if you know

In Kasparov's book, How Life Imitates Chess, he admitted that he made an infantile mistake in the opening phase of Game 6 of the 1997 Rematch with Deep Blue. You already mentioned it: 7. ... h6

In GM Daniel King's book, Kasparov V Deep Blue, he said, "...it is known to be a mistake because of 8 Nxe6."

At move 7, Deep Blue was still working with its database. It is fair to say that DBlue still "knew" the best line to play upto that move, but it was only 37% of the actual game.  I'll read more to determine how far DBlue was still "in book" during the match.

EDIT

Chess...just like the Rubik's Cube...hahahah.  Maybe i should go back to the cube, something i may be able to learn. 

LOL

Kurogkug wins.

I just wish somebody answers my questions, when I have them...

thank you borgqueen.yeah your right borgqueen, if the computer are already master the game of chess its easy to some cheaters to dominate the game and if that will happen in future,well im not gonna play again a chess game in internet againts all the cheaters out there hiding in their characters that is too stilted for verisimilitude.

Anyone remember the character Izzy on Miami Vice?  This sounds like a line he might have come up with.  Sheer poetry! 

hi borgqueen,i forgot to ask your opinion again to the last game of kasparov and deep blue.if you watch again their last game you will notice that kasparov didnt castle his king because he got blunder right?.so my opinion about this is i think that kasparov is weak if he cannot castle he's king or i think that the engineer and some grandmasters who invented deep blue saw what is the weakness of kasparov and that is when he cannot castle his king.am i right or wrong?.how about your opinion about this borgqueen?.i wait again to your response borgqueen.

I saw the word "verisimilitude" and thought "Wow, kurokug's English is improving," but then I read the rest of the sentence and realized he just found a thesaurus.

In "Deep Blue" by Monty Newborn, Appendix M shows an abridged version of the actual print out of Game 6 of the 1997 Rematch.

It says that DBlue's first 11 moves were from the opening book or the extended opening book, that's 58% of the whole game. So yes, DBlue already knew the best moves for the first 50% of Game 6.

Also in Newborn's "Deep Blue" book, there are discussions that Kasparov intended to move 7 ... h6 hoping that DBlue would sacrifice the knight and get an advantage for black by move 11.

After move 7, a number of grandmaster commentators and authors pointed out that Kasparov had mixed up his openings or underestimated how much was stored in DBlue's databases.

Kasparov may have hoped that DBlue would be out of book by move 11 and be materialistic and move with 11 Qe2 or 11 Re1. Instead the actual move 11 Bf4 was its last book move before it starting using its clock for calculating the next 8 moves.

I can go on with the play-by-play analysis of the suceeding moves, but the point has already been made: Kasparov took a gamble which failed and he paid the price for it.

Was it a weakness of the strongest chess player of the world at that time? If judged against playing with chess engines, yes. But Kasparov showed how much he has learned when he faced Junior AND X3D Fritz and ended the matches with draws in 2003. GMs Kramnik, Adams and Roman dared to immitate his feat but lost to their respective engine opponents. That says a lot about Kasparov.

Sure, the opening books and extended opening books were pre-prepared and honed  by GM Joel Benjamin. Hsu re-programmed the engine from the ground up (based on his own book, "Behind Deep Blue") as well as improved the performance of his own chess move processing chips. All of these contributed to how the best moves were chosen in the 1997 Rematch. So it was the IBM Team's win. DBlue was just a puppet.

EDIT

But there is no way to know that the book moves are "best," they are just the ones those grandmasters happened to prefer. There is a huge difference.

However, it is true that a computer should never make an opening mistake. In fact, computers rarely make true mistakes at all nowadays.

You sounded like you were telling the difference between "telling the truth" and "not lying."

I've been adviced, a couple of times, to play safe, to never underestimate my opponent, even after they blundered, etc.

That would mean no gambling at all, every piece protected, every square defended, in a slow, thoroughly calculated fight for the control of the board.

That's the way computers play. Since they don't have any creativity, the programmers have to provide it with calculation, as deep and precise as possible. That leads to a way of playing the game. And that leads to... a way of playing against computers.

I remember after the match Natalia Pogonina vs. Chess.com, she explained some of her moves by saying that she feared some players might be using engines, and perhaps they would convince the rest that their move was correct. So she played against us as if she was playing against a computer. Taking positional advantages little by little, rather than going for any straightforward attack.

Talking about computers...

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/fun-with-chess/computers-dont-have-solution

Yeah. Good luck bringing your every game against chess engines to exploit their "calculation horizon" issue! GMs Kramnik, Adams and Roman D surely tried.

Just and FYI: GM Juhn Nunn condemns the contest of GMs VS chess engines ever since Adams stumbled against Hydra. He does not see any point for any self-respecting GM to humiliate himself/herself against the juggernaught that the chess engines have become nowadays.

LOL

Edit: The "calculation horizon" comment was on the other thread, not here. I just posted the link to that thread because it's about a similar subject...

I think if a GM is ever going to try playing against a computer, they should play a certain way (style, if you wish), or lose hopelessly. Not that they will surely win if they play that style, but they will have a chance.

hi borgqueen,im not againts kasparov okay?.the truth is and i said before that i will vote for kasparov rather than bobby fisher okay?.and i know that is hard to beat the computers okay?.i just want to know for you if you agree to my opinion that if kasparov didnt castle his king he will be weak in playing chess againts his opponent not just deep blue but to all his opponent?.just tell me yes or no if you agree.i wait again to your response borgqueen.and by the way i give credit to kasparov because he played with deep blue.

No.

It is a case-to-case scenario. One would be a fool to lose a strong attacking initiative or an important tactical opportunity just to castle for the sake of castling.

True.

I think kurogkug is asking wether Kasparov has a weakness, and if that weakness reveals itself when he can't castle.

I wouldn't think Kasparov has any weakness.

BTW, here's an interesting short interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2KKfOGaR_w