Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine

This forum is for general discussions and questions, including Collectors Corner and anything to do with Computer chess.

Moderators: Harvey Williamson, Steve B, Watchman

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the fen tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
Mars
Full Member
Posts: 694
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Bonn, Germany

Post by Mars »

You are right, I had only the number here...
http://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/in ... stellation
...in mind. In the text the SSDF Elo is mentioned. So my comparison is just in Wiki Elos. The GK 2100 you are referring to gets about 2020 in that list while the Sapphire is somewhere north of 2100.

In any case, the DS is certainly tactically stronger. Since SuperConnie was designed to play amatuer human players and not fellow computers its shortcomings are most visible against materialistic opponents.

Regarding Diane: I don't think she has been outplayed nor that she has had too much respect. The game - you can replay it in the link above - shows rather the opposite. She went for a quick win. Facing a quite cold blooded defence (15.- h6!) she went astray later on. Before that, instead of 13.Qh5 both Qg4 and Kh1 would have been clearly better, by the way. The idea to take on f7 with the rook after a black 0-0 and killing the machine via e6 was not obvious though. Well, if you play a sharp Sicilian with a quick win in mind and don't see the final blow, you may end up getting hold the wrong end of the stick.

She won other three games against SuperConnie and since even I am quite confident to be able to crush the machine very clearly, I can imagine how disgruntled she must have been after that unnecessary loss...

Typical human bite into computer-granite regards,
Martin
User avatar
fourthirty
Full Member
Posts: 763
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:46 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by fourthirty »

Monsieur Plastique wrote:Funny how Kasparov made such a huge deal at the time regarding Deeper Blue's 37. Be4 in game 2. This was allegedly a "turning point" in the match from which Kasparov - by his own admission - never recovered. It is well documented in this video as it is in Daniel King's book that I own.

The thing is, both modestly priced commercial engines that I own (HIARCS 13 and Fritz 13), both prefer Be4 in that position and by a clear margin over all other moves. And on my Core i7 desktop, HIARCS 13 running on a single core comes to this conclusion in around 40 seconds.
I agree Monsieur Plastique. On my iMac (3.06GHz i3) running Deep Hiarcs 14:
1 second analysis of move #37 recommends Qb6.
2 second analysis (and beyond) of move #37 recommends Be4.
User avatar
Cyberchess
Full Member
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:10 pm

Post by Cyberchess »

Mars wrote: Regarding Diane: I don't think she has been outplayed nor that she has had too much respect. The game - you can replay it in the link above - shows rather the opposite. She went for a quick win. Facing a quite cold blooded defence (15.- h6!) she went astray later on. Before that, instead of 13.Qh5 both Qg4 and Kh1 would have been clearly better, by the way. The idea to take on f7 with the rook after a black 0-0 and killing the machine via e6 was not obvious though. Well, if you play a sharp Sicilian with a quick win in mind and don't see the final blow, you may end up getting hold the wrong end of the stick.

She won other three games against SuperConnie and since even I am quite confident to be able to crush the machine very clearly, I can imagine how disgruntled she must have been after that unnecessary loss...

Typical human bite into computer-granite regards,
Martin
No disrespect towards Diane was intended or implied; I hold Diane’s play in the highest esteem. The point I was trying to make is that when people engage in sharp, tactical games such as those arising from The Sicilian Defense, even an early, strong dedicated unit such as the Super Connie is quite venerable. The overlooked tactical resource has felled many a Master and Grandmaster alike. This is the reason that tournament players began opting for closed, positional games when paired with a computer (any computer).

If I had a nickel for every beautiful, often superior, position that I lost or drew due to that one tactical oversight…

Regards,
John
User avatar
fourthirty
Full Member
Posts: 763
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:46 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by fourthirty »

Cyberchess wrote:
fourthirty wrote:Deep Blue overview paper, published four (4) years after the 1997 Kasparov match:

http://sjeng.org/ftp/deepblue.pdf
Thank you for the technical abstract, Greg.

It turns out that Garry overlooked a draw by repetition in the second game of the 1997 rematch played in New York. Had he realized this at the time, the outcome of the match would have been a tie rather than a win for Deep Blue.

http://www.chesscorner.com/games/deepblue/dblue2.htm
You're welcome. I wonder how much truth there is to the "bug" theory that resulted in Deep Blue's game 1 move of 44...Rd1? There is some speculation that this seemingly bad move is the one that really affected Kasparov. That aside, I've always been in awe of Gary's game one move of 30.f4, which resulted in his loss of a rook for a bishop, but ultimately gave him a passed pawn at g6.
User avatar
Cyberchess
Full Member
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:10 pm

Post by Cyberchess »

Greg:

I just played out the game here:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070912

44.) …. Rd1? indeed looks pretty awful – especially when one considers how much money, technology, human resources and time IBM put into Deep Blue. I also find it hard to believe that a human consultant would play this move when 44.) …. Rf5 is a much better try.

John
Post Reply