4/22/2021 0 Comments Garry Kasparov Chess Game
Although this is nowadays a common tactic, it was a relatively new idea at the time. 19 Despite this anti-computer tactic, the game was drawn.The first match was played in Philadelphia in 1996 and won by Kasparov.The second was played in New York City in 1997 and won by Deep Blue.
Kasparov stated: While writing the book I did a lot of research analysing the games with modern computers, also soul-searching and I changed my conclusions. I am not writing any love letters to IBM, but my respect for the Deep Blue team went up, and my opinion of my own play, and Deep Blues play, went down. Today you can buy a chess engine for your laptop that will beat Deep Blue quite easily. Go programs were able to defeat only amateur players until 2015, when Google DeepMinds AlphaGo program surprisingly defeated Lee Sedol in the match AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol. While Deep Blue mainly relied on brute computational force to evaluate millions of positions, AlphaGo also relied on neural networks and reinforcement learning. Kasparov played in what could be called a preemptive style blocking all Deep Blues development attempts. The game lasted for 73 moves but eventually Deep Blues operator had to resign the game for the computer in a position where both players had a bishop but Kasparov had three pawns to Deep Blues one. During the game, Kasparov, playing Black, chose a different opening, the Four Knights Game, from the Sicilian Defence he had played in games one and three and came out on top. Employing anti-computer tactics and keeping the focus of the game on long-term planning, Kasparov slowly improved his position throughout the mid-game while Deep Blue wasted time doing very little to improve its position. By the end of the game, Deep Blues pieces were crammed into its queenside corner, with no moves to make aside from shuffling its king. Kasparov had all the time in the world to finish the rout. Kasparovs next move would probably have been 44.Qe7 to exchange the queens. That would have allowed his pawn, which was about to promote, to advance. Kasparov eventually resigned, although post-game analysis indicates that he could have held a draw in the final position. After this game Kasparov accused IBM of cheating, by alleging that a grandmaster (presumably a top rival) had been behind a certain move. The claim was repeated in the documentary Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine. His friends told him so the next morning. They suggested 47.h4 h5, a position after which the black queen can perpetually check White. This is possible as Deep Blue moved 44.Kf1 instead of an alternate move of its king. Regarding the end of game 2 and 44.Kf1 in particular, chess journalist Mig Greengard in the Game Over film states, It turns out, that the position in, here at the end is actually a draw, and that, one of Deep Blues final moves was a terrible error, because Deep Blue has two choices here. And Garry could have threatened a perpetual check, not a win but a perpetual check. A more materialistic machine could have won two pawns with 36.Qb6 Rd8 37.axb5 Rab8 38.Qxa6, but after 38.e4 Black would have acquired strong counterplay. He believed that by playing an esoteric opening, the computer would get out of its opening book and play the opening worse than it would have done using the book. Although this is nowadays a common tactic, it was a relatively new idea at the time. Despite this anti-computer tactic, the game was drawn.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |