|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-21-09 | | YoungEd: Too bad Bronstein was such a good guy. Otherwise this game could be: "The Devil and the Deep Blue, see!" |
|
Aug-21-09
 | | WannaBe: One must give credit to IBM, to have such a computer at such an early age of 'artificial intelligence'... Either that, or David was drunk off his azz on vodka. |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | Aniara: This pun has to be one of the best ever. |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | TheTamale: Bronstein doesn't try to beat the robot but rather plays not to lose. This time he succeeds, but no matter... In time, robots will crush all humans. |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | mohitm: This game was already totally overboard and brainstorming(Ra3!?!?!? and the mess that follows...). And i think if it would have Bronstein of old, younger and wackier, he would have ripped DB to shreds. |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | Chessmensch: <YoungEd> I trust you are aware that "devil" doesn't mean what you imply it means in that expression. For folks unaware, devil in that sense has this meaning: According to the "International Maritime Dictionary" by René de Kerchove, the devil is 1. The seam in a wooden deck which bounds the waterway. It is so-called from its difficulty of access in calking. 2. A seam in the planking of a wooden ship on or below the waterline. Thus, between the devil and the deep blue sea (i.e., between a rock and a hard place). |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | lzromeu: Another pun: Deep Bron vs Deep Blue |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | Chessmensch: Acknowledging the level of the players, the moves through 10 remind me of the games we used to play as kids at summer camp. |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | chessenthus: WhiteRook48: 2 b4 was a dumb gambit
Mr Whiterook48, b4 is not at all a dumb gambit.i urge u to plz see some games featuring 2.b4.even i have played it and won also with it. |
|
Aug-21-09
 | | eternaloptimist: <newzild: This is a mind-boggling game. I can't believe that Bronstein even managed to draw this. I'd never play like this against a computer, saccing bits all over the place and leaving other bits en-prise everywhere.> <WhiteRook48: 2 b4 was a dumb gambit.> Actually, Bronstein's decision to play the Wing Gambit was not a dumb decision. Sometimes when u sac pawns &/or pieces against a computer it impedes the computer's sense of evaluating the position. This is a case in point of this. Deep Blue made an incorrect numerical evaluation after the sacs. Also, Bronstein's moves were designed to keep Deep Blue's ♔ in the center after 7.♖a3!?; he succeeded in doing that. Shredder 11 didn't give Bronstein's move as an option. It gave 4 moves as options.: 7.c3, Na3?, Bb2 & Ba3. Deep Blue won the rematch against Kasparov in '97 (3.5-2.5) so what's so bad about getting a draw against it? Although, Kasparov probably would have drawn the rematch against it if he wouldn't have blundered in the 4th game while playing the black side of a Caro-Kann; consequently, he lost the match because of it. Since some people think that Bronstein's decision to play the Wing Gambit was a bad 1, I decided to have Shredder 11 (latest version of it) play out this game starting @ Bronstein's exchange sac on move 7. White won in 57 moves! Here is the game & the numerical evaluations, albeit they are incorrect. I'm willing to bet that this is why Bronstein decided to play it. He figured that the computer would evaluate the position incorrectly. This game w/ Shredder shows that even a modern chess engine can (& did) evaluate the position incorrectly. It would be interesting to see Rybka 3's treatment against 7.♖a3!?. Verdict of 7.♖a3!?.: It wins against some chess engines/computers, but not against others. [Event "Shootout (Shredder11, 20'/40+60'/20+30'"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "Shredder 11"]
[Result "1-0"]
[PlyCount "113"]
1. e4 c5 2. b4 cxb4 3. a3 d5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. Nf3 e5 6. axb4 Bxb4 7. Ra3 Bxa3 -1.76/14 19 8. Bxa3 -1.76/16 31 Nc6 -1.76/16 34 9. Nc3 -1.75/16 50 Qa5 -1.75/16 29 10. Qc1 -1.75/15 68 Nge7 -1.63/16 53 11. Bb5 -1.87/15 67 f6 -1.87/15 29 12. Ne4 -1.87/14 64 Bg4 (a6) -1.72/15 55 13. Nd6+ -1.72/15 28 Kf8 -1.69/16 102 14. Qb2 -1.69/16 25 Bxf3 -1.64/16 51 15. gxf3 -1.64/17 29 Rd8 -1.64/17 56 16. Bxc6 -1.64/16 30 bxc6 -1.64/17 57 17. Qb3 -1.64/18 31 Qd5 -1.64/18 55 18. Qxd5 -1.64/18 62 Nxd5 -1.53/20 25 19. Nb7+ -1.89/16 24 Kf7 -1.91/17 49 20. Nxd8+ -1.78/19 32 Rxd8 -1.78/19 51 21. d3 -1.86/19 53 c5 -1.86/19 23 22. Kd2 -1.86/18 58 c4 -1.89/18 33 23. dxc4 -1.89/18 28 Nf4+ -1.89/17 48 24. Kc3 -1.89/16 69 Ne2+ -1.70/16 44 25. Kb4 -1.80/17 12 Nd4 -1.80/17 22 26. c3 -1.80/16 52 Nxf3 -1.79/17 23 27. Kb5 (c5) -1.67/16 65 a6+ -1.67/16 31 28. Ka5 -1.44/17 18 Nd2 -1.44/17 33 29. c5 -1.31/17 37 Rc8 (Nc4+) -1.43/17 21 30. Kb6 -1.43/17 56 Rb8+ -0.83/16 23 31. Kc7 -0.68/18 10 Rb5 -0.68/18 39 32. Ra1 -0.68/17 44 Nc4 (Nb3) -0.30/16 55 33. Bb4 -0.07/18 14 a5 0.00/19 18 34. Kc6 0.00/19 32 Rb8 0.00/18 27 35. Bxa5 0.00/17 28 Nxa5+ 0.35/15 29 36. Rxa5 0.35/18 2 Ke6 0.53/18 25 37. Ra6 0.53/18 37 Rb3 1.30/15 18 38. Kc7+ 1.78/16 5 Ke7 1.78/16 18 39. c6 2.19/16 12 Rxc3 2.19/16 1 40. Kc8 2.32/17 3 Rc2 2.32/16 1 41. Ra7+ 2.57/20 125 Kd6 (Ke6) 2.67/24 215 42. c7 2.67/24 253 Rxf2 2.67/23 323 43. Ra6+ 2.85/23 325 Ke7 2.85/24 221 44. Kb7 2.85/24 307 Rc2 (Rb2+) 2.85/24 75 45. Rc6 3.07/24 166 Rb2+ 3.07/25 200 46. Ka6 3.10/26 141 Ra2+ 3.10/26 144 47. Kb5 3.10/26 288 Ra8 3.30/24 157 48. c8=Q 3.30/26 96 Rxc8 3.38/24 325 49. Rxc8 3.38/23 287 f5 (Ke6) 4.03/23 573 50. Kc5 4.02/23 119 Kf6 (Ke6) 3.96/23 251 51. h4 4.71/23 298 g6 5.46/23 319 52. Rc6+ 5.89/22 102 Ke7 6.04/25 225 53. Ra6 6.13/25 223 e4 6.38/23 115 54. Kd4 6.38/24 128 Kd7 6.38/24 66 55. Ke5 6.42/24 116 e3 6.42/24 46 56. Ra3 6.63/24 152 e2 6.63/26 35 57. Re3 6.63/25 165 1-0 |
|
Aug-21-09
| | eternaloptimist: <chessenthus: <WhiteRook48: 2 b4 was a dumb gambit> Mr Whiterook48, b4 is not at all a dumb gambit.i urge u to plz see some games featuring 2.b4.even i have played it and won also with it.> I agree completely. Apparently, he's not familiar w/ the fact that sacs sometimes impede the ability of a computer to correctly evaluate the position. Also, this gambit can lead to complex positions & makes it easy for black (or white) to miscalculate something sometimes. The Wing Gambit can be double-edged sometimes, but it's definitely not a dumb decision to play it if u are familiar w/ it. Also, it's great for otb play because chances are that your opponent won't be familiar w/ it, & he/she will only have so much time on his/her clock to use. Btw, in my previous comment I commented that "Shredder 11 didn't give Bronstein's move as an option. It gave 4 moves as options.: 7.c3, Na3?, Bb2 & Ba3". I'm referring to its opening book. Also, the pun for this game is great. |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | AnalyzeThis: <What is 7. Ra3???> Bronstein know that the bishop was going to be more important than the rook for the next 20 moves. Of course, if the computer were to survive this period, Bronstein loses. |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | MaxxLange: Paul Keres played the Wing Gambit sometimes. Don't underestimate it too much! White gets compensation for the pawn: the d4 push in the center, the QB can come to b2 or a3, the QR can come to b1 |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | YoungEd: Hello, <Chessmensch>:
Your trust in my knowledge of things maritime comes wholly unwarranted, as I suspect you suspected! Thanks for the info, though; that's interesting. I only knew the phrase from a song title, which needless to say had little of a nautical theme to it otherwise.
Take care, YoungEd |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | WhiteRook48: what is wrong with 10...exf3? |
|
Aug-21-09
 | | Phony Benoni: There is analysis of 10...exf3 earlier in the kibitzing; starting here: Bronstein vs Deep Blue, 1996 The conclusion seems to be that Bronstein would have compensation for the material, with several pieces storming Black's undeveloped and uncastled position. |
|
| Aug-22-09 | | zdigyigy: <thick Russian accent> "is draw" |
|
| Aug-22-09 | | kevin86: The games looks like a joke-David vs Mr.Chip |
|
| Aug-22-09 | | anjyplayer: Brons displays sheer confidence and its a virtual win for him playing such a risky line against a computer. |
|
| Oct-02-09 | | giusti825: If bronstien would've moved the knight from F3 to E5 in his 14th move, he would've checked Deep Blue's king and taken his queen for the price of a knight. |
|
| Oct-02-09 | | vulcan20: <If bronstien would've moved the knight from F3 to E5 in his 14th move, he would've checked Deep Blue's king and taken his queen for the price of a knight.> 14. Ne5+ is met by 14...Qxe5 |
|
| Apr-01-11 | | Mendrys: We should all be grateful to the late David Bronstein for his willingness and interest to play against computers. He was willing to experiment and explore their weaknesses and strengths. This would at times lead to a defeat but he wasn't afraid to lose against a computer. |
|
| Feb-25-13 | | Conrad93: Not bad for a 72 year old man.
I doubt the machine would have won against Bronstein in his prime (1940-1950). |
|
| Feb-16-14 | | celtrusco: Goliath was spared this time. |
|
| Dec-18-17 | | WorstPlayerEver: Position after 18... Rad8
click for larger view |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
icon.