|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-03-05 | | Steppenwolf: 1998. The year Romantics finally committed suicide. Werther went mad. Chess went the way of the dodo bird. Bronstein was old and weary, Deep Blue was young and becoming conscious. God was asleep and mankind died in flames. |
|
| Feb-27-06 | | MorphyMatt: What is 7. ♖a3??? |
|
| Mar-23-06 | | Eficko: amazing game. Bronstein has a fantastic imagination. Knows exactly what to do vs comps. Would be good bronstein vs hydra :) |
|
| Mar-23-06 | | goldenbear: I don't know why Bronstein avoids 4.e5. He always plays exd5 and that seems ok but does not lead to any advantage. While e5 is dangerous and double-edged, it is, in my opinion, the only logical move. I have a perfect score with it in tournament play (6-0) and against a perfect score against winboard with it (3-0) from back before I deleted the program (I'm with <Zb2cr> on this one). Anyway, I know more about the 4.e5 line than about anything else in chess and have yet to encounter a refutation, although, I must admit White looks funny after Nc6 Be3 Qb6. However, it is from exactly this position that I am 3-0 against winboard. If you run that program in this position, the computer will delay Nh6 so long that it loses the game. By the way, in all 3 of my wins against Winboard, the program thinks I'm about -2 until, suddenly, the program flips its evaluation. I will post these games if anyone cares to request it. |
|
| Mar-23-06 | | goldenbear: I meant Nc6 d4 Qb6 Be3, of course, where if now Qa5 (the computer considers this) Nd2 leads to White's advantage. As for the Bf5 strategy, its a good one but was upheld by Alekhine for White. But my general point is that oddly enough the 4.e5 line in the Wing Gambit seems to be an excellent line against computers for 2 reasons: 1)it is so sharp that a tiny, seemingly insignificant move order change in the opening can seriously alter the evaluation; 2)in my experience, the way white usually wins in this line is in an endgame with a material deficit at the beginning of the endgame -- this gives the computer many chances to misevaluate obviously lost endgames. |
|
| May-29-06 | | ChessPieceFace: <zb2cr: I can picture the computer blowing its transistors trying to cope with Bronstein! > hahaha, this was my first thought as well. "Does...Not...Compute..." *explosion* |
|
| Mar-23-07 | | mattzap: Bronstein again plays my favourite opening in order to thwart a computer! (he managed with the Chessmaster program in the previous year). A great grandmaster, playing a bold opening... well done. If goldenbear is still around, I would love to discuss with you the Wing Gambit, and your analysis. |
|
| Aug-26-08 | | Atking: Isn't better to keep 4 pieces around the black King by 26.Qd3+? e.g 26...Nd4 (26...Kc8 27.Nd6+) 27.Nc5+ Kc7 28.Na6+ Kb6 29.Bc5+ Ka5 30.Qa3+ Kb5 31.Qb4+ KxNa6 32.Bb7# Then 28...Kd8 29.Ne4!? without board I surely miss something obvious. Therefore it will be funny if white had won this crazy game! |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | newzild: This is a mind-boggling game. I can't believe that Bronstein even managed to draw this. I'd never play like this against a computer, saccing bits all over the place and leaving other bits en-prise everywhere. Bravo!
PS. Like some of the other folks here, I don't have a chess engine. They are impossible to buy in Korea. Like zb2cr, I tried a free version of Crafty downloaded on the 'net, but it was an easy-beat and obviously a weakened version. Any suggestions?
|
|
| Feb-28-09 | | WhiteRook48: why 7 Ra3? |
|
| Mar-25-09 | | WhiteRook48: 7 RA3 LOL!! |
|
| Jul-16-09 | | WhiteRook48: 2 b4 was a dumb gambit |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | YoungEd: Bronstein: "I'm Mister, Blue!" |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | YoungEd: Too bad Bronstein was such a good guy. Otherwise this game could be: "The Devil and the Deep Blue, see!" |
|
Aug-21-09
 | | WannaBe: One must give credit to IBM, to have such a computer at such an early age of 'artificial intelligence'... Either that, or David was drunk off his azz on vodka. |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | Aniara: This pun has to be one of the best ever. |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | TheTamale: Bronstein doesn't try to beat the robot but rather plays not to lose. This time he succeeds, but no matter... In time, robots will crush all humans. |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | mohitm: This game was already totally overboard and brainstorming(Ra3!?!?!? and the mess that follows...). And i think if it would have Bronstein of old, younger and wackier, he would have ripped DB to shreds. |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | Chessmensch: <YoungEd> I trust you are aware that "devil" doesn't mean what you imply it means in that expression. For folks unaware, devil in that sense has this meaning: According to the "International Maritime Dictionary" by René de Kerchove, the devil is 1. The seam in a wooden deck which bounds the waterway. It is so-called from its difficulty of access in calking. 2. A seam in the planking of a wooden ship on or below the waterline. Thus, between the devil and the deep blue sea (i.e., between a rock and a hard place). |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | lzromeu: Another pun: Deep Bron vs Deep Blue |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | Chessmensch: Acknowledging the level of the players, the moves through 10 remind me of the games we used to play as kids at summer camp. |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | chessenthus: WhiteRook48: 2 b4 was a dumb gambit
Mr Whiterook48, b4 is not at all a dumb gambit.i urge u to plz see some games featuring 2.b4.even i have played it and won also with it. |
|
Aug-21-09
 | | eternaloptimist: <newzild: This is a mind-boggling game. I can't believe that Bronstein even managed to draw this. I'd never play like this against a computer, saccing bits all over the place and leaving other bits en-prise everywhere.> <WhiteRook48: 2 b4 was a dumb gambit.> Actually, Bronstein's decision to play the Wing Gambit was not a dumb decision. Sometimes when u sac pawns &/or pieces against a computer it impedes the computer's sense of evaluating the position. This is a case in point of this. Deep Blue made an incorrect numerical evaluation after the sacs. Also, Bronstein's moves were designed to keep Deep Blue's ♔ in the center after 7.♖a3!?; he succeeded in doing that. Shredder 11 didn't give Bronstein's move as an option. It gave 4 moves as options.: 7.c3, Na3?, Bb2 & Ba3. Deep Blue won the rematch against Kasparov in '97 (3.5-2.5) so what's so bad about getting a draw against it? Although, Kasparov probably would have drawn the rematch against it if he wouldn't have blundered in the 4th game while playing the black side of a Caro-Kann; consequently, he lost the match because of it. Since some people think that Bronstein's decision to play the Wing Gambit was a bad 1, I decided to have Shredder 11 (latest version of it) play out this game starting @ Bronstein's exchange sac on move 7. White won in 57 moves! Here is the game & the numerical evaluations, albeit they are incorrect. I'm willing to bet that this is why Bronstein decided to play it. He figured that the computer would evaluate the position incorrectly. This game w/ Shredder shows that even a modern chess engine can (& did) evaluate the position incorrectly. It would be interesting to see Rybka 3's treatment against 7.♖a3!?. Verdict of 7.♖a3!?.: It wins against some chess engines/computers, but not against others. [Event "Shootout (Shredder11, 20'/40+60'/20+30'"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "Shredder 11"]
[Result "1-0"]
[PlyCount "113"]
1. e4 c5 2. b4 cxb4 3. a3 d5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. Nf3 e5 6. axb4 Bxb4 7. Ra3 Bxa3 -1.76/14 19 8. Bxa3 -1.76/16 31 Nc6 -1.76/16 34 9. Nc3 -1.75/16 50 Qa5 -1.75/16 29 10. Qc1 -1.75/15 68 Nge7 -1.63/16 53 11. Bb5 -1.87/15 67 f6 -1.87/15 29 12. Ne4 -1.87/14 64 Bg4 (a6) -1.72/15 55 13. Nd6+ -1.72/15 28 Kf8 -1.69/16 102 14. Qb2 -1.69/16 25 Bxf3 -1.64/16 51 15. gxf3 -1.64/17 29 Rd8 -1.64/17 56 16. Bxc6 -1.64/16 30 bxc6 -1.64/17 57 17. Qb3 -1.64/18 31 Qd5 -1.64/18 55 18. Qxd5 -1.64/18 62 Nxd5 -1.53/20 25 19. Nb7+ -1.89/16 24 Kf7 -1.91/17 49 20. Nxd8+ -1.78/19 32 Rxd8 -1.78/19 51 21. d3 -1.86/19 53 c5 -1.86/19 23 22. Kd2 -1.86/18 58 c4 -1.89/18 33 23. dxc4 -1.89/18 28 Nf4+ -1.89/17 48 24. Kc3 -1.89/16 69 Ne2+ -1.70/16 44 25. Kb4 -1.80/17 12 Nd4 -1.80/17 22 26. c3 -1.80/16 52 Nxf3 -1.79/17 23 27. Kb5 (c5) -1.67/16 65 a6+ -1.67/16 31 28. Ka5 -1.44/17 18 Nd2 -1.44/17 33 29. c5 -1.31/17 37 Rc8 (Nc4+) -1.43/17 21 30. Kb6 -1.43/17 56 Rb8+ -0.83/16 23 31. Kc7 -0.68/18 10 Rb5 -0.68/18 39 32. Ra1 -0.68/17 44 Nc4 (Nb3) -0.30/16 55 33. Bb4 -0.07/18 14 a5 0.00/19 18 34. Kc6 0.00/19 32 Rb8 0.00/18 27 35. Bxa5 0.00/17 28 Nxa5+ 0.35/15 29 36. Rxa5 0.35/18 2 Ke6 0.53/18 25 37. Ra6 0.53/18 37 Rb3 1.30/15 18 38. Kc7+ 1.78/16 5 Ke7 1.78/16 18 39. c6 2.19/16 12 Rxc3 2.19/16 1 40. Kc8 2.32/17 3 Rc2 2.32/16 1 41. Ra7+ 2.57/20 125 Kd6 (Ke6) 2.67/24 215 42. c7 2.67/24 253 Rxf2 2.67/23 323 43. Ra6+ 2.85/23 325 Ke7 2.85/24 221 44. Kb7 2.85/24 307 Rc2 (Rb2+) 2.85/24 75 45. Rc6 3.07/24 166 Rb2+ 3.07/25 200 46. Ka6 3.10/26 141 Ra2+ 3.10/26 144 47. Kb5 3.10/26 288 Ra8 3.30/24 157 48. c8=Q 3.30/26 96 Rxc8 3.38/24 325 49. Rxc8 3.38/23 287 f5 (Ke6) 4.03/23 573 50. Kc5 4.02/23 119 Kf6 (Ke6) 3.96/23 251 51. h4 4.71/23 298 g6 5.46/23 319 52. Rc6+ 5.89/22 102 Ke7 6.04/25 225 53. Ra6 6.13/25 223 e4 6.38/23 115 54. Kd4 6.38/24 128 Kd7 6.38/24 66 55. Ke5 6.42/24 116 e3 6.42/24 46 56. Ra3 6.63/24 152 e2 6.63/26 35 57. Re3 6.63/25 165 1-0 |
|
Aug-21-09
| | eternaloptimist: <chessenthus: <WhiteRook48: 2 b4 was a dumb gambit> Mr Whiterook48, b4 is not at all a dumb gambit.i urge u to plz see some games featuring 2.b4.even i have played it and won also with it.> I agree completely. Apparently, he's not familiar w/ the fact that sacs sometimes impede the ability of a computer to correctly evaluate the position. Also, this gambit can lead to complex positions & makes it easy for black (or white) to miscalculate something sometimes. The Wing Gambit can be double-edged sometimes, but it's definitely not a dumb decision to play it if u are familiar w/ it. Also, it's great for otb play because chances are that your opponent won't be familiar w/ it, & he/she will only have so much time on his/her clock to use. Btw, in my previous comment I commented that "Shredder 11 didn't give Bronstein's move as an option. It gave 4 moves as options.: 7.c3, Na3?, Bb2 & Ba3". I'm referring to its opening book. Also, the pun for this game is great. |
|
| Aug-21-09 | | AnalyzeThis: <What is 7. Ra3???> Bronstein know that the bishop was going to be more important than the rook for the next 20 moves. Of course, if the computer were to survive this period, Bronstein loses. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 