51 ( +1 | -1 ) Deep Fritz - KramnikGuess Kramniks blunder in game two will go into the history books. After playing a beautiful game this position came up:
and now Kramnik played 34. ..Qe3?? Needless to say that the silicon monster replied 35. Qh7# I don't recall that I've blundered so badly over the board, exept in a blitz game. Kramnik could not explain what happened. But after all... he is human, the opponent is not! :-) cheers magna68
24 ( +1 | -1 ) thats depressingI hate it when these man versus machine matches are decided by a blunder. Hopefully Kramnik will be able to regroup and play the excellent chess we all know he is capable of. Hopefully He will even the score in the next game.
17 ( +1 | -1 ) jstack's commentI agree to some degree. However, the ability to blunder is one of the things that makes us human and not machines. It's one of those advantages the computers have over us still.
50 ( +1 | -1 ) Kramnikhave played two fantastic games against "the silicon monster" even though he blunder in the last one. According to Yasser Seirawan's analyses on: -> chessbase.com Kramnik could have won the first game. So perhaps the programs, is not so superior as we think, or is it Kramnik who play like a program!!!! After all he allready once, has ben accused for it :-))
103 ( +1 | -1 ) computer-human matchesIn the media you often hear how computers will soon be destroying any human player at the chessboard. Often mention is made of the score of the recent matches which ended in draws. They say the computers are getting stronger every year while the strength of grandmasters remains constant. They say that soon no grandmaster will be willing to play a computer. However, this arguement is misleading. If you look at the actual games of the recent computer matches you will find the human player more often than not obtains the advantage or at least an equal game. The problem is under the pressure of match conditions a human player will blunder away the win or draw. I realize blunders are part of chess. As a result, the computer has a good of a chance as the grandmaster to win the match. However, it will be a long time before the computer can blow the grandmaster off the board based on raw playing strength. Consequently, I believe computer human matches will be of interest for many years to come.
44 ( +1 | -1 ) I can't believethis was a true blunder. I distrust these matches wich envolve high comercial interests. In the 2002 match I got the impression that Kramnik was very kind with the computer, endind with a draw very helpfull for the Chessbase enterprise. This mate in one that any 1700 player can see in a few seconds is, maybe, a joke from Kramnik. Let's see, but I think in the next games the champion is gonna crash the machine.
20 ( +1 | -1 ) Man vs. MachineIt is only a matter of time(years, though) before the computer will rule the chessboard.
That is on the other hand not a fact, that should keep us from enjoying the game.
24 ( +1 | -1 ) duchessAnd do you think both Kramnik and Topalov missing a mate-in-3 is a sign that they (poorly) rigged their match earlier this year? Face it -- making mistakes is part of what being human entails.
30 ( +1 | -1 ) Man vs MachineYeah, that is why I would like to see the human race score a match victory. If you examine the games you can see it is possible. Someday it victory will be impossible for the human player. When that day comes I would like to be able to say...yeah but remember so and so. The humans were superior on that day! :)
28 ( +1 | -1 ) perhapsPerhaps this might happen - perhaps the best human to play a computer is not the highest rated human or champion. Someone like Petrosian (at his peak) would be difficult for computers to defeat. On the other hand, maybe all the games would end in boring draws.
41 ( +1 | -1 ) hmmmmmI wonder wich of the chess legends would have the best chance against the computer. Yes Petrosian comes to mind...maybe Capablanca. They used to say capablanca played like a machine. But would their nerves hold up? How about Fischer(during his prime). We need someone with fighting spirit...but it would be better if they also play positional chess.
11 ( +1 | -1 ) I would thinkKarpov at his peak. I'm certainly cheering on Kramnick in this one! hmmm, What is the restroom frequency involved?! :))
20 ( +1 | -1 ) RestroomWhats will be the accusation this time? I doubt pocket fritz would be of much help. Maybe a meeting of grandmasters at the toilet? A consultation with Petrosian and Karpov perhaps?
16 ( +1 | -1 ) I bet...for Kramnik's win... :) or minimum another draw match. Third game: Another Catalan draw, but the chances were, another time, in the human side.
26 ( +1 | -1 ) jstack ...Well ya know Kramnick never did provide a satisfactory answer to my query, Does he have Petrov variations tatooed on his legs?! But aside from that, I have been his supporter anyway. (I figure if he loves the Petroff so, it must be a handcap, eh>? :)
43 ( +1 | -1 ) Tim Krabbe, as always......has insightful commentary in his Open Chess Diary (see -> www.xs4all.nl ). He disputes ChessBase's contention that Kramnik missed the threat because it's rare; instead, he makes the persuasive argument that Kramnik thought differently about the Nf8 because it hadn't moved there explicitly to attack the king. A good read.
78 ( +1 | -1 ) buckleheadSounds reasonable. So does Roshal tho. Add the fact that some players (being one) often just dont see "backward" knight moves as "threats" and that it is such a knight move 'going away' from Kramnick that holds the h7 square for the Queen mate. Also the fact it is an endgame-like position. And I've found mate threats in such positions are often so unexpected that they carry the day, tho usually they are seen as mate threats and some other aspect leads to the crush. Have had many of these scenarios and look for them, tho a bit more complex usually, also :) Had one in my R+P ending with Dunne tho it was only good for a threat leading to the later draw during opposite wing pawn advancements.
15 ( +1 | -1 ) Final Score ... 4 - 2 in favor of the vaccuum cleaner ... }8-( -> www.chessgames.com