparov, already exhausted from playing his fifth incredibly strenuous game in just 8 days, didn't get so much as a single day off to recover before Game 6, and psychologically he was crushed from the result of Game 5. He clearly wasn't anywhere near the level in Game 6 as he was in the first 5 games. Thus, the title of Chess Champion passes to a computer, and humans have yet to reclaim it. I frankly doubt they ever will. |
|
| Aug-29-11 | | Kittysafe: This game makes no sense to me, for either player really. At move 8, the computer can pull back the knight to either offer a trade of knights, or pull back to the right and avoid capture at all. Moves 16, 17, and 18 literally make no sense lol.
White sacrifices a bishop to take the queen, who does that?
No one would take that bait!!!
EVER.
Blue throws the bishop out as bait and Kasparov just takes it? Really?
Was he awake for this game? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 16 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 9.O-O