Kasparov vs Deep Junior ends in 3-3 draw (Man vs. Machine Chess)

www.chessbase.com ^ | Feb 07, 2003 | Staff

[texas booster]

The final game of the epic Man vs Machine match between Garry Kasparov and Deep Junior ended today in a 3-3 tie. With millions of TV viewers watching Kasparov came out fighting, but with the black pieces he was unable to gain enough to secure a clear win. A full report and pictures will follow.

Here's the game.

Game 6

(Link not available yet.)

[texas booster]

Kasparov had a winning position but decided to offer a draw. He stated in his press conference that he did not want to risk a foolish blunder and lose to the machine.

[canuck_conservative]

Didn't Kasparov completely lose his cool a few years back while playing a computer?

[texas booster]

Minimum age requirement for Kosteniuk vs Karjakin The Dannemann match between Alexandra Kosteniuk (18) and Sergey Karjakin (13) is taking place against the spectacular backdrop of Lake Ascona. There is live coverage at the sponsor's site, but beware: you have to be at least 21 to enter. Because of the tobacco, of course – what did you think? Some annotators are suggesting there should be an age minimum for what the two are playing. Curious?

Alexandra Kosteniuk (18)
vs Sergey Karjakin (13)
Match at the Centro Dannemann, with live coverage (click "Live Übertragung")

Program
Feb 1 and 2: games start at 12 noon
Feb 3 to 6: start at 14:00 CET

Another chess match between champions features a 13-yr old boy vs. an 18-yr old girl. The match is sponsored by a Brazilian tobacco company. Of course, the chess prodigies playing are not allowed to enter the site because of their age. PC strikes again!

Interesting to note that the founder of Dannemann was born in Munich and became interested in cigars after a smoking ban was lifted in 1848!

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

[egarvue]

Yeah, he lost his cool, when he played IBM's Deep Blue. Deep Blue was specifically designed to defeat Kasparov, had a database of every game the guy ever played, and much of the program was in the hardware itself, not the software program. Between matches, the IBM team would re-program the computer, so Kasparov would never face the same program twice. At least at one point in the Kasparov-Deep Blue match, it is widely suspected in the chess world that the IBM team did not accurately report the machine's move, substituting their own move rather than going with the move the machine chose (which was a blunder move) - i.e., many people feel that IBM cheated. Upon conclusion of the match (Deep Blue won), the machine was immediately dismantled, halting any analysis of how it worked, or even seeing how it would match up against other computer chess programs. Personally, I don't know if IBM did anything wrong or not, but it just doesn't pass the "smell test" with me.

This match is way different - the program is 100% software running on a standard server, and there's no between-match monkeyshines going on with the program code. I have a heck of a lot of respect for Deep Junior's programmers than I have for the original Deep Blue team, these guys are good, and they're giving Kasparov a real test. Personally, I'm hoping Kasparov pulls it out, but you never know.

[kcar]

He had a nice but extremely difficult position. Here is a link:
http://www.pocketfritz.de/x3dflash/english/

Or game available in pgn:
[Event "X3D Man vs. Machine"]
[Site "New York"]
[Date "2003.02.07"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Deep Junior"]
[Black "Garry Kasparov"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B92"]
[BlackElo "2847"]
[Annotator "Frederic"]
[PlyCount "55"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be2 e5 7. Nb3 Be7 8. O-O
O-O 9. Kh1 Bd7 10. Be3 Bc6 11. Bf3 Nbd7 12. a4 b6 13. Qd3 Bb7 14. h3 Rc8 15.
Rad1 h6 16. Rfe1 Qc7 17. g3 Rfd8 18. Kh2 Re8 19. Re2 Qc4 20. Qxc4 Rxc4 21. Nd2
Rc7 22. Bg2 Rec8 23. Nb3 Rxc3 24. bxc3 Bxe4 25. Bc1 Bxg2 26. Kxg2 Rxc3 27. Ba3
Ne8 28. f4 *

[texas booster]

Maybe one of the chess nuts will remember a specific event. I know that he was exhausted after playing Deep Blue in 1997.

After IBM dropped the Deep Blue project, the level of computer chess software has become better, while the level of the hardware on which the software sits has declined. I don't think Kasparov has been tested at that level since, but his behavior shows the effects of playing a brute-force opponent.

The chess playing software is now good enough that even Kasparov cannot make blunders against the computer and expect to win. Therefore, today he played to avoid mistakes, not to win.

Kasparov beating a chess computer is not newsworthy. A computer beating Kasparov still makes the headlines. Would ESPN have broadcast match 6 live if Kasparov was ahead by 2 points, instead of being tied.

[texas booster]

Also, in game 5 Deep Junior played an amazing bishop sacrifice that clearly rattled Kasparov and started chess tongues wagging.

From the Chessbase website:

Game five of the Kasparov-Deep Junior match was the shortest game so far, just 19 moves. It ended in a draw after Junior played an amazing bishop sacrifice on move 10 that led the game to a perpetual check draw. A stunned Kasparov found the best moves to survive the black attack and declined to play a risky attempt to continue the game on move 16. The match is tied 2.5-2.5, setting up a high-stakes battle in Friday's game six.

When Deep Junior played 10...Bxh2+ it smashed Garry Kasparov's kingside and many of our conceptions about computer chess with a single spectacular move. I haven't heard a chess audience make as much noise since the Great Pea Soup Riots of Wijk aan Zee '94.

Check out the review at
Game 5

I think that Kasparov just wanted this match to end and collect his money. If the computer surprised him with a move of this magnitude when Kasparov was playing black in game six, he would not have been able to overcome it and Deep Junior would have won the six game match.

Not an epitah that Kasparov wants.

[kcar]

Thanks. Also appreciate the photos of Susan Polgar. But where was her sister Judith?!!!

http://www.controltheweb.com/polgar/

[BenLurkin]

I say good for him.

Its a rare game that I win against the off the shelf chess program on my off the shelf PC. Chess is the greatest board game, bar none:

[kcar]

They're all much deeper than the Sargon's of the past. You just know they'll squish you like a bug.

BTW, here's the link to current champ Vladimir Kramnik vs Fritz - the best playing commercial software available:
Also a tie:
http://chess.about.com/library/weekly/aa102602a.htm

[RLK]

The chess playing software is now good enough that even Kasparov cannot make blunders against the computer and expect to win.

----------------

Try chesmaster 3000 up.

[SamAdams76]

I don't see the appeal of these "man vs computer" chess matches at all. The computer doesn't think at all. It's simply programmed to make a certain move in any given situation. Besides, the computer doesn't theatrically swipe the pieces off the board when it loses nor does it pump its fist when it wins. Also, it doesn't get all sweaty and irritable when it ponders a difficult move. What fun is that?

[capitan_refugio]

I just got a new computer with XP Home. I cannot fully load my Chessmaster 6000, so I am going to leave it on the Windows 98 computer and go out and buy Chessmaster 9000.

CM 6000 was pretty good. I could usually draw, and occasionally win against some of the "characters" rated below 2200. This seems about right (or maybe they are stroking egos), because when I stopped participating in tournaments, over 20 years ago, I was still able to post "expert" performance ratings (2000-2199 Elo).

[capitan_refugio]

Quiz time: Who was the grandmaster, who swept the pieces from the table, exclaiming, "How can I lose to this idiot?"

[RLK]

I haven't played the game seriously in about 45 years. I got too involved in it and decided to end it. I got chessmaster on impulse. Chessmaster 2000 had a weak endgame. That was corrected with 3000.

[capitan_refugio]

I once owned a "Boris." It was fun, but the company went out of business, I think. Still got it in the garage. When home computers started to get popular, the software greatly improved. Hardly a week goes by, that I don't sit down and try my hand against CM 6000 in a 30 minute game.

Chess keeps the mind alert. It is mental gymnastics.

[texas booster]

I used to enjoy playing chess against my Fairchild in the 70's. It kept me sharp enough to beat most players in my small town. I was never rated but could beat players up to the 1700 range back then.

I tried the Chessmaster series a few years ago and still get trounced on regularly. I've become so bad that playing chess against the computer is like playing War, with the other player having all of the aces.

[Bobalu]

These man vs computer chess matches are sooo stooopid!

They are actually chess master vs "huge group of wanna-be chess masters who wrote a computer program that combines the best of the miserable skills each of them have"

In relative terms the computer gets a million lifetimes to compute each move... the chess master has only a brief instant in comparison.

To be fair either the chess master gets a million years to ponder each move (ridiculous of course) or the computer should get 1/10,000,000 of a second of cpu time to search for the best move.... guess who would win :-)

Actually to be really fair the chess master should work with a team of programmers and help them to create his own chess playing software... it would get just as many machine cycles to work it's oblivious magic as the other "teams" software gets... guess who's software would ALWAYS win :-)

Computer programs don't really play chess... they just let the programmer/s play a better game of chess because the machine can run through everything the programmer knows about chess much faster than the programmer ever could.

It's like some lame comics programming a computer with every joke they could find and then claiming the program was a better stand-up comic than Seinfeld because it can rattle off more jokes and do it much faster and it even knows all of the same jokes that Seinfeld has ever told...
I suppose some people would fall for that too and think that the computer was a better comic :-/

[kcar]

Quiz time: Who was the grandmaster, who swept the pieces from the table, exclaiming, "How can I lose to this idiot?"

Sounds like one of the more ego-inflated, combative GM's, (that narrows the list doesn't it?). My guess would be Aaron Nimzovitch.

[NukeMan]

Alekhine