PDA

View Full Version : Kramnik - Deep Fritz



Kevin Bonham
12-06-2006, 04:28 PM
From TWIC:


Vladimir Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz Match Announced

Vladimir Kramnik will play the ChessBase computer program Deep Fritz in a 6 game match 25th November - 5th December 2006 in the German’s Art and Exhibition Hall in Bonne. Kramnik stands to win a prize of $1 Million US for a win in the match doubling his starting fee.

Asked how he estimates his chances, Kramnik reacted cautiously: "Fritz examines millions of moves per second. It is extraordinarily difficult to play against such a calculating monster. Right from the start you are walking on a very narrow ridge, and you know that any inattentiveness will be your downfall. It is a scientific experiment and I will have to fight very hard for my chance."

The WCC is being organized by Universal Event Promotion (UEP), in cooperation with the Art and Exhibition Hall.

Schedule: Game 1: Saturday 25.11.2006 16h Game 2: Monday 27.11.2006 16h Game 3: Wednesday 29.11.2006 16h Game 4: Friday 01.12.2006 16h Game 5: Sunday 03.12.2006 16h Game 6: Tuesday 05.12.2006 16h

I am surprised that this match has been arranged when there is a significant risk that Kramnik will no longer be any kind of world champion by then.

There have been a lot of matches vs Fritz now, how about a world champion strength player vs Shredder, Rybka or Hydra?

Arrogant-One
12-06-2006, 04:31 PM
From TWIC:



I am surprised that this match has been arranged when there is a significant risk that Kramnik will no longer be any kind of world champion by then.

There have been a lot of matches vs Fritz now, how about a world champion strength player vs Shredder, Rybka or Hydra?

I would like to see a super GM tournament where several GM's compete in a round robin which includes Fritz.

But I agree with you as well in confirming that there is a remote chance that Topolov will defeat Kramnik, and thus he will no longer be world champion.

Dozy
12-06-2006, 04:58 PM
Computers have improved a bit over the past three decades.

I remember somebody (I think it was Kevin Jones who was directing the tournament) entered one of the early computers in the tourney as a joke.

Everybody except one person whupped it well and truly but one guy, Morris Needleman if I recall, blundered and looked like losing so he pulled off a swindle that the poor old computer simply couldn't handle.

Final result: Humans 5 Computer 0.

Garvinator
12-06-2006, 08:29 PM
Anyone for 6 zip Kramnik ;)

paulb
13-06-2006, 01:54 AM
I think Fritz will win but it will be close-ish (4-2). Great to see Kramnik's back in form. The Topalov match should be a ripper

Garvinator
11-08-2006, 01:40 AM
From TWIC:



I am surprised that this match has been arranged when there is a significant risk that Kramnik will no longer be any kind of world champion by then.

There have been a lot of matches vs Fritz now, how about a world champion strength player vs Shredder, Rybka or Hydra?
Adams played Hydra about a year ago and got drubbed 5.5-0.5.

There were quite a few comments though from sources saying that while Hydra was tuned specifically to Adams playing style, opening etc, Adams wasnt allowed to see anything about Hydra. So he couldnt prepare specifically for the program.

Not sure if this is true, but it does make you think.

pax
11-08-2006, 01:49 PM
It's a tough call to know exactly what sort of conditions make for a fair match between humans and computers.

I don't think it's fair if the computer has a team of GMs programming a precise opening repertoire to combat a particular player. I don't think it is fair that a computer can be optimised by making use of every single game the human has played. On the other hand, I don't think it's fair if the human has access to the engine (including opening book) for a length of time in order to look for weaknesses in opening repertoire.

I reckon just about the only way to get a fair match is if the computer doesn't know who it is going to play. The best way is if the computer plays in a tournament setting (e.g Scheveningen comps vs humans), but with no opening or style changes permitted between matches.

Topalov, Kramnik, Leko and Aronian vs Hydra, Rybka, Shredder and Junior anyone?

Igor_Goldenberg
11-08-2006, 08:33 PM
Topalov, Kramnik, Leko and Aronian vs Hydra, Rybka, Shredder and Junior anyone?

Anand?

pax
11-08-2006, 09:18 PM
Anand?
Yeah, him too.

To be honest, he's been under the radar a bit since his terrible Olympiad.

MichaelBaron
12-08-2006, 12:41 AM
I feel it is becoming increasingly difficult for humans to hold the ground against the sylicon monsters. My money is on Fritz:hmm:

Garvinator
12-08-2006, 03:51 PM
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3282

Garvinator
12-08-2006, 08:33 PM
Interesting, been looking through the regs for this match, some are quite interesting and unusual:


Rules:

DATES
Six games will be played on the days 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 where day 1 is 25 day of November 2006. The games commence at 3.00 pm and end at 9.00 pm at which time Mr Kramnik will have the right either to continue with the game or to adjourn it to the next day.

TIME CONTROL
In each game the Players shall each have to make 40 moves in two hours followed by 16 moves per hour thereafter provided that in the event that a game has not been completed within six hours it may be adjourned to the following day at Mr Kramniks discretion when play will continue at the rate of 16 moves per hour for a further six hours.

Mr. Kramnik shall have the right to adjourn any game after 56 moves even if six hours of play have not been completed. Should this right be exercised, play shall continue on the following rest day at the rate of 16 moves per hour.

THE WINNER
The winner of the match will be the first Player to score more than 3 points. It is intended to award the winner the World Chess Challenge Trophy.

In the event that the match is decided before the six games set out in paragraph “Dates” have been played, Mr Kramnik will continue to play until the conclusion of the sixth game or offer his services in any way agreeable to both Parties.
ARBITER AND MATCH DIRECTOR
The match will be ruled and officiated by one arbiter. His decision regarding any interpretation of any of the rules of chess pertaining to this match shall be final and binding. The arbiter shall be selected by UEP and UEP shall inform Mr. Kramnik and Chessbase (CB) about the name of the arbiter as soon as possible but in no event later than 1 October 2006. UEP informs about its intention to contract Mr. Albert Vasse (Netherlands) being the arbiter of the WCC.

UEP shall have the right to announce a WCC Match Director who will be responsible for all necessary communication and administration during the match (with the Players, the Arbiter, the sponsors, the press, the local organisation at venue and other parties involved). For the avoidance of doubt: The Match Director has no influence or responsibility on the Arbiter’s decisions and shall have no influence regarding any interpretation of any rules of chess and any rules of the WCC which is solely a responsibility of the Arbiter.

THE COMPUTER OPERATOR
The CB Team will designate an Operator and up to two Reserve Operators. The Operator is the only person who may interact with Deep Fritz during the game. The Operator may not interact with Deep Fritz while Mr. Kramnik’s clock is running. The Operator may adjust the clock times used by Deep Fritz only within 15 seconds of Deep Fritz’s clock being activated.

During the game, the Operator may be replaced by a Reserve Operator should the Operator be unable to perform for any extended period of time. Any replacement of Operator must be authorized by one of the Arbiters.

The Operator will take all reasonable measures to insure that their activities do not distract Mr. Kramnik.

OPENING BOOKS
The computer will consult an opening book during the game. During the match, the opening book may not be modified, except that up to 10 ply of additional moves may be added in the opening variation of the game which has most recently been played (not counting adjournment sessions) and the weightings of specific moves may be modified so that the different variations, already present in the opening book, will be preferred by the program. All opening book modifications will be entered by the Arbiters before the game according to the material confidentially provided to them by the Deep Fritz Team. A member of the Deep Fritz Team will be present and if necessary guide the Arbiter through the necessary steps of operation.

At the conclusion of each game the Arbiter will attempt to replicate the opening of the game on a computer which has the opening book and program as delivered to the Kramnik Team and the Arbiter. If they find any discrepancies, the Deep Fritz Team is required to explain these to the satisfaction of the arbiter.

If a violation of this rule is determined by the Arbiter, the penalty may include loss of the game.

As long as Deep Fritz is “in book”, that is playing moves from memory and not calculating variations, Mr. Kramnik sees the display of the Deep Fritz opening book. For the current board position he sees all moves, including all statistics (number of games, ELO performance, score) from grandmaster games and the move weighting of Deep Fritz. To this purpose, Mr. Kramnik uses his own computer screen showing the screen of the Deep Fritz machine with book display activated.

As soon as Deep Fritz starts calculating variations during the game the operator informs the arbiter. The arbiter confirms this on the screen of the playing machine and then shuts down the second screen.

ENDGAME TABLEBASES
The use of a database of endgame positions (“Tablebase”) is permitted only if the tablebase contains positions with a total five total pieces or less, including kings.

When Deep Fritz identifies the board position in a tablebase, it must inform the Arbiter, who will then stop the clocks.

In the presence of the Arbiter, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik that the position has been located in the tablebase.

If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as winning for the side played by Deep Fritz, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. The game will continue, unless Mr. Kramnik chooses to resign.

If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as winning for the side played by Mr. Kramnik, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. The game will continue unless the Deep Fritz Operator chooses to resign.

If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as a draw, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. This will constitute an offer of a draw. The game will continue, unless the offer is accepted prior to the completion of Mr. Kramnik’s next move.

It is recognized that the program will access tablebases in its calculations. The above rules apply only when the position on the board is present in the tablebase.

DRAW OFFERS
Mr. Kramnik may offer a draw at any time, regardless of whose turn it is. The Operator is authorized to accept or decline the draw on behalf of Deep Fritz.

The Operator may offer a draw on behalf of Deep Fritz, however a draw may not be offered unless a previous offer by Mr. Kramnik has been declined.

If Mr. Kramnik feels that the position is clearly drawn, he may notify the Arbiter and the Operator that he is making a claim of “technical draw”. The Arbiter will stop the clock. Mr. Kramnik will then explain his reasoning, and the Operator is obliged to accept the draw unless Deep Fritz can demonstrate that in the previous ten moves progress has been made.

The Arbiter will determine the validity of the claim, and his decision shall be final and binding. Should the uphold the claim, the game will be declared drawn. If he rejects the claim, then the game continues.

During the deliberations regarding a technical draw, the clocks will remain stopped. In the event the Arbiters reject the claim, the penalty will be deduction of the lesser of 5 minutes, or 10% percent of Mr. Kramnik’s remaining time. In the event a second claim of a technical draw is rejected in the same game, a 25% penalty will be assessed.

SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE FAILURE
Software or hardware failure is defined as the inability of the program to deliver a legal chess move to the operator.

In the event of an obvious software or hardware failure, an arbiter will stop the clock and give the Deep Fritz Team 5 minutes to decide whether to resume with the same machine or replace it.

After 5 minutes have elapsed, an arbiter will reactivate the clock.

Before making a move, the Deep Fritz Team will indicate to an arbiter that they are ready to resume play. The arbiter will immediately inform Mr. Kramnik.

After the Deep Fritz team informs an arbiter, any move made by the machine must be accepted as part of the game.

Should the Deep Fritz Team decide that hardware repairs cannot be made, they may substitute a machine which is either configured exactly the same as the designated playing hardware, or may switch to a dual-processor or single processor machine. The Arbiter must approve any hardware modification or substitution, and may carry out tests to determine whether the provisions of this article are being met.

POST-GAME CONFIRMATIONS
After the conclusion of each game, the Deep Fritz Team shall provide a printout of the computer analysis of the game to the Arbiters and the Kramnik Team. This printout includes evaluation, search depth, expected move and thinking time.

After each game, the Arbiters will be provided with an opportunity to compare the opening book used in the game with the opening book used in previous games.

DISCLOSURE OF MATCH ENGINE
By October 1, 2006, Mr. Kramnik and the arbiter will receive the final match version of Deep Fritz. After this date only bug fixes are done on the engine, for example obvious crashes or obvious positional errors. No positional knowledge will be added. Should the engine be modified in any way after 1 October 2006 Chessbase will notify Mr. Kramnik’s team and the Arbiter in writing about this specific change and demonstrate its effect on a test position. In any case Chessbase guarantees that any change after October 1, 2006, will not influence general playing style and tactical strength and confirms that the engine code remains practically unchanged after October 1, 2006.

From 1 October 2006 on, the Deep Fritz team will be ready on the request of the Kramnik team to install the final match version on Mr Kramnik’s trainings machine. The Deep Fritz team shall inform Mr. Kramnik and the organizer (UEP) by no later than 1 October 2006 about the specifications of the hardware which will be used during the WCC. In co-operation with a possible hardware sponsor and CB the organizer (UEP) will make their best endeavours to provide Mr. Kramnik a trainings machine being similar with the machine during the WCC.

At any stage in the match, the Kramnik team may copy the exact playing engine directly from the tournament machine under supervision of the arbiter. The Deep Fritz Team is not required to disclose the exact hash table size for the match. It is understood that hash table size does not influence playing style but rather introduces a small element of non-determinism into the move selection process. The Deep Fritz Team has to notify the Arbiter Committee of the Hash table size so that they can reproduce the programs calculations.

Garvinator
12-08-2006, 11:27 PM
I wonder if anyone wants to change their vote after reading the regs supplied above. The adjournments clause certainly has to even up the odds quite a bit.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-08-2006, 09:43 PM
I wonder if anyone wants to change their vote after reading the regs supplied above. The adjournments clause certainly has to even up the odds quite a bit.

In Kramnik's favour

Davidflude
13-08-2006, 10:01 PM
In my opinion the proper time control is ten moves in sixty days.

Tournament should be say 6 humans playing a scheveningen against six computer programs.

The longer the time control the more computer programs will be at a disadvantage

1) in quiescent positions

2) defending against sound gambits.

ER
14-08-2006, 01:13 AM
Kramnik should have never agreed to play vs Fritz because
a) He is still not at peak physical condition
b) He will be worn out at the end of the match
c) If he plays his best chess, he will have to reveal significant details of his preparation to Topalov.
Of course, it is the financial aspect of this match that has enticed him to play the computer.
However, Veselin will take advantage of all this and he will beat Kramnik by at least two points in the World Championship Match.
Cheers and best wishes to all!

Garvinator
14-08-2006, 01:39 AM
c) If he plays his best chess, he will have to reveal significant details of his preparation to Topalov.However, Veselin will take advantage of all this and he will beat Kramnik by at least two points in the World Championship Match.
Topalov-Kramnik go round before the Fritz match. So Kramnik will be revealing nothing to Topalov during K's match with the machine.

ER
14-08-2006, 02:12 AM
Topalov-Kramnik go round before the Fritz match. So Kramnik will be revealing nothing to Topalov during K's match with the machine.

Thanks ggrayggray, obviously I stuffed up the dates! I should be more careful in the future, before I post replies!
Cheers and best of luck!

pax
14-08-2006, 09:48 AM
In my opinion the proper time control is ten moves in sixty days.

Tournament should be say 6 humans playing a scheveningen against six computer programs.

The longer the time control the more computer programs will be at a disadvantage

1) in quiescent positions

2) defending against sound gambits.

I think it's well known that top correspondence players still whip computers. I think it will be a little while before PC based computers are close to beating correspondence. Besides, it is a bit tricky to prevent cheating.

hitman84
28-08-2006, 08:21 PM
I feel Kramnik is going to win the match and here are my reasons..

1.Kramnik uses Fritz for most of his preperations and analysis(He mentioned it in the interview)

2.Fritz is weak in endings(The Fritz team have mentioned the fact)
This problem can be easily solved by installing a 6-piece endgame table
but a new set of problems may arise due to the trade offs.

3.There are already many better engines available like Rybka and Shredder.
Deep Fritz is certainly not stronger than these revolutionary engines.

Garvinator
15-10-2006, 05:20 PM
Reminder to all that this match is coming up in just over a month from now. All information is in above postings.

Also, can everyone who hasnt voted please vote for the result you think will happen.

Kevin Bonham
20-11-2006, 03:28 PM
*bump*

Game 1: Saturday, November 25
Game 2: Monday, November 27
Game 3: Wednesday, November 29
Game 4: Friday, December 01
Game 5: Sunday, December 03
Game 6: Tuesday, December 05

3pm German time = 1am following day here, I think.

Bill Gletsos
20-11-2006, 11:28 PM
I see where Depp Fritz 10 is publically available on November 29th.

Gattaca
23-11-2006, 02:01 AM
Those match rules are amazing, compared to the huge disadvantage that Kasparov labored under in his matches against computers.

If Kramnik can't win under this set of rules, it's all over for humans as far as a verdict on who is stronger.

Having said that, I am willing to take on anyone wanting to bet on Kramnik at even money. Anyone want to have $100 on the human? I'll back the computer at evens up to $2,000.

(This is not a good bet and I don't recommend anyone accepts my challenge... but it's your money.) :cool:

Gattaca
23-11-2006, 02:08 AM
Q Pawn, I just did the poll and saw that you have Kramnik winning by a very big margin. How about a friendly thousand on it?

By the way, any bets people want to place with me, our stake money can be sent to a neutral third party like Fludy to be paid out to the winner.

Duff McKagan
23-11-2006, 02:46 AM
Hey Gattaca, what odds are you giving for a 3-3 draw?

Ian Rout
23-11-2006, 09:03 AM
It's a tough call to know exactly what sort of conditions make for a fair match between humans and computers.

I don't think it's fair if the computer has a team of GMs programming a precise opening repertoire to combat a particular player. I don't think it is fair that a computer can be optimised by making use of every single game the human has played. On the other hand, I don't think it's fair if the human has access to the engine (including opening book) for a length of time in order to look for weaknesses in opening repertoire.

I reckon just about the only way to get a fair match is if the computer doesn't know who it is going to play. The best way is if the computer plays in a tournament setting (e.g Scheveningen comps vs humans), but with no opening or style changes permitted between matches.

Topalov, Kramnik, Leko and Aronian vs Hydra, Rybka, Shredder and Junior anyone?
I don't know that there is a lot of point in trying to make a human v computer match "fair". It is primarily an exhibition and it would destroy their value to try to make them fair in some sense.

Over the ages rules have evolved as to how chess is played. These didn't have direct applications to computers and as computers took to playing competitively the most liberal possible interpretations applied. A computer pulls openings out of a database - is this equivalent to a human retrieving the same information from their memory (legal) or looking it up in a book (illegal)? A computer analyses 12.Bxe6 and writes each position and its conclusions into its RAM or ROM or hash table or metal bits or whatever - is this eqiavalent to a human remembering positions and analysis (legal) or writing them in a notebook (illegal)? In each case whatever most helps the computer is deemed to be legal.

You can say in the last case that of course it's illegal for a human to use a notebook but it's not the same as a computer retaining its notes internally - but if a human wrote notes on their arm it's still illegal.

On the other hand anywhere where a human has a natural advantage, like pressing the clock, the computer is allowed assistance or compensation to overcome it.

If you wanted to even things up you could allow the human to use books (or even databases), play trial moves on the board and write down analysis. The computer already does the equivalents and so would gain nothing from having the same rights extended to it.

Bu what's the point? The human is then no longer playing chess as humans play it (though they are playing correspondence chess), and the purpose of the match is to be impressed at how well the computer plays, and sees things that even the best humans miss, much as people flocked to see the Turk 150 or so years ago.

ER
23-11-2006, 08:40 PM
I think the match will be another nice advertising venture for Fritz and its products! How come Deep Fritz doesn't play a match against another computer, one of those which usually shread it to pieces?:doh:
Cheers and good luck

Mephistopheles
23-11-2006, 09:02 PM
Ian has it completely nailed down. Take away the opening books and chess libraries and computers suddenly can't beat the strongest human players. A "fair" game would be computer versus human with human playing under correspondence conditions. I'd be putting a lot of money on the (strong) human under those circumstances.

Gattaca
23-11-2006, 09:26 PM
Hey Gattaca, what odds are you giving for a 3-3 draw?

Hi Comrade.

I haven't set up a book or anything! I just want to back the computer at evens if anyone who is tipping Kramnik wants to put their money where their mouth is.

It's easy to come out with an opinion, but if you want to find out who really has confidence in their proffered wisdom, ask them to bet on it ;)

The odds against 3-3 should be reasonable because it's so precise, but it's definitely one of the more likely results. It's like throwing a total of 7 in craps, there are more ways it can occur.

Kevin Bonham
25-11-2006, 06:19 PM
Official site http://www.rag.de/microsite_chess_com/index.html

Hopefully there will be working coverage there.

Kevin Bonham
26-11-2006, 01:02 PM
Game one. A boring and solid draw. Kramnik (white) looked slightly better for much of the game but didn't get any serious edge.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 dxc4 5.Qa4+ Nbd7 6.Qxc4 a6 7.Qd3 c5 8.dxc5 Bxc5 9.Nf3 0-0 10.0-0 Qe7 11.Nc3 b6 12.Ne4 Nxe4 13.Qxe4 Nf6 14.Qh4 Bb7 15.Bg5 Rfd8 16.Bxf6 Qxf6 17.Qxf6 gxf6 18.Rfd1 Kf8 19.Ne1 Bxg2 20.Kxg2 f5 21.Rxd8+ Rxd8 22.Nd3 Bd4 23.Rc1 e5 24.Rc2 Rd5 25.Nb4 Rb5 26.Nxa6 Rxb2 27.Rxb2 Bxb2 28.Nb4 Kg7 29.Nd5 Bd4 30.a4 Bc5 31.h3 f6 32.f3 Kg6 33.e4 h5 34.g4 hxg4 35.hxg4 fxe4 36.fxe4 Kg5 37.Kf3 Kg6 38.Ke2 Kg5 39.Kd3 Bg1 40.Kc4 Bf2 41.Kb5 Kxg4 42.Nxf6+ Kf3 43.Kc6 Bh4 44.Nd7 Kxe4 45.Kxb6 Bf2+ 46.Kc6 Be1 47.Nxe5 ½-½

MichaelBaron
26-11-2006, 02:06 PM
Kramnik was trying to "surivive" till the adjournment.

Unlike previous Man vs. Mashine matches Kramnik got some odds:

1) he can adjourn
2) he can use openings books

Anyway, it is typical for him to play in such a gutless manner.

Kevin Bonham
26-11-2006, 06:22 PM
Event just covered on ABC TV News! Quite a good little snippet.

Garvinator
27-11-2006, 09:48 PM
Game 2 in about two hours I believe.

Deep Fritz white. I am sure quite a few people are thinking that this is when the match really begins.

Yasser Seirawan disagrees: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3508

What do people think will be the first move and opening?

Kevin Bonham
27-11-2006, 11:06 PM
Yasser Seirawan disagrees: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3508

Now that is really interesting.

For those who have not seen it, Seirawan reckons (quite convincingly IMO though what would I know?) that white missed a win by 30.e3 intending Kf3-e2 transferring king to Q side. If so the game only looked dull because Kramnik's play made it so. It's not like Kramnik to fail to win an endgame!

Kevin Bonham
27-11-2006, 11:07 PM
By the way I noticed that when the computer is in "book", Kramnik is allowed to see the screen display.

Gattaca
27-11-2006, 11:49 PM
Yes, Kramnik completely outplayed the computer positionally, but missed the winning plan.

Strong humans would see balanced pawn numbers on each flank and Black with doubled pawns and conclude that the knight is much better, but the computer saw it as about equal. It was a dream position for White to have achieved, a boring technical position where the computer didn't really understand it.

A bad sign for Kramnik that he didn't win, but well played to reach that position. If it gets tactical he'll get destroyed.

Alas, no one took my bet :(

Ian's points were excellent. It's not really comparing apples with apples. Someone once pointed out that human vs machine contests can become foolish if you take the result too seriously. They used the example of a top weightlifter vs a forklift.

For an amusing parallel, look up Takeru Kobayashi on You Tube. He is the world's greatest ever professional eater and a superb athlete in his chosen field. But look what happens when he challenges a Kodiak Grizzly Bear to a sausage eating contest. Ah, hubris....

Garvinator
28-11-2006, 12:02 AM
Game 2 has just kicked off:

Deep Fritz d4

I am not providing running commentary or updates, just telling everyone that the game has started :)

Kevin Bonham
28-11-2006, 12:14 AM
Previous game from current position (after black's 10th)

[Event "FIDE World Cup 13-16"]
[Site "Khanty Mansyisk"]
[Date "2005.11.27"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Van Wely,Loek"]
[Black "Lautier,Joel"]
[Result "1/2"]
[Eco "D10"]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 dxc4 4.e4 b5 5.a4 b4 6.Na2 Nf6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Bxc4 e6
9.Nf3 a5 10.Bg5 Qb6 11.Nc1 h6 12.Bd2 Ba6 13.Qe2 Bxc4 14.Qxc4 Nd7 15.Nb3 c5 16.0-0 Be7
17.Rfc1 cxd4 18.Qb5 Qxb5 19.axb5 a4 20.Nbxd4 0-0 21.Nc6 Bc5 22.Ne1 a3 23.bxa3 Rxa3 24.Nc2 Rxa1
25.Nxa1 Ra8 26.Nb3 Ra2 27.Kf1 Bb6 28.Be1 Ra3 29.Nd2 Rc3 30.Rb1 Rc5 31.Nxb4 Rxb5 32.Nd3 Rxb1
33.Nxb1 Bd4 34.f4 g5 35.g3 gxf4 36.gxf4 Kh7 37.Ke2 Nc5 38.Nxc5 Bxc5 39.Kf3 Kg6 40.Nc3 Nxc3
41.Bxc3 Kf5 42.Bd2 h5 43.h3 Bb6 44.Bc1 Bc5 1/2

There are also two earlier ones.

Gattaca
28-11-2006, 12:25 AM
A big advantage enjoyed by humans is insight. Kramnik can think, "I'm comparatively better at endings... I should try and swap Queens." The computer has no understanding of either its own strengths and weaknesses or those of its opponent. So it will have no fear of a Queen swap even though that plays to its opponent's relative strength.

A big disadvantage for humans is insight! They might realise the position has become tactical and that the machine will trick them somehow and they experience fear. The machine has no insight into its own predicament and doesn't start to play weakly due to loss of confidence if it gets a bad position.

:lol:

Kevin Bonham
28-11-2006, 03:05 AM
:wall:
:wall:
:wall:
:wall:
:wall:
:wall:
:wall:
:wall:
:wall:
:wall:
:wall:

Gattaca
28-11-2006, 03:10 AM
Yes, I agree with Kevin's commentary on the second game. Could have been a Kramnik masterpiece and ends with him allowing mate in one.

Somehow it just sums up the human condition as revealed by these matches.

:doh:

Kevin Bonham
28-11-2006, 03:12 AM
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 b5 4.a4 c6 5.Nc3 b4 6.Na2 Nf6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Bxc4 e6 9.Nf3 a5 10.Bg5 Qb6 11.Nc1 Ba6 12.Qe2 h6 13.Be3 Bxc4 14.Qxc4 Nd7 15.Nb3 Be7 16.Rc1 0-0 17.0-0 Rfc8 18.Qe2 c5 19.Nfd2 Qc6 20.Qh5 Qxa4 21.Nxc5 Nxc5 22.dxc5 Nxe3 23.fxe3 Bxc5 24.Qxf7+ Kh8 25.Qf3 Rf8 26.Qe4 Qd7 27.Nb3 Bb6 28.Rfd1 Qf7 29.Rf1 Qa7 30.Rxf8+ Rxf8 31.Nd4 a4 32.Nxe6 Bxe3+ 33.Kh1 Bxc1 34.Nxf8 Qe3 35.Qh7# 1-0

Kevin Bonham
28-11-2006, 03:28 AM
At least the games so far show that humans can match it with the thing positionally. Kramnik could have won both the games so far. Hopefully even should he lose this match it will not mean an end to similar matches in the future and there will still be chances for humanity to triumph for the next few years at least.

Poor Vladimir. :(

Desmond
28-11-2006, 08:23 AM
The world champion misses mate in 1? Is this a joke?

ER
28-11-2006, 11:02 AM
The world champion misses mate in 1? Is this a joke?

any possible explanation for that apart from just "didn't see it?" ... can it be considered as the worst blunder ever been made in chess of that standard?

Cheers and good luck!

Igor_Goldenberg
28-11-2006, 12:16 PM
any possible explanation for that apart from just "didn't see it?" ... can it be considered as the worst blunder ever been made in chess of that standard?

Cheers and good luck!

There were few remarkable blunders at world championship level, but if memory serves me right, this case topples it. The closest could be checkmate in 2 missed by Chigorin against Steinitz. Chigorin had a superior position and win would allow him to catch Steinitz and have additional games.

The only plausible explanation is that knight get to f8 to capture a rook and it is a bit unusual for knight to support checkmating queen from the back.

I had two cases in my career when my opponent (rated about 2200 and 2000) missed checkmate in one (but, unlike Kramnik, in worst/near lost position).

Igor_Goldenberg
28-11-2006, 12:19 PM
Despite a bad start, I now view Kramnik's chances more favourably as he dominated in first two games. Sort of reminds the start of Kramnik-Topalov match.

Garvinator
28-11-2006, 04:37 PM
An image that should go down in history. Fritz had just offered a draw and then as we know Kramnik blunders into mate in one.

Kevin Bonham
28-11-2006, 05:58 PM
An image that should go down in history. Fritz had just offered a draw and then as we know Kramnik blunders into mate in one.

Had Fritz actually offered a draw or was it just the case that its screen display showed the positionto be drawn?

I like the chessbase pic of the Fritz operator looking shocked at Kramnik's move!

http://www.chessbase.com/news/2006/vkdf/game2-19.jpg

MichaelBaron
28-11-2006, 06:54 PM
ChessBase operatior is a German National Master with a 2275 Fide rating. I am sure he did understand what was going on :).

qpawn
28-11-2006, 07:44 PM
It depends upon what "world championship level " emans. [ my frickin 1 finger typing] But if you were to include the candidates wasn't there a game in which Petrosian left his queen enprise and it was taken resulting in his instant resignation?

And Fischer's blunder ala p0isoned pawn in game 1 against Spassky in 72: that has to be as big a blunder as any at GM level .

It is hard to think of any mate in 1 being missed at GM level. Th eonly instance in tournament play that comes to mind is when Gligoric missed a mate in 1 ; but he had a huge advantage and was looking at the "long term" view so he won 20 moves later anyway.

Kevin Bonham
28-11-2006, 08:59 PM
And Fischer's blunder ala p0isoned pawn in game 1 against Spassky in 72: that has to be as big a blunder as any at GM level .

That's not so clearcut; some analysis has suggested he still had a draw with best play even after that strange mistake.

I think a distinction should be drawn here also between missing a chance to inflict a mate in 1 and walking into mate in 1 (the latter being worse). Can't think of any other cases of a super-GM walking into #1 offhand.


It is hard to think of any mate in 1 being missed at GM level. Th eonly instance in tournament play that comes to mind is when Gligoric missed a mate in 1 ; but he had a huge advantage and was looking at the "long term" view so he won 20 moves later anyway.

Smyslov and Bronstein also both missed chances to deliver #1 (Smyslov chose #3 instead).

Ian Rout
29-11-2006, 08:58 AM
That's not so clearcut; some analysis has suggested he still had a draw with best play even after that strange mistake.
In any event it's not in the same class as simply missing mate in one. Fischer saw that his Bishop was trapped but incorrectly calculated that he could retrieve it or get enough for it, and even then Spassky had to play accurately to win (as Kevin notes there is a body of thought that it was still drawable; one of Speelman's books has a lengthy analysis).

Petrosian - Bronstein was in the Candidates tournament in 1956, some years before Petrosian became World Champion in 1963.

I recall Korchnoi committed a major blunder in one of his WC matches allowing mate in two or three moves, though it was a little tricky to see.

Desmond
29-11-2006, 09:27 AM
Can't think of any other cases of a super-GM walking into #1 offhand.I was very surprised when Darryl Johansen did likewise a few years ago, although he is obviously not a super-GM. The chances of a low-GM missing mate in one must be less than 1 in thousand, for the world champion, I'd say about 1 in a bazillion.

Basil
29-11-2006, 01:14 PM
The chances of a low-GM missing mate in one must be less than 1 in thousand, for the world champion, I'd say about 1 in a bazillion.

... which are roughly the same odds as [mod edit] becoming president of the CAQ.

Kevin Bonham
29-11-2006, 03:00 PM
I was very surprised when Darryl Johansen did likewise a few years ago, although he is obviously not a super-GM.

I thought he had; was that against Russell Dive?

(If so, I have this sudden vision of Darryl putting a curse on Dive to the effect that his loss would be avenged by hordes of underrated Aussie juniors.)

Oepty
29-11-2006, 05:10 PM
I thought he had; was that against Russell Dive?

(If so, I have this sudden vision of Darryl putting a curse on Dive to the effect that his loss would be avenged by hordes of underrated Aussie juniors.)

Yes it was in the last round of the Zonal Fledman won. I think he had just been watching Feldman win his last round game and being in check moved his king to the wrong square. A bit of a distraction. Johansen also blundered by giving his opponent (Dizdarevic or Lojanica I think) a mate in one chance in one of the Uni Opens. His opponent missed it, but still won if I remember correctly.
Scott

Igor_Goldenberg
29-11-2006, 08:11 PM
I was very surprised when Darryl Johansen did likewise a few years ago, although he is obviously not a super-GM. The chances of a low-GM missing mate in one must be less than 1 in thousand, for the world champion, I'd say about 1 in a bazillion.

I'd say they are about equal for any GM. IMHO chances of GM missing checkmate in one grow as his opponents become weaker. I doubt Darryl missed checkmate in one against anyone rated above 2400 (or even 2300).
He also missed checkmate against Elwood club player Natan Grossman twice(!) - once in a simula, and then, few years later, in a tournament.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-11-2006, 08:15 PM
I recall Korchnoi committed a major blunder in one of his WC matches allowing mate in two or three moves, though it was a little tricky to see.

1978 Karpov-Kortchnoi (Bagio).
He actually missed an opportunity to checkmate in 4 in game 5, then walked into checkmate in 3 in game 17.

however, there is a big difference between Kortchnoi'sand Kramnik's blunder. First, Kortchnoi was in time trouble (unlike Kramnik). Second, he missed a combination (simple, but elegant).

Desmond
30-11-2006, 10:19 AM
Chessbase dubbing it "The Blunder of the Century" (http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3512). IMO it is clearly the worst move ever made by a reigning world champion.

Kevin Bonham
30-11-2006, 04:31 PM
I'd love to know just how rare that mating pattern actually is. The scarcity of that mating pattern is being offered as the main excuse but it would be interesting to know (i) how often it happens (ii) how often it is missed.

I'd do a search of the Fritz database (which has search for position options) but I seem to have lost the CD.

Kevin Bonham
30-11-2006, 05:23 PM
Game 3. Another minor Catalan line. Deep Fritz played the new move 11...Bxd5 (in seven previous games ...exd5 had been played) and had a slight advantage for much of the game. When the endgame was starting to look quite dodgy for Kramnik he saved it by giving up rook for bishop and pawn leaving all pawns on one side and no winning chances.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 dxc4 5.Qa4+ Nbd7 6.Qxc4 a6 7.Qc2 c5 8.Nf3 b6 9.Ne5 Nd5 10.Nc3 Bb7 11.Nxd5 Bxd5 12.Bxd5 exd5 13.0-0 Nxe5 14.dxe5 Qc8 15.Rd1 Qe6 16.Qd3 Be7 17.Qxd5 Rd8 18.Qb3 Rxd1+ 19.Qxd1 0-0 20.Qb3 c4 21.Qc3 f6 22.b3 Rc8 23.Bb2 b5 24.Qe3 fxe5 25.bxc4 Rxc4 26.Bxe5 h6 27.Rd1 Rc2 28.Qb3 Qxb3 29.axb3 Rxe2 30.Bd6 Bf6 31.Bc5 a5 32.Bd4 Be7 33.Bc3 a4 34.bxa4 bxa4 35.Rd7 Bf8 36.Rd8 Kf7 37.Ra8 a3 38.Rxf8+ Kxf8 39.Bb4+ Kf7 40.Bxa3 Ra2 41.Bc5 g6 42.h4 Kf6 43.Be3 h5 44.Kg2 1/2-1/2

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2006, 09:32 PM
I'd love to know just how rare that mating pattern actually is. The scarcity of that mating pattern is being offered as the main excuse but it would be interesting to know (i) how often it happens (ii) how often it is missed.

As I thought he might, Tim Krabbe has come up with the goods on this with an excellent report at item 329 of his Open Chess Diary (http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/diary.htm)

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2006, 07:19 AM
I thought this game was quite exciting despite the drawish choice of opening. The computer came up with some very deep positional lines and Kramnik had to really scramble to save it, but was up to the challenge in what was at some stages looking like an almost lost position. Great stuff.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 Nxe4 4. Bd3 d5 5. Nxe5 Nd7 6. Nxd7 Bxd7 7. O-O
Bd6 8. Qh5 Qf6 9. Nc3 Qxd4 10. Nxd5 Bc6 11. Ne3 g6 12. Qh3 Ng5 13. Qg4 Qf4
14. Qxf4 Bxf4 15. Nc4 Ne6 16. Bxf4 Nxf4 17. Rfe1+ Kf8 18. Bf1 Bb5 19. a4
Ba6 20. b4 Bxc4 21. Bxc4 Rd8 22. Re4 Nh5 23. Rae1 Rd7 24. h3 Ng7 25. Re5
Nf5 26. Bb5 c6 27. Bd3 Nd6 28. g4 Kg7 29. f4 Rhd8 30. Kg2 Nc8 31. a5 Rd4
32. R5e4 Kf8 33. Kf3 h6 34. Rxd4 Rxd4 35. Re4 Rd6 36. Ke3 g5 37. Rd4 Ke7
38. c4 Rxd4 39. Kxd4 gxf4 40. Ke4 Kf6 41. Kxf4 Ne7 42. Be4 b6 43. c5 bxc5
44. bxc5 Ng6+ 45. Ke3 Ne7 46. Kd4 Ke6 47. Bf3 f5 48. Bd1 Kf6 49. Bc2 fxg4
50. hxg4 Ke6 51. Bb1 Kf6 52. Be4 Ke6 53. Bh1 Kf6 54. Bf3 Ke6 1/2-1/2

Kevin Bonham
04-12-2006, 01:01 AM
Stem game Geller-Spassky. There is a mystery as according to Kramnik the monitor was turned on 16.c4 but 16.c4 is in the Fritz6 opening book.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 c5 5. e3 d5 6. a3 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 O-O 8. Bb2
Nc6 9. Rc1 Re8 10. Bd3 dxc4 11. Bxc4 e5 12. dxe5 Qxd1+ 13. Rxd1 Nxe5 14. Nxe5
Rxe5 15. Be2 Bd7 16. c4 Re7 17. Bxf6 gxf6 18. Rd6 Kg7 19. Kd2 Bc6 20. Kc3 Re6
21. Rd2 f5 22. Rg1 Rh6 23. h3 Re8 24. Bd3 Kf6 25. Bc2 Rh4 26. Rd6+ Re6 27. Rd2
f4 28. exf4 Rxf4 29. Bxh7 Be4 30. Bxe4 Rexe4 31. Rd7 Rxf2 32. Rgd1 1/2-1/2

Kevin Bonham
04-12-2006, 03:41 AM
Game 5 Kramnik - Deep Fritz

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.e3 0-0 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 c5 8.Bb2 Nc6 9.Rc1 Re8 10.Bd3 dxc4 11.Bxc4 e5 12.dxe5 Qxd1+ 13.Rxd1 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Rxe5 15.Be2 Bd7 16.c4 Re7 17.h4 Ne4 18.h5 Ba4 19.Rd3 b5 20.cxb5 Bxb5 21.Rd1 Bxe2 22.Kxe2 Rb8 23.Ba1 f5 24.Rd5 Rb3 25.Rxf5 Rxa3 26.Rb1 Re8 27.Rf4 Ra2+ 28.Ke1 h6 29.Rg4 g5 30.hxg6 Nxf2 31.Rh4 Rf8 32.Kf1 Nh3+ 33.Ke1 Nf2 34.Kf1 Nh3+ 35.Ke1 Nf2 ˝-˝