 | Chess Puzzles |
Vote and you will reveal!
Crazy name, real matters
Crazy name, real matters
myway316
16 ( +1 | -1 )
Kasparov-Deep Junior Game 5 Interesting little tactical melee,but it doesn't bode well for Gary in game 6. I mean,was that the best effort he could put together as White?
More: Chess Maniac
caldazar
21 ( +1 | -1 )
I agree. With only one game left and holding a better position, I thought he had to accept the risks and go for the win. But maybe Kasparov found a concrete problem with playing on; it'll be interesting to see his analysis of the game.
More: Chess Games Online
myway316
8 ( +1 | -1 )
Sorry... ...I forgot to mention the result: draw by repetition,19 moves,Nimzo-Indian.
More: Game Chess
v_glorioso12
calmrolfe
28 ( +1 | -1 )
I wonder ? how many GK players would have played 12. Kg1 instead of Kg3 on the basis that it is normally unsound to advance your King ahead of your pawns, particularly when the Queens and Rooks are still on the Board....
12.Kg1? Qh4 13.Rd1 Qxf2+ 14.Kh1 Re6! and White's king is doomed.
Kind regards,
Cal
More: Play Chess Games
caldazar
11 ( +1 | -1 )
Guess it would depend on how familiar they were with the classic bishop sacrifice, I suppose...
More: Play Chess
atrifix
40 ( +1 | -1 )
While I would have liked to have seen 14. e4, 16. g3 is simply too risky against a computer. Junior's sacrifice was amazing and caught Kasparov completely off guard--reminiscent of his 1997 match against Deep Blue, but this time the piece sacrifice was more speculative, to say the least. I just hope in the next game he doesn't blunder on the 7th move before he gets out of book.
More: Chess Online Game
myway316
21 ( +1 | -1 )
atrifix If you're referring to Gary's 7th move "blunder" vs.Deeper Blue in Game 6,that was no blunder,but a deliberate dive by Gary. Can you really believe a 2800+ GM could play such a beginners move by accident?
More: Three Dimensional Chess
zdrak
166 ( +1 | -1 )
Let's get some facts straight. Kasparov 7th move 7...h6 is NOT a blunder. It has been played before on GM level, and it has been played since. It is however considered an extremely risky move, as it allows white the promising sac Nxe6. But there have been cases in GM practise where black survived, and even won. Ok, against a computer it's not the wisest choice, I admit. But surely not a blunder, and certainly not a "dive".
Here's a game between two 2600-level players where black wins:
Wolff - Granda Zuniga, New York 1992
1. e4 c6
2. d4 d5
3. Nd2 dxe4
4. Nxe4 Nd7
5. Ng5 Ngf6
6. Bd3 e6
7. N1f3 h6
8. Nxe6 fxe6
9. Bg6+ Ke7
10. O-O Qc7
11. Re1 Kd8
12. c4 Bb4
13. Re2 Nf8
14. Ne5 Nxg6
15. Nxg6 Re8
16. c5 Ba5
17. Qa4 Nd5
18. Ne5 Bd7
19. a3 b5
20. Qc2 Qb8
21. Qh7 Bc7
22. Qxg7 Bxe5
23. Rxe5 Kc8
24. Bxh6 Qc7
25. Bd2 Kb7
26. a4 a5
27. Qg3 Rg8
28. Qd3 b4
29. Rae1 Rh8
30. Bg5 Rag8
31. h4 Qc8
32. g3 Qf8
33. f4 Qf7
34. Kf2 Ne7
35. Bxe7 Qxe7
36. Qf3 Qf6
37. R1e3 Rg7
38. Rd3 Be8
39. Rde3 Bf7
40. f5 Bh5
41. Rxe6 Qxe6
42. Rxe6 Bxf3
43. Kxf3 Rhg8
44. f6 Rxg3+
45. Kf4 R8g4+
46. Ke5 Rxh4
47. Re7+ Ka6
48. f7 Rf3
49. Re6 Rxf7
50. Rxc6+ Ka7
51. d5 Re7+
52. Kd6 Reh7
0-1
And here is a game where a well-known Hungarian GM fails to overcome his unknown opponent and is held to a draw:
Almasi - Krizcani, Kechkemet 1993
1. e4 c6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 dxe4
4. Nxe4 Nd7
5. Ng5 Ngf6
6. Bd3 e6
7. N1f3 h6
8. Nxe6 Qe7
9. O-O fxe6
10. Bg6+ Kd8
11. Re1 Qb4
12. a3 Qa5
13. Bf4 Be7
14. c4 Rf8
15. b4 Qa6
16. Qc1 Ne8
17. Rxe6 Nb6
18. Rxe7 Kxe7
19. Qe3+ Be6
20. d5 cxd5
21. Qc5+ Kf6
22. b5 Qa4
23. Bh5 Nd7
24. Be5+ Nxe5
25. Qxf8+ Nf7
26. Bxf7 Bxf7
27. Re1 Qa5
28. Qe7+ Kg6
29. Ne5+ Kh7
30. Nxf7 Nf6
31. Nd6 dxc4
32. Rf1 Qxa3
33. Qxb7 Rd8
34. Nxc4 Qd3
35. Ne3 Rd7
36. Qc6 Re7
37. Qc5 Rb7
38. Nc4 Qd5
39. Qxd5 Nxd5
40. Nd6 Rb6
41. Nc8 Rxb5
42. Nxa7 Rc5
43. g3 Nc3
44. Kg2 Nb5
45. Ra1 Nxa7
46. Rxa7 h5
47. Re7 Kg6
48. h4 Kf6
49. Rd7 g6
50. Kf3 Rf5+
51. Ke3 Re5+
52. Kd3 Re1
53. Kd2 Re5
54. f3 Re6
55. Kd3 Re1
56. Rd6+ Kf7
57. Rd4 1/2-1/2
And here is the Kasparov game:
1. e4 c6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 dxe4
4. Nxe4 Nd7
5. Ng5 Ngf6
6. Bd3 e6
7. N1f3 h6
8. Nxe6 Qe7
9. O-O fxe6
10. Bg6+ Kd8
11. Bf4 b5 (Contrary to the popular opinion, this move, and not 7...h6, is the source of Kasparov's demise. After b5 it's easy for white to open lines in the queenside and center. After any other reasonable move black's position is hard - especially considering white is a computer! - but defendable)
12. a4 Bb7
13. Re1 Nd5
14. Bg3 Kc8
15. axb5 cxb5
16. Qd3 Bc6
17. Bf5 exf5
18. Rxe7 Bxe7
19. c4 1-0
emmitsmith
218 ( +1 | -1 )
Mr Bishop This is coverage of the match for my local paper.
I spiced it up a little :)
Chess News
Champion Gary Kasparov is lucky to be tied
against his opponent "Deep Jr.", son of the best computer alive.
Kasparov stunned the world in game 3, by moving his Knight to D2,
a move he later admitted could have been better,
but forced a draw with the old Hedgehog Defence three days later.
Tensions popped, though, after this Wednesday's match, in New York City's Madison Square Garden, when after losing another chance at a win with the white pieces,
Kasparov kicked Junior's power cord, unplugging the young genius.
The Computer's handler-manager, Mr Bishop, tackled Kasparov,
then threw him over the ropes into the front row of stunned fans.
He then grabbed the referee's microphone and screamed
"This carbon-based life form is goin' down!", and leaped on Kasparov,
butting him in the head repeatedly. After being subdued by Stadium staff,
Mr Bishop and his entourage were whisked to the stately Grand Hotel,
and could not be reached for further comment.
Mr Kasparov is no stranger to brawls in his matches.
It was Gary's own head butt of an aging Boris Spassky that was widely regarded as the reason Spassky promoted a passed pawn to another King, losing game five and the 1987 Open.
Head butting has since been banned in all but Pub Tournaments,
but could return for Olympic competition.
Kasparov was taken to nearby Ringling Brother's Hospital, and required 30 stitches in his head.
"It's not the tactical side of my brain that hurts right now", he joked on CNN's Larry King that evening, "it's the payback side". Gary did note the obvious bulking up of Mr Bishop's head during the call-in show. "Steroid use is a serious problem in modern chess, as we're so close to entering the Olympics, and there are GMs sitting in tournaments all over the world with heads so large,
they need neck braces!" Kasparov has been lobbying for years against allowing neck braces in Tournament play. The match is now tied going into game 6 on Friday.
clemens
36 ( +1 | -1 )
Bxh2+ definitely was the most amazing move I've ever seen played by a program. You have to keep in mind that there was no forced mate lurking; Junior must be able to evaluate rather abstract concepts like "initiative" like no other program. Unless of course you suspect operator intervention, but I don't think that.
maca
zdrak
38 ( +1 | -1 )
"Unless of course you suspect operator intervention, but I don't think that. "
From personal experience I can say that Shay Bushinsky and Amir Ban, Junior's creators and operators, are both not particularly strong chessplayers, barely able to hold their own against an average amature. To suspect that one of them will make the Bxh2+ sacrifice himself will be unreasonable.
clemens
74 ( +1 | -1 )
Zdrak Really, you have played them? At what occasion? So you gave them a good whipping? :)
It seems amazing that two mediocre chessplayers can create a program of such strength. Sure, I know, it's a lot about feeding it rules and letting it apply them on its own, but I still imagine it difficult to test new evaluations when you are so far under its level of play. Maybe they just let it play against older versions of itself and other programs to see how well it does... Or do they "hire" GMs to assist them with chess knowledge?
Anyway, as I said, I don't really believe in the option of intervention. I simply think that it is _theoretically_ possible with the analysis power of such a high-end computer at your hands.
calmrolfe
zdrak
68 ( +1 | -1 )
I didn't play them personally, but I saw them at various local tournaments here in Israel, where their "baby" participated. They played skittle games between themselves and with other players, and I deduced their game level from observing the games. By the way, I was one of the first people to ever play Junior - I did it before it was even named "Junior". The program's original name was "Ban" (I guess Bushinsky was too humble to add his own name).
I believe that while creating Junior they have consulted a few Israeli GMs (one of them is Yona Kosashvili, rated 2560), but most of the work they did themselves. Yes, it is a truly outstanding achievement of programming.