Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 05:37:47 05/31/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2004 at 07:20:39, Uri Blass wrote:
>On May 30, 2004 at 23:48:26, Mike Byrne wrote:
>
>>This is semi-follow up to Jorge post regardng Game 6 of the first match between
>>Kasparov and Deep Blue , but not directly so I started a new thread.
>>
>>I witness this game live in Philadelphia with my brother-in-law. If anybody is
>>interested in a program from the match . e-mail me privately. There was
>>laughter after Nh5, it certainly did look like a computer move at the time..
>>
>>Annotations Copyright by Chessbase
>>
>>[Event "Philadelphia m"]
>>[Site "Philadelphia"]
>>[Date "1996.02.17"]
>>[Round "6"]
>>[White "Kasparov, Garry"]
>>[Black "Comp Deep Blue"]
>>[Result "1-0"]
>>[ECO "D30"]
>>[WhiteElo "2795"]
>>[Annotator "Friedel"]
>>[PlyCount "85"]
>>[EventDate "1996.02.??"]
>>[Source "ChessBase"]
>>
>>1. Nf3 {Keene Borik} d5 2. d4 c6 3. c4 e6 4. Nbd2 Nf6 5. e3 c5 {a tempo-losing
>>move to deviate from game four. The Deep Blue team has prepared a line that
>>should open up the position.} 6. b3 Nc6 7. Bb2 cxd4 8. exd4 Be7 9. Rc1 O-O 10.
>>Bd3 Bd7 11. O-O Nh5 $2 {
>>A very strange move which absolutely nobody at the site liked.} 12. Re1 Nf4 13.
>>Bb1 Bd6 14. g3 Ng6 15. Ne5 Rc8 16. Nxd7 Qxd7 17. Nf3 Bb4 18. Re3 Rfd8 19. h4
>>Nge7 20. a3 Ba5 21. b4 Bc7 22. c5 {Four consecutive pawn advances which drive
>>back all the black pieces, which are stumbling over each other on the
>>queenside.} Re8 23. Qd3 g6 24. Re2 Nf5 25. Bc3 h5 26. b5 {Keene calls this
>>"Kasparov's strategy of strangulation" and points out that 26.b5 doesn't just
>>attack the knight but establishes "a giant, crawling mass of white pawns,
>>rather resembling a colossal army of soldier ants on the move."} Nce7 27. Bd2
>>Kg7 28. a4 Ra8 29. a5 a6 30. b6 Bb8 {# Kasparov has shut the black bishop and
>>rook out of play to the end of the game. Black's position is lost.} 31. Bc2 Nc6
>>32. Ba4 Re7 33. Bc3 Ne5 {actually accelerating the end.} 34. dxe5 Qxa4 35. Nd4
>>Nxd4 36. Qxd4 Qd7 {IM Otto Borik that other variations also lose:} (36... Qxd4
>>37. Bxd4 {and Rb2, c6 wins, e.g.} Re8 38. Rb2 Rc8 39. c6 Rxc6 40. Rxc6 bxc6 41.
>>b7 Ra7 42. Bxa7 Bxa7 43. b8=Q Bxb8 44. Rxb8) (36... Qc6 37. Bd2 Rd7 38. Bg5 Kf8
>>39. Bf6 {and now f3, Rg2 and g4 wins.}) 37. Bd2 Re8 38. Bg5 Rc8 39. Bf6+ Kh7
>>40. c6 $1 bxc6 (40... Rxc6 41. Rec2 Rxc2 42. Rxc2 Qe8 43. Qc5 {wins}) 41. Qc5
>>Kh6 42. Rb2 Qb7 43. Rb4 $1 {And the Deep Blue team reseigned for the machine.
>>Why did Black resign? IM Malcolm Pein explained this on the Internet: "Black
>>has four pieces left plus his king. The rook on a8 and the bishop on b8 cannot
>>move. If the queen on b7 moves it allows b7, winning a rook. If the rook on
>>c8 moves White can play Qxc6, forcing an exchange of queens. After that there
>>are many ways to win, the most prosaic being double on the c file and play Rc8.
>>So we are left with Kh7! The simplest way then is Qe7 Qxe7 Bxe7 threatening b7
>>and if Rc8-e8 then b7 Ra7 Bc5 etc. Note that had Kasparov left his rook on b2
>>Black would have ...Bxe5 gaining a tempo."} (43. Rb4 Qd7 (43... Re8 44. Qxc6
>>Qxc6 45. Rxc6 Kh7 46. b7 Ra7 47. Rbb6 Rg8 48. Rc8 d4 49. Rbc6 g5 (49... d3 50.
>>Rxg8 Kxg8 51. Rc8+ Kh7 52. Rh8#) 50. Rxg8 Kxg8 51. Rc8+ Kh7 52. Rh8+ Kg6 53.
>>Rg8+ Kf5 54. f3 {Threat: Rxg5#} Bxe5 55. Bxe5 {Threat: ditto} Kxe5 56. b8=Q+ {
>>and mate.}) (43... Kh7 44. Qe7 Qxe7 45. Bxe7 Re8 46. b7 Ra7 47. Bc5 Rd8 48.
>>Bxa7 Bxa7 49. Rxc6 Bb8 50. Rc8 {winning}) 44. b7) 1-0
>>
>>[d]2rr2k1/pp1qnppp/2n1p3/3p4/1bPP3P/1P2RNP1/PB3P2/1BRQ2K1 w - - 0 20
>>
>>There was much disussion in the audience about 20.Bxh7! - Yasser indicating
>>that against a human , Kasparov most definitely would have played that move.
>>After the game, Kasparov indicated as such - but he did not play it because he
>>saw no reason to take the chance against Deep Blue. He was confident that he
>>had a "won" game at this point and the was no reason to take unnecceary risks.
>>Hsu also confirmed later that Deep Blue also like Bxh7 as the best move and it
>>saw white with a winning score.
>
>
>I remember that I read that it saw only a draw score for that move.
>I never read that it saw winning score for Bxh7.
>
>Where did you read about the claim that deep blue saw Bxh7 with a winning score.
>
>Uri
I do not remember reading it and I did not claim I read it in my post above. I
was there and I heard it spoken the same day. Dr Hsu spoke after Kasparov. As
I remember, Dr Hsu said Deep Blue thought Bxh7 was the best move with a "plus
score" or "winning score" - I cannot remember exactly which words he used - but
the advantage was with white. Perhaps later analysis showed that it was nothing
more than a draw - I do not know. I do remember the position, and Shredder 8,
the strongest program available for the PC today finds the move within a
reasonable time on my machine with a plus score for white.
6 years later , on ICC , Saturday, October 19, 2002, after game 8 of Kramnik vs
Deep Fritz, there was a short discussion with Dr Hsu about that position.
His recollection is a tad more fuzzy than my recollection but he did not rule
that Bxh7 was perhaps favored by Deep Blue. But as Kasparov indicated, Kasparov
saw that a3 and the his pawn push was going to immobilise balck's pieces and he
had a "won" at that point - so why take the chance with Bxh7 that decidedly less
clear.
==================================================================
Moderator is SJLIM.
Feng-Hsiung Hsu is CrazyBird.
SJLIM(* DM) kibitzes: I think we have only one more tech question for
now..
SJLIM(* DM) kibitzes: I have a question - it's about Game 6 in the
1996 match. Did DB think that 20 Bxh7+ was a draw? And if so, what
does CB think about Berliner's analysis showing that this move would
win?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: game 6? Kasparov was winning all the time. are
u sure that was the game?
SJLIM(* DM) kibitzes: hmmm.. anyone know? =) I guess its the game with
Bxh7 .. game 6?
SJLIM(* DM) kibitzes: guest211(U) tells you: Kasparov played 20. a3
there, but there was a lot of talk about Bxh7 being a tactical win.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: that may be the case, but what is the point?
he was winning already.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i think berliner was referring to a different
game?\
SJLIM(* DM) kibitzes: hmmm.. I guess we'll leave that for future
analysis perhaps. =)
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: there was another game that he could sac on
h7, but elected not to, and was glad he did not when he saw deep
blue's reply in our lab.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22deep+blue%22+game+6+1996+Bxh7%2B&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=edea2717.0210191044.1304c2ce%40posting.google.com&rnum=2
========================================================================
There was also a rather lengthly discussion on ICC during the game which is
recorded as well. There was general consensus not in favor of playing the
Bxh7 move, but there is one very interesting line that proposed by GM Jan Timman
(on another site) that Schroer had access to,
Schroer(IM) kibitzes: So the Jan Timman analysis goes 20.Bxh7+ Kxh7 21.Ng5+ Kg8
\ 22.Qh5 Nf5 23.cxd5 Ncxd4 24.Qh7+! Kf8 25.Rxc8 Rxc8 26.dxe6 fxe6 27.Nxe6+
\ Nxe6 28.Qxf5+ Kxe7 29. Q+ ....
28. ...Kxe7 is a typo so what you have is
{revised Jan timman analysis)
20.Bxh7+ Kxh7 21.Ng5+ Kg8 22.Qh5 Nf5 23.cxd5 Ncxd4 24.Qh7+ Kf8 25.Rxc8 Rxc8
26.dxe6 fxe6 27.Nxe6+ Nxe6 28.Qxf5+ Kg8 29.Rxe6
I would not want to play from the black side here. The strange looking
22....Qe8 might be a better move defensively than 22...Nf5 and perhaps hold the
draw.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22deep+blue%22+game+6+1996+Bxh7%2B&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=etpetersDn08yy.7zJ%40netcom.com&rnum=4
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.