this was so arrogant of kasparov, saying that the computer "blundered" a perpetual check, so therefore the computer didnt really win. he made the exact same mistake! he blundered a perpetual check! he didnt see it! he resigned!! how does he have more right to blunder than deep blue? If kasparov missed the perpetual, it means it was beyond his skill as a chess player, therefore deep blue was better. is that so hard for him to understand? my respects to him, but here he was a sore loser...
If he didn't hate so much to lose and if he didn't have this extraordinary will to win, he wouldn't be the best. His will to win is an essential quality of his genius.
ok so they did not want him to be the greatest chest player in the world so they sent a computer out instead of giving him his bragging rights. f u woorld llol
Here, Kasparov shows his true colors. It must be remembered that up to this point, Kasparov hadn't lost a match in about 10 years against anyone, man or machine (match, as opposed to a game). When he finally loses a match he shows his poor sportsmanship. He whines here that the computer didn't beat him; he resigned a drawn game. Well, that makes you an idiot, Kasparov. You should've known better. Kasp would repeat this behavior in individual losses here and there. A poor sport, and bad for chess
Reading all these comments, All I want to say is you guys are awesome and smart f**kers.. Carry on. I dont play chess. Just wanted to see this video for some random reason tonight.
It is incredible how Garry argues openly in front of the press that this game would have been a draw. He sure knows no matter what black is going to do... this is a lost position for Garry.
Good analysis, keepaopenmind. Indeed, if Deep Blue "blundered", why did it won ? Indeed Garry Kasparov talks and acts like a politician. Actually, Garry Kasparov did become a politician a few years later ;)
@JWJSSIF It depends, but at such a level, if you make a blunder, your opponent is likely to take advantage of it. Sometimes the hardest part in playing chess is *not* to make a blunder.
@alexteclo Uuh...a blunder for their level is different from normal people. There is always a blunder, and often, even in the highest level games, there are several.
deep blue did make a blunder at the end, but kasparov was so confused after it didnt take that pawn that he couldnt concentrate any longer. The position at the end was a draw indeed, but i doubt he saw that coming, at least while on the chessboard he did not even notice the huge mistake by deep blue.
Garry is all EGO of course. Incredible chess player but i dont think he gets along easy with people. He must be a very complexed person. I like Karpov more, he's more down to earth.
GK resigns in a very difficult position. Then he says DB "blundered" by allowing a perpetual check. Well, show me the perpetual check first. kingcrusher, in the first video response, does a good job exploding that idea. Until then, IBM is innocent.
Kasparov would make a formidable politician: intelligent, aggressive, and not hampered by concern for the truth.
It's an old story. Humans should not try to compete against machines.
Just watched the Kasparov vs The Machine and very good it is, too.
And it is interesting that the programmers would not give him the analysis as he'd asked and why the computer acted so mechanically in the first and genius-human in the 2nd.
wait a second. if kasparov thought that the second game was not played by a computer but by a human while kasparov was the best in the universe, then how did he lose?
the worlds best machine plus a GM is more than enough for the best chess player in the world. the machine plays mathematical, when the GM sees a better move he plays that. theres no way Gary could compete with that. i WISH that Bobby Fischer could play this DB and the GM behind it. i wonder what he would do to it.
they destroyed deep blue in fear that it will evolve into the terminator and take over the world. nah i kid. they knew that Kasparov would win in the long run if they kept on playing.
@aixelsyd82 HE IS NOT a douche u r one.He resigned because there was a perpetual check tha could last for 1000moves or infinite. So if you dont know wat i mean by 'perpetual check' then dont ask me he did the right thing
Kasparov was victim of a farce of giant of computing like IBM, that couldn't let lose Deep Blue... The last game of the match was an absolutely farce ... Deep Blue made human moves and IBM didn't allow examine the output logs of the machine after the game and never before.
@Danthemanlyman7 They have no style and no personality, well, that is kinda true. But they are not designed to have style or personality. They are designed to be efficient at trying millions of possibilities at a very high speed and finding out the one which gives the best result.
Actually, just a couple hours later there were rumors that fans with even weak computers at that time, had found that the game was effectively a drawn position. Kasparov's assistants, while walking to the hotel with him, told him about it before he could hear it in the news. Why Deep Blue kept going into that variation knowing that it was drawn? Because it couldn't find anything better at that moment !!
In the past our teachers were always the grandmasters and worldchampions, nowadays our teachers are the computers. They play , solve and compose . So have a look at youtube.com :
In the past our teachers were always the grandmasters and worldchampions, nowadays our teachers are the computers. They play , solve and compose . So have a look at youtube.com :
It's a funny thing just to show how much this match had an affect on his psychology that instead of blaming himself for not seeing the draw, he acts like the game should not count. I mean not even a second category player would think like that. I think Garry just underestimated a machine with playing strength only around 2800. A joke for today's computer chess standards. But he is the best player in history!
@theoak111 Kasparov was NOT acting like game 2 shouldn't count because he missed a draw. The fact that he missed the draw pertains to the accusations that the computer had human assistance. Weaker computers than Deep Blue would never have blundered into a perpetual check. This leads one to believe that Deep Blue didn't make a number of moves in game 2. The way the computer played in game 2 was drastically different than game one. I don't think a soul over 2500 doesn't believe that IBM cheated.
@Justs99171 I can actually offer an explanation (my hypothesis) on what might have happened and the computer didn't actually "see" the move 45 ... Qe3! and so Deeper Blue played 45. Ra6. If you see the characteristics of the machine, you would probably realize that it was a "brute force" alpha beta pruning code, with no sophisticated heuristics that run in a monster hardware. This had the effect that it could go only as far as searching 6-8 moves (12-16 plies), but do this search with less ...
@Justs99171 probability of missing a good move in those 12-16 plies (unlike newer more sophisticated software). I can assure you, that if you run a modern top chess program and restrict it to this ply horizon they will not "see" this move unless they value king safety a lot and do a deeper search for these lines. In other words, it has to do with the code itself. FUNNY FACT, although 45 ... Qe3!! is definitely best choice of white after 45 Ra6, it doesn't lead to a dead drown position!
@Justs99171 Actually it leads after a couple of forced lines, to a complicated position with game for both sides!! Of course, computer would be much better if it played 45 Qd7+! in the first place. But the fact it missed the reply after 45 Ra6 is something that doesn't stun me ... I have seen way worse bugs in much newer software. It all has to do with code ;)
@Justs99171 Another funny fact that I just found in youtube!!! There is actually a good tutorial by kingscrusher with the name "Exploding the myth of draw after Qe3!" I was aware of the analysis of this move but I just saw the video and it is very good one actually! This doesn't change the fact that 45 Qd7+ is actually a better move, but as I said already, it makes the whole perpetual check argument invalid.
off course brothers, you talk about he just got beaten by computer etc.... boby fischer is th no 1 shit etc...... you westerners are really funny people, you just can not stand the fact that Kasparov was the greatest player ever and he was Russian you tossers.
i think kasparov's elo could have been very close to 3000, maybe even a little above, while he was playing against deep blue because of all the ridiculous calculating he had to be doing
i think kasparov's elo could have been very close to 3000, maybe even a little above, while he was playing against deep blue because of all the ridiculous calculating he had to be doing
The Fritz and Junior programs that Gray DREW against were much SMARTER than deep blue, those were run on fast hardwares in 2003, a 1996 technology will always be inferior ... Software advancement leapfrogged at that time yet Gary seemed to struggle more against an OLD hardware and a software developed by an American GM who is not known to be a developer. The game was rigged, Deep Blue is a Hoax...The whole team was a Fraud
Chess was never IBM's thing, it was all a propaganda to trick potential chip buyers that they are the most advanced in the world, they succeeded , IBM's stock market value rose after the match..Come to think of it,Chess programs takes years to improve and develop, that's a fact. Deep Blue was a Chess program,and a poorly-written program will still play like an amateur even if you run them in clusters of 500 computers. GM Benjamin and the rest of the Deep Blue team were a bunch of Fraud douchbags
Only an absolute NOOB would believe that Deep Blue made moves on its own, in the opening I would tend to believe that DB was making those moves but when they were in the games' critical phase it's so obvious that some GM(s) were actually intervening. Douche GM Benjamin defended the team by actually saying "We have created an advanced Machine that can play human-like moves" THAT'S BULLSHIT, today's advanced ChessPrograms still plays like a Computer, yet they are rated WAAAY higher than DBlue
lol yah, as soon as they develop a computer that can calculate every possible move for every piece at any given point of the game.. theyll be truely impossible to beat ;p
@godly04 The way you phrased it, it sounds like you mean calculating every possibility that could stem from one position in one move. I take it though, that you mean calculating every position the game could turn into. This is what they did with checkers, computers now can force a win with one side or a draw with either, I forget which.
Basiclly I'm saying sooner or later.. computers will be able to force an outcome at their leisure, simply because all outcomes have been pre-calculatde.
I think there are approximately one hundred and sixty-nine million, five hundred and eighteen thousand, eight hundred and twenty-nine followed by twenty-one ciphers, ways to play the first ten moves, on both sides. Intelligence require intuitive, contextually-based knowledge of a situation that cannot be pre-programmed because the possible scenarios arising from them are effectively infinite.
I suppose, however.. deepblue did prove that computers can be taught to at least immitate our thinking as good.. if not better than we can.
Kasparov was arguably our best of all time, and couldn't come up with more than a draw vs it.
It's my best guess that computers these days could easilly be taught to be chess masters, in the sense that they would win every game; every time.. no matter whos playing against it.
On the note of computers not being able to recognize patterns, which I think was what you were trying to get at.
I think it would actually be quite easy to program a computer to recognize the appropriate strategy considering the orientation of the pieces on the board.
I mean if a computer is able to do facial recognition, I'm sure the same could be done on a chess board.
@aixelsyd82 I think its fantastic that a man evaluating maybe three positions per second could stand a chance against a computer, evaluating 200 million positions per second. There is something about true intelligence. Because the combination are infinite, I think that with out true artificial intelligence a human will always hold an advantage in the mid and end game sequence.
@MojosGh0st There is no doubt in my mind that IBM cheated, and had some sort of human interference to correct deep blue. The purpose of this seems obvious to me. It certainly makes sense when we consider that IBM wouldn't release deep blues "log" and ended up destroying the computer afterwords . Why not release this information, so that we can further build upon this great programming achievement? With intuitive logic, I smell something fishy here. Of course deep blue couldnt see my logic.
@MojosGh0st Thats something I dont get. I mean even if deep blue had a "human component" That would mean that the human component would have to know chess at the level of Kasparov, which is very unlikely. I mean what could they have done. I just dont see it
@cuevasdecamuy The "rybka" build eh. If it is unbeatable, I guess can still take consolation in the fact that that is all it can do :-) The human component would not have to be a great chess player at all. They would only stand ready to correct deep blue if it were about to make a critical mistake. An end game mistake. I recall the arguments made of the few "out of character" moves that deep blue made. IBM's refusal to show the code or log, and the destruction of deep blue.
@MojosGh0st a computer can't prioritise (at least not initially) any move whereas a human can, but when processing speed goes past the point where this doesn't matter, the computer is unbeatable, the latest rybka build is much better than deep blue. It is to all intents and purposes, unbeatable
I think the weakness of the computers used to be the inability to master positional play, permutations were not enough to "see the game". Even to this very day it still poses the biggest problem for any computer, but with the crazy development of performance they can rely on the calculation eventually making them impossible to beat.
He resigned in game 2, and it appears that the following day some fellow called him on the phone to tell him that from the final position in game 2, he could have forced a draw. It appears Garry himself didn't see it.
@alexteclo My point is that he continues to repeat himself...like it matters. It wont change the result. He has always been a douche,though, and your comments wont change that.
@alexteclo So why then does Garry accuse the designers of Deep Blue of cheating? If someone can force a draw on me in a game of chess, I'm not going to tell them about it unless I want to draw.
@sweet96635 Well Garry was particulary bitter about game two. Garry alledged that in game two, the computer was "helped" by human chess players. In the video he states he could force a draw in game two although he did not. This is because apparently Gary id not see he could force a draw, someone called him on the phone the following day telling him that "From the final position in game two, you could have forced a draw".
Anyway, Garry is very, very bitter about it and doesn't like to lose.
@alexteclo I didn't understand him getting upset about the fact he missed an opportunity to draw without thinking he was just being a sore loser cuz it's his fault for not noticing it. If he alleged Deep Blue was helped by humans, then it makes more sense to me. Garry should've never proposed the rematch against Deep Blue. He shoulda just kept his status of winner from the year before. I don't understand why a winner would propose a rematch anyway unless he was so cocky he wanted to show off.
@Nadrealis IBM didn't cheat, there is no basis for any of that "was not a computer move" bull crap. Computers don't play chess like blitz players the way Kasparov suggests (where they eat material if they see it).
In the midgame, the only thing computers have over humans is the ability to see countless variations in great depth. Using that power combined with the pre-programmed theory, computers are able to make moves that are sometimes considered 'human'. Kasparov is a sore loser.
I am inclined to agree. I believe they can adjust Deep Blue's approach. Like make it more conservative, more aggressive, etc. And once in a while it makes a bad move so no one can accept when it makes a good move.
I still say play out the draw, then argue for cheating after the match. I am not even myself sure what the rules are in these games.
I am not a chessmaster, and certainly not a GM. I doubt anyone here is (or very few at the most). I don't know if anyone here can really determine what move a computer would not make.
@Rabidmonkey73 Basically, the guy playing for the computer saw that the computer would blunder and so didn't play the move the computer had picked (which was a strategic blunder and would lead to a complete collapse of the position.) The reason Kasparov resigned is because the computer had been playing completely materialistically the entire match and all of the sudden had developed deep positional understanding, this was the reason Kasparov resigned in a completely drawn position.
The general argument is that Deep Blue was getting help, most likely from an undercover GM, or team of GM's. Prior to this match Deep Blue had made (by GM standards) some really bad moves. It seems it went from playing master level chess to world champion level chess in mere days.
That shows Kasparov competitive spirit. He believes humans will always find a way to be more superior then a computer progam. Just because the human mind is so intricate and it has room for creativity other then mathamatical probabilities. Im proud that he has the fire in him to take it personally.
actually, Kasparov writes in his book "How Life Imitates Chess" that "the computers must win eventually". Here, I believe, he refers to the fact that chess is (in mathematical terms) a simple, finite problem, and since a permanent solution is possible, sooner or later the computers will present it to us. Current strength of chess engines is very far away from playing perfect (or objective) chess though.
Due to computational limitations, it's impossible to make a computer program which can play "perfectly", but if there was a computer program which could play as such, humans would certainly not be more superior than a computer program.
Yep. Do you know how many steps they can anticipate. I think deep blue could do 12 and then used a heurisitic algorithm, I have no idea about the power of new ones though.
@UPASR , well said, I could not put it better. However, it seems to me, that the cold blooded computers have just learned to calculate and beat humans. Look at Game 6 - Kasparov got decimated! I am all on his and humans' side though. Maybe this will teach us not to hand our technology to the Artificial Intelligence.
Please someone get back to me on this comment: Is it not suspicious that IBM (who created the computer that "beat" (bullshit) Garry Kasparov, did not release ANY, let me make that clear, ANNNNY of the logs from all 6 games to check and see if IBM did in fact have a human component that sought out the bad moves that the computer made (or might have blundered with)? I personally think this series of games was a joke, IBM are practically putting themselves on the spot for speculation on if the game
some or all of the logs where publish in the web, but after some time not when asked. so is the same history: why?? they where only for the glory of wining gary. shame IBM your LAME
@xXxDragunov14xXx Well the problem is, a machine can't be a psychologically attacked. What would he say? "Hey, I don't like the way power cord is attached, I won't play until you change it" The machine doesn't care about that. Peace.
@adhdboy699 kasparov wanted the computer analysis for game 2 the IBM team agreed to give him the analysis but later on changed their mind. They also destroyed the computer so no further investigation could be done.
@Robinpostal2 They did not release the logs at the time true but they did release them later and they are available now though they did admittedly had time to tamper with them. They never destroyed deep blue so i have no idea what where you got that idea.
@adhdboy699 where did I get the idea? If im not wrong they said that in the documentary game over: kasparov and the machine. I'm sure i've heard that and people also said that too. So my question to you is where did you get the idea that they didnt destroy it?
@Robinpostal2 It's not trashed just because it's not in use. It's quite sad to see you realize you were wrong and still try to be right. Gary a man whom i respect very much and a genius chess player made false accusations after a very long stressful match with a computer.
@adhdboy699 So why did they refuse to give him the computer analysis the first time? You are saying that the computer beat kasparov in a fair way, so why tell me why did they not show him the analyse after a few years later when they could have edited it?
It's funny how you think you are right when really none of us know's, I'm just saying what I heard of and what could be the truth.
a machine may have beaten a human in chess but it should never be able to hold the title of world master, hopefully they won't let a computer own that title. EVER!
Chess programs probably don't care about titles. Anyway, if "they" do not give a chess player of master level the title master, then the title becomes meaningless, or at least unrelated to ability. And on top of that, Kasparov's brain is a machine, and it gets titles. So the "world master" of chess has always been a computer; human beings compute too, and if they couldn't they would be terrible at chess.
no the brain receives no title. it's kasparov who receives titles thanks to his brain's work. a title doesn't mean anything to a machine that hasn't an ego to work for, because we give titles to egos, not functional parts of their body. and a computer is a functional part with no ego. so you might say we should give the title to the creator of the machine, but he's not a chess player.
Bobby Fischer did not consider himself Jewish (and sadly was an anti-semite himself), although I believe his mother was Jewish. Just correcting that, either way broccoli's statement was uncalled for.
You've only affirmed what I've said, not corrected it. Regardless of how Fischer felt about Jews or what he considered himself to be, he was in fact Jewish. His mother was Jewish making him Jewish even if he was not observant and in his case hated Jews.
With his conversion to other religions this topic gets really fuzzy, and his jewish status is dependent on your form of Judaism, orthodox would say he was still a jew, however reformed would not. Thanks for the reply.
Obviously, it must have been a VERY complex situation...but after the game was over, a few chess analysts were able to prove that Garry could have FORCED a draw by perpetual check.
Personally, I find it too hard to analyze the games of the grandmasters. They think in ways I am not able yet.
Also, he suspected of human intervention on the machine's moves. He thought they were cheating and couldn't concentrate enough to respond the way he would have done against a human opponent. Search for Kasparov and "Game over" and you'll find the documentary about this match (it's split in 8 parts, I think).
I am the author of a chess program, with an elo of 2600 points, I studied a lot about computer-chess and I can assure you that it is absolutely impossible "to give" personality and creativity of a human to a program. A program can not be Fisher. If you want to see Kasparov against Fisher, get the time machine ... and you'll see Fisher defeated by the young Kasparov of 22 years old.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
deep blue was bobby fischer playing kasparov thats how bobby showed the chess world in secret that hes the best of the best poor kasparov if he only knew that bobby is behind this no wonder he got crushed badly in the last game oh well all hail to bobby
this was so arrogant of kasparov, saying that the computer "blundered" a perpetual check, so therefore the computer didnt really win. he made the exact same mistake! he blundered a perpetual check! he didnt see it! he resigned!! how does he have more right to blunder than deep blue? If kasparov missed the perpetual, it means it was beyond his skill as a chess player, therefore deep blue was better. is that so hard for him to understand? my respects to him, but here he was a sore loser...
chrism216 1 month ago
why does he get so upset?
craik62 1 month ago
Cheer up Homo Sapiens, the top human experts still dominate computer programs in Bridge and Go.
Wanderer359 2 months ago
If he didn't hate so much to lose and if he didn't have this extraordinary will to win, he wouldn't be the best. His will to win is an essential quality of his genius.
nyck26 3 months ago
This game was fixed. Anyone who knows alot about chess/deep blue would know that.
06hurdwp 3 months ago 2
Greatest player ever but bad loser.
sormu16 4 months ago
ok so they did not want him to be the greatest chest player in the world so they sent a computer out instead of giving him his bragging rights. f u woorld llol
MegaTetsujin 4 months ago
Here, Kasparov shows his true colors. It must be remembered that up to this point, Kasparov hadn't lost a match in about 10 years against anyone, man or machine (match, as opposed to a game). When he finally loses a match he shows his poor sportsmanship. He whines here that the computer didn't beat him; he resigned a drawn game. Well, that makes you an idiot, Kasparov. You should've known better. Kasp would repeat this behavior in individual losses here and there. A poor sport, and bad for chess
Raddlesby 5 months ago
Oh my God, what a sore ass loser. It was HIS mistake for not noticing it lol.
sweet96635 5 months ago
cough, sore loser, cough.
PoisonousFish13D 5 months ago
Reading all these comments, All I want to say is you guys are awesome and smart f**kers.. Carry on. I dont play chess. Just wanted to see this video for some random reason tonight.
shamrawker911 6 months ago
Sooooo he was technically saying he rage quit every time the video game gained an upper hand
Phalystrix 6 months ago
@Phalystrix
He started playing as a small kid and I guess he never truly grew out of being a child. His ego keeps him from thinking logically.
Apjooz 6 months ago
It is incredible how Garry argues openly in front of the press that this game would have been a draw. He sure knows no matter what black is going to do... this is a lost position for Garry.
wiitel 7 months ago
Good analysis, keepaopenmind. Indeed, if Deep Blue "blundered", why did it won ? Indeed Garry Kasparov talks and acts like a politician. Actually, Garry Kasparov did become a politician a few years later ;)
alexteclo 8 months ago 11
@alexteclo is it impossible to win if you make a blunder?
JWJSSIF 7 months ago
@JWJSSIF It depends, but at such a level, if you make a blunder, your opponent is likely to take advantage of it. Sometimes the hardest part in playing chess is *not* to make a blunder.
alexteclo 7 months ago 4
@alexteclo Uuh...a blunder for their level is different from normal people. There is always a blunder, and often, even in the highest level games, there are several.
sparkyk24 2 months ago
@alexteclo
deep blue did make a blunder at the end, but kasparov was so confused after it didnt take that pawn that he couldnt concentrate any longer. The position at the end was a draw indeed, but i doubt he saw that coming, at least while on the chessboard he did not even notice the huge mistake by deep blue.
Garry is all EGO of course. Incredible chess player but i dont think he gets along easy with people. He must be a very complexed person. I like Karpov more, he's more down to earth.
glutamin111 2 months ago
@JWJSSIF it depends by your opponent if your opponent is kasparov or a computer player then yes its impossible!!
christoschar1988 7 months ago
@JWJSSIF
Well it suggests a counter-blunder by Kasparov not to have taken advantage of it.
can0mark 6 months ago
@alexteclo An alternate question might be:
how does a computer blunder?
bobbygnosis 6 months ago
@alexteclo Kasparov talks like Kasparov
MrDimakoles 2 months ago
GK resigns in a very difficult position. Then he says DB "blundered" by allowing a perpetual check. Well, show me the perpetual check first. kingcrusher, in the first video response, does a good job exploding that idea. Until then, IBM is innocent.
Kasparov would make a formidable politician: intelligent, aggressive, and not hampered by concern for the truth.
It's an old story. Humans should not try to compete against machines.
keepaopenmind 8 months ago
@keepaopenmind
"Kasparov would make a formidable politician: intelligent, aggressive, and not hampered by concern for the truth."
I don't know if you are serious or not, Kasparov is in politics! :)
Apjooz 8 months ago
@Apjooz Yes. But not successful so far. Right?
keepaopenmind 8 months ago
@keepaopenmind
I don't have any idea about that...
Apjooz 8 months ago
oh sore loser.. stfu
America .. I mean Deep Blue won, Russian whinnier lost..
XPil3s 10 months ago
haha
Soundtrack1000 11 months ago
Someone please let me know what Kasparov said as he walked away from the table. I can't find it anywhere.
wcsxwcsx 11 months ago
Poster boy for sore losers.
ahachie 11 months ago
He could sell me a tub of lard and make me think it's caviar!
Snotra 1 year ago
Kasparov is the best. No doubts.
1945Luftwaffe 1 year ago
kasparov es único.
kaunchis 1 year ago
Just watched the Kasparov vs The Machine and very good it is, too.
And it is interesting that the programmers would not give him the analysis as he'd asked and why the computer acted so mechanically in the first and genius-human in the 2nd.
herbal1971 1 year ago
wait a second. if kasparov thought that the second game was not played by a computer but by a human while kasparov was the best in the universe, then how did he lose?
entaroduai 1 year ago
@entaroduai
the worlds best machine plus a GM is more than enough for the best chess player in the world. the machine plays mathematical, when the GM sees a better move he plays that. theres no way Gary could compete with that. i WISH that Bobby Fischer could play this DB and the GM behind it. i wonder what he would do to it.
Chaldean4life91 1 year ago
they destroyed deep blue in fear that it will evolve into the terminator and take over the world. nah i kid. they knew that Kasparov would win in the long run if they kept on playing.
EcoDimension 1 year ago
@aixelsyd82 HE IS NOT a douche u r one.He resigned because there was a perpetual check tha could last for 1000moves or infinite. So if you dont know wat i mean by 'perpetual check' then dont ask me he did the right thing
applenick12345 1 year ago
I wonder how things would have turned out if Gary had managed to get a draw in game 2?
ace942 1 year ago
Kasparov was victim of a farce of giant of computing like IBM, that couldn't let lose Deep Blue... The last game of the match was an absolutely farce ... Deep Blue made human moves and IBM didn't allow examine the output logs of the machine after the game and never before.
Ray0X0 1 year ago
@Danthemanlyman7 They have no style and no personality, well, that is kinda true. But they are not designed to have style or personality. They are designed to be efficient at trying millions of possibilities at a very high speed and finding out the one which gives the best result.
alexteclo 1 year ago
Actually, just a couple hours later there were rumors that fans with even weak computers at that time, had found that the game was effectively a drawn position. Kasparov's assistants, while walking to the hotel with him, told him about it before he could hear it in the news. Why Deep Blue kept going into that variation knowing that it was drawn? Because it couldn't find anything better at that moment !!
JimmmyNYC 1 year ago
In 1977 Bobby Fischer played 3 games against the MIT Greenblatt computer program.
icelade 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the past our teachers were always the grandmasters and worldchampions, nowadays our teachers are the computers. They play , solve and compose . So have a look at youtube.com :
/watch?v=mwYQRteeHbE
or give in only : NEWEKLOWSKY
Moremover 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the past our teachers were always the grandmasters and worldchampions, nowadays our teachers are the computers. They play , solve and compose . So have a look at youtube.com :
/watch?v=mwYQRteeHbE
Moremover 1 year ago
The funny thing about game 2 was that kasparov didn't know about the drawing line until after the match... He just really hates losing :D
FFassassin71 1 year ago
@FFassassin71 To be fair, he was shellshocked from the bishop move that he felt was a human move. it completely threw him
jameswp266 1 year ago
It's a funny thing just to show how much this match had an affect on his psychology that instead of blaming himself for not seeing the draw, he acts like the game should not count. I mean not even a second category player would think like that. I think Garry just underestimated a machine with playing strength only around 2800. A joke for today's computer chess standards. But he is the best player in history!
theoak111 1 year ago
@theoak111 Kasparov was NOT acting like game 2 shouldn't count because he missed a draw. The fact that he missed the draw pertains to the accusations that the computer had human assistance. Weaker computers than Deep Blue would never have blundered into a perpetual check. This leads one to believe that Deep Blue didn't make a number of moves in game 2. The way the computer played in game 2 was drastically different than game one. I don't think a soul over 2500 doesn't believe that IBM cheated.
Justs99171 7 months ago
@Justs99171 I can actually offer an explanation (my hypothesis) on what might have happened and the computer didn't actually "see" the move 45 ... Qe3! and so Deeper Blue played 45. Ra6. If you see the characteristics of the machine, you would probably realize that it was a "brute force" alpha beta pruning code, with no sophisticated heuristics that run in a monster hardware. This had the effect that it could go only as far as searching 6-8 moves (12-16 plies), but do this search with less ...
theoak111 7 months ago
@theoak111 Beside the point!
Justs99171 7 months ago
@Justs99171 probability of missing a good move in those 12-16 plies (unlike newer more sophisticated software). I can assure you, that if you run a modern top chess program and restrict it to this ply horizon they will not "see" this move unless they value king safety a lot and do a deeper search for these lines. In other words, it has to do with the code itself. FUNNY FACT, although 45 ... Qe3!! is definitely best choice of white after 45 Ra6, it doesn't lead to a dead drown position!
theoak111 7 months ago
@Justs99171 Actually it leads after a couple of forced lines, to a complicated position with game for both sides!! Of course, computer would be much better if it played 45 Qd7+! in the first place. But the fact it missed the reply after 45 Ra6 is something that doesn't stun me ... I have seen way worse bugs in much newer software. It all has to do with code ;)
theoak111 7 months ago
@Justs99171 Another funny fact that I just found in youtube!!! There is actually a good tutorial by kingscrusher with the name "Exploding the myth of draw after Qe3!" I was aware of the analysis of this move but I just saw the video and it is very good one actually! This doesn't change the fact that 45 Qd7+ is actually a better move, but as I said already, it makes the whole perpetual check argument invalid.
theoak111 7 months ago
off course brothers, you talk about he just got beaten by computer etc.... boby fischer is th no 1 shit etc...... you westerners are really funny people, you just can not stand the fact that Kasparov was the greatest player ever and he was Russian you tossers.
storm61 1 year ago
Wow...talk about bitter, just because he got beaten by a computer.
TheStSilver 1 year ago
where can i see those games, not only the conversations
Alexon88 1 year ago
computers will just rip you apart;
fireboltttt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i think kasparov's elo could have been very close to 3000, maybe even a little above, while he was playing against deep blue because of all the ridiculous calculating he had to be doing
Damhiz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i think kasparov's elo could have been very close to 3000, maybe even a little above, while he was playing against deep blue because of all the ridiculous calculating he had to be doing
Damhiz 1 year ago
Comment removed
Damhiz 1 year ago
Cry Baby....... U Beat Anand because of that arrogance. U cant beat a machine. IF U RESIGN IN A DRAWISH POSITION ITS UR FAULT. Its not important.
manimajra1 1 year ago
the computer got to his brain.
Apoic123 1 year ago
Couldn't face a loss....
Szederp 1 year ago
if garry resigned thn y is he losin his temper...its his mistake..aint it??
abhinayan27 1 year ago
The Fritz and Junior programs that Gray DREW against were much SMARTER than deep blue, those were run on fast hardwares in 2003, a 1996 technology will always be inferior ... Software advancement leapfrogged at that time yet Gary seemed to struggle more against an OLD hardware and a software developed by an American GM who is not known to be a developer. The game was rigged, Deep Blue is a Hoax...The whole team was a Fraud
NixxerJixxerWixxer 1 year ago
Chess was never IBM's thing, it was all a propaganda to trick potential chip buyers that they are the most advanced in the world, they succeeded , IBM's stock market value rose after the match..Come to think of it,Chess programs takes years to improve and develop, that's a fact. Deep Blue was a Chess program,and a poorly-written program will still play like an amateur even if you run them in clusters of 500 computers. GM Benjamin and the rest of the Deep Blue team were a bunch of Fraud douchbags
NixxerJixxerWixxer 1 year ago
Only an absolute NOOB would believe that Deep Blue made moves on its own, in the opening I would tend to believe that DB was making those moves but when they were in the games' critical phase it's so obvious that some GM(s) were actually intervening. Douche GM Benjamin defended the team by actually saying "We have created an advanced Machine that can play human-like moves" THAT'S BULLSHIT, today's advanced ChessPrograms still plays like a Computer, yet they are rated WAAAY higher than DBlue
NixxerJixxerWixxer 1 year ago
ken thompson lol
catalinaguerrero 1 year ago
lol yah, as soon as they develop a computer that can calculate every possible move for every piece at any given point of the game.. theyll be truely impossible to beat ;p
godly04 1 year ago
@godly04 The way you phrased it, it sounds like you mean calculating every possibility that could stem from one position in one move. I take it though, that you mean calculating every position the game could turn into. This is what they did with checkers, computers now can force a win with one side or a draw with either, I forget which.
andthatsforthewin 1 year ago
@andthatsforthewin
Yeah that's what I meant.
Basiclly I'm saying sooner or later.. computers will be able to force an outcome at their leisure, simply because all outcomes have been pre-calculatde.
godly04 1 year ago
@godly04 chess isn't that close to being solved, so idk about that
Damhiz 1 year ago
@godly04 I your thinking "ticktacktoe" not chess.
I think there are approximately one hundred and sixty-nine million, five hundred and eighteen thousand, eight hundred and twenty-nine followed by twenty-one ciphers, ways to play the first ten moves, on both sides. Intelligence require intuitive, contextually-based knowledge of a situation that cannot be pre-programmed because the possible scenarios arising from them are effectively infinite.
MojosGh0st 1 year ago
@MojosGh0st
I suppose, however.. deepblue did prove that computers can be taught to at least immitate our thinking as good.. if not better than we can.
Kasparov was arguably our best of all time, and couldn't come up with more than a draw vs it.
It's my best guess that computers these days could easilly be taught to be chess masters, in the sense that they would win every game; every time.. no matter whos playing against it.
godly04 1 year ago
@godly04 Rybka 4 :) has an elo strenght of over 3150
cuevasdecamuy 1 year ago
@MojosGh0st
On the note of computers not being able to recognize patterns, which I think was what you were trying to get at.
I think it would actually be quite easy to program a computer to recognize the appropriate strategy considering the orientation of the pieces on the board.
I mean if a computer is able to do facial recognition, I'm sure the same could be done on a chess board.
godly04 1 year ago
@aixelsyd82 I think its fantastic that a man evaluating maybe three positions per second could stand a chance against a computer, evaluating 200 million positions per second. There is something about true intelligence. Because the combination are infinite, I think that with out true artificial intelligence a human will always hold an advantage in the mid and end game sequence.
MojosGh0st 1 year ago
@MojosGh0st There is no doubt in my mind that IBM cheated, and had some sort of human interference to correct deep blue. The purpose of this seems obvious to me. It certainly makes sense when we consider that IBM wouldn't release deep blues "log" and ended up destroying the computer afterwords . Why not release this information, so that we can further build upon this great programming achievement? With intuitive logic, I smell something fishy here. Of course deep blue couldnt see my logic.
MojosGh0st 1 year ago
@MojosGh0st Thats something I dont get. I mean even if deep blue had a "human component" That would mean that the human component would have to know chess at the level of Kasparov, which is very unlikely. I mean what could they have done. I just dont see it
cuevasdecamuy 1 year ago
@cuevasdecamuy The "rybka" build eh. If it is unbeatable, I guess can still take consolation in the fact that that is all it can do :-) The human component would not have to be a great chess player at all. They would only stand ready to correct deep blue if it were about to make a critical mistake. An end game mistake. I recall the arguments made of the few "out of character" moves that deep blue made. IBM's refusal to show the code or log, and the destruction of deep blue.
MojosGh0st 1 year ago
@MojosGh0st a computer can't prioritise (at least not initially) any move whereas a human can, but when processing speed goes past the point where this doesn't matter, the computer is unbeatable, the latest rybka build is much better than deep blue. It is to all intents and purposes, unbeatable
smurkillerbbc 1 year ago
I think the weakness of the computers used to be the inability to master positional play, permutations were not enough to "see the game". Even to this very day it still poses the biggest problem for any computer, but with the crazy development of performance they can rely on the calculation eventually making them impossible to beat.
AlsatianCousin 1 year ago
He resigned in game 2, and it appears that the following day some fellow called him on the phone to tell him that from the final position in game 2, he could have forced a draw. It appears Garry himself didn't see it.
alexteclo 1 year ago 16
@alexteclo My point is that he continues to repeat himself...like it matters. It wont change the result. He has always been a douche,though, and your comments wont change that.
aixelsyd82 1 year ago
@alexteclo So why then does Garry accuse the designers of Deep Blue of cheating? If someone can force a draw on me in a game of chess, I'm not going to tell them about it unless I want to draw.
sweet96635 5 months ago
@sweet96635 Well Garry was particulary bitter about game two. Garry alledged that in game two, the computer was "helped" by human chess players. In the video he states he could force a draw in game two although he did not. This is because apparently Gary id not see he could force a draw, someone called him on the phone the following day telling him that "From the final position in game two, you could have forced a draw".
Anyway, Garry is very, very bitter about it and doesn't like to lose.
alexteclo 5 months ago
@alexteclo I didn't understand him getting upset about the fact he missed an opportunity to draw without thinking he was just being a sore loser cuz it's his fault for not noticing it. If he alleged Deep Blue was helped by humans, then it makes more sense to me. Garry should've never proposed the rematch against Deep Blue. He shoulda just kept his status of winner from the year before. I don't understand why a winner would propose a rematch anyway unless he was so cocky he wanted to show off.
sweet96635 5 months ago
Apparently, Checkers computers are far more intelligent than Deep Blue.
AceofDlamonds 1 year ago
WHUT A NERD XD
S1lence696 2 years ago
Sore Loser!
whoopiiiiie 2 years ago
Sore loser!
brassmonkeyjew 2 years ago
Follow Kasparov`s hand from 11.0 - 17.0 = sick
lyberg12 2 years ago
???
Rabidmonkey73 1 year ago
it is possible for a computer to make no mistakes, but it will take extremely long to make one move
xxjohnnyxx89 2 years ago 2
Garry Kasparov is the greatest chess player of all time.
BayesianMan 2 years ago 39
@BayesianMan je confirme
MrTedrem 8 months ago
lol! The computer-chess team just sits there and doesn't seem to know how to act.
fatesofgreedom 2 years ago
Fail. If it's a drawing position then don't resign!
moriluk 2 years ago 4
@moriluk The problem was that he resigned in a completely drawn position after a move was made that a computer would NOT make. IBM cheated.
Nadrealis 2 years ago
@Nadrealis IBM didn't cheat, there is no basis for any of that "was not a computer move" bull crap. Computers don't play chess like blitz players the way Kasparov suggests (where they eat material if they see it).
In the midgame, the only thing computers have over humans is the ability to see countless variations in great depth. Using that power combined with the pre-programmed theory, computers are able to make moves that are sometimes considered 'human'. Kasparov is a sore loser.
JackSpee 1 year ago
I am inclined to agree. I believe they can adjust Deep Blue's approach. Like make it more conservative, more aggressive, etc. And once in a while it makes a bad move so no one can accept when it makes a good move.
I still say play out the draw, then argue for cheating after the match. I am not even myself sure what the rules are in these games.
moriluk 1 year ago
I meant I agree with JackSpee.
I am not a chessmaster, and certainly not a GM. I doubt anyone here is (or very few at the most). I don't know if anyone here can really determine what move a computer would not make.
moriluk 1 year ago
why wouldn't the computer make the move? is kasparov saying he couldn't beat a computer that made that move?explain.
Rabidmonkey73 1 year ago
@Rabidmonkey73 Basically, the guy playing for the computer saw that the computer would blunder and so didn't play the move the computer had picked (which was a strategic blunder and would lead to a complete collapse of the position.) The reason Kasparov resigned is because the computer had been playing completely materialistically the entire match and all of the sudden had developed deep positional understanding, this was the reason Kasparov resigned in a completely drawn position.
Nadrealis 1 year ago
The general argument is that Deep Blue was getting help, most likely from an undercover GM, or team of GM's. Prior to this match Deep Blue had made (by GM standards) some really bad moves. It seems it went from playing master level chess to world champion level chess in mere days.
moriluk 1 year ago
"S-s-s-stand up!" LOL
Fupper16 2 years ago 8
Well yeah, when Kasparov loses his temper, he stutters, and he has a very strong Russian accent :)
alexteclo 2 years ago
@Fupper16 dont' think he would have stuttered in his native tongue
PabloPena108 1 year ago
Whats this guy getting so worked up about? It's a freaking computer, it was programmed to play perfectly. Hell he's still the champion.
Liynkx 2 years ago
Because he is an egotistical pig.
TheFlyingTriangle 2 years ago
only losers lack a ego
gqmighty 2 years ago 2
That shows Kasparov competitive spirit. He believes humans will always find a way to be more superior then a computer progam. Just because the human mind is so intricate and it has room for creativity other then mathamatical probabilities. Im proud that he has the fire in him to take it personally.
UPASR 2 years ago 14
Well he can believe that and not make excuses for being beat by one. It looks like he's just being a bad sport in this video.
Liynkx 2 years ago
@Liynkx its taken rather out of context.
jameswp266 2 years ago
actually, Kasparov writes in his book "How Life Imitates Chess" that "the computers must win eventually". Here, I believe, he refers to the fact that chess is (in mathematical terms) a simple, finite problem, and since a permanent solution is possible, sooner or later the computers will present it to us. Current strength of chess engines is very far away from playing perfect (or objective) chess though.
Ruxistico 2 years ago
Due to computational limitations, it's impossible to make a computer program which can play "perfectly", but if there was a computer program which could play as such, humans would certainly not be more superior than a computer program.
qwertypluss 2 years ago
the new chess programs are extremely powerful. No human can win anymore.
fiendin281 2 years ago
Yep. Do you know how many steps they can anticipate. I think deep blue could do 12 and then used a heurisitic algorithm, I have no idea about the power of new ones though.
qwertypluss 2 years ago
Do you know how many times Kasparov has drawn with Deep Fritz?
iDraw3G 2 years ago
@fiendin281 True. The Elo rating advantage is huge.
jameswp266 2 years ago
@UPASR , well said, I could not put it better. However, it seems to me, that the cold blooded computers have just learned to calculate and beat humans. Look at Game 6 - Kasparov got decimated! I am all on his and humans' side though. Maybe this will teach us not to hand our technology to the Artificial Intelligence.
NewVahan2 1 year ago
No such thing as playing "perfectly"
Sheakmate 2 years ago
Wow, fantastic point
Liynkx 2 years ago
ok, i cant hear your voice so, are you trying to be sarcastic? lol... i really cant tell
Sheakmate 2 years ago
not yet, but in theory it is possible
Ruxistico 2 years ago
was valid
Dmpower12 2 years ago
Please someone get back to me on this comment: Is it not suspicious that IBM (who created the computer that "beat" (bullshit) Garry Kasparov, did not release ANY, let me make that clear, ANNNNY of the logs from all 6 games to check and see if IBM did in fact have a human component that sought out the bad moves that the computer made (or might have blundered with)? I personally think this series of games was a joke, IBM are practically putting themselves on the spot for speculation on if the game
Dmpower12 2 years ago 2
I agree.
Maybe, i say MAYBE, Kasparov fail in the 2nd match only because he was in draw position.
Cercatore 2 years ago
some or all of the logs where publish in the web, but after some time not when asked. so is the same history: why?? they where only for the glory of wining gary. shame IBM your LAME
yhntgbqwertypolmmnj 2 years ago
if the machine didnt defeat kasparov, then who did?
xismxist 2 years ago
a lot of people think it's Karpov
Sheakmate 2 years ago
Bobby Ficher is the best chess player to ever walk the earth. Please, take deep blue back to 1971 and let bobby teach it a lesson or two! ;)
xXxDragunov14xXx 2 years ago
Indeed. Would have been great if we could get Deep Blue, or some other chess program, to play against Bobby Fischer.
alexteclo 2 years ago
Considering that Deep Blue had the advantage of analyzing all the critical chess games from 1971 through 1997, I don't think that would happen.
Now, if Fischer had been born 20 years later, then it might be a completely different story.
AskSocratesNow 2 years ago
@xXxDragunov14xXx Thats why Fischer ran away. Longevity is vital for true champs.
manimajra1 1 year ago
@xXxDragunov14xXx Well the problem is, a machine can't be a psychologically attacked. What would he say? "Hey, I don't like the way power cord is attached, I won't play until you change it" The machine doesn't care about that. Peace.
oscarryz 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
Kallahad 1 year ago
He is right. Deep Blue blundered in a winning position. Kasparov could force the draw, but he didn't see it.
brenoseifert 2 years ago
it was not a draw (im standing up)
mattbacken 2 years ago
what was he so angry about?
frodonet 2 years ago
He lost, and doesn't think that the match was fair, that the computer had a human component as well.
recon455 2 years ago 14
if the game was fair, then why didnt they gave him a rematch, and after the game why did they destroy the computer?????
GreekSawyer 2 years ago 21
@GreekSawyer They did not destroy the computer..
adhdboy699 1 year ago
@adhdboy699 kasparov wanted the computer analysis for game 2 the IBM team agreed to give him the analysis but later on changed their mind. They also destroyed the computer so no further investigation could be done.
Robinpostal2 1 year ago
@Robinpostal2 They did not release the logs at the time true but they did release them later and they are available now though they did admittedly had time to tamper with them. They never destroyed deep blue so i have no idea what where you got that idea.
adhdboy699 1 year ago
@adhdboy699 where did I get the idea? If im not wrong they said that in the documentary game over: kasparov and the machine. I'm sure i've heard that and people also said that too. So my question to you is where did you get the idea that they didnt destroy it?
Robinpostal2 1 year ago
@Robinpostal2 The computer currently resides in the National Museum of American History.
adhdboy699 1 year ago
@adhdboy699 so basicly its trashed? are you allowed to use it? no!
"Deep Blue was packed after the match in order not to be used in the context of chess more."
Robinpostal2 1 year ago
@Robinpostal2 It's not trashed just because it's not in use. It's quite sad to see you realize you were wrong and still try to be right. Gary a man whom i respect very much and a genius chess player made false accusations after a very long stressful match with a computer.
adhdboy699 1 year ago
@adhdboy699 So why did they refuse to give him the computer analysis the first time? You are saying that the computer beat kasparov in a fair way, so why tell me why did they not show him the analyse after a few years later when they could have edited it?
It's funny how you think you are right when really none of us know's, I'm just saying what I heard of and what could be the truth.
Robinpostal2 1 year ago
he lost vs a computer dude ...
no wonder he is so angry
misterkefir 2 years ago
a machine may have beaten a human in chess but it should never be able to hold the title of world master, hopefully they won't let a computer own that title. EVER!
eiroight 2 years ago
Chess programs probably don't care about titles. Anyway, if "they" do not give a chess player of master level the title master, then the title becomes meaningless, or at least unrelated to ability. And on top of that, Kasparov's brain is a machine, and it gets titles. So the "world master" of chess has always been a computer; human beings compute too, and if they couldn't they would be terrible at chess.
De7on 2 years ago 2
no the brain receives no title. it's kasparov who receives titles thanks to his brain's work. a title doesn't mean anything to a machine that hasn't an ego to work for, because we give titles to egos, not functional parts of their body. and a computer is a functional part with no ego. so you might say we should give the title to the creator of the machine, but he's not a chess player.
iwao72 2 years ago
Shut up he was not allowed acess to any info on the games he played against deep blue.
shutskate 2 years ago
what a sore loser. I'm glad a machine isn't able to beat me at something im good at, YET....
wiseye61 2 years ago
hmm.. maybe because.. you're not good at anything?
ajsahaf 2 years ago
What, masterbating? Oh zing
MonkeyMoviesr 2 years ago
Bobby Fischer is Jewish too idiot. Try thinking next time before you express yourself.
Racist prick.
vituperative 2 years ago
Bobby Fischer did not consider himself Jewish (and sadly was an anti-semite himself), although I believe his mother was Jewish. Just correcting that, either way broccoli's statement was uncalled for.
BoredonOccasion 2 years ago
You've only affirmed what I've said, not corrected it. Regardless of how Fischer felt about Jews or what he considered himself to be, he was in fact Jewish. His mother was Jewish making him Jewish even if he was not observant and in his case hated Jews.
vituperative 2 years ago
With his conversion to other religions this topic gets really fuzzy, and his jewish status is dependent on your form of Judaism, orthodox would say he was still a jew, however reformed would not. Thanks for the reply.
BoredonOccasion 2 years ago
Interesting, I did not realize reform Judaism did not follow halakhic rules.
vituperative 2 years ago
thats actually not correct, its the opposite. orthodox goes acc to the mother, reform goes acc to the father
Fupper16 2 years ago
With his conversions to other religions reformed would not consider him a Jew in any respect (Contemporary American Reform Responsa).
Anyway, I'm done arguing this.
BoredonOccasion 2 years ago
Kasparov's ego running high!!!
binoyrakesh 3 years ago 4
Why the hell did he resign if it was a draw??? Can someone explain?
vincentgratton16 3 years ago 2
If I am correct, this is what happened:
Obviously, it must have been a VERY complex situation...but after the game was over, a few chess analysts were able to prove that Garry could have FORCED a draw by perpetual check.
Personally, I find it too hard to analyze the games of the grandmasters. They think in ways I am not able yet.
fatesofgreedom 3 years ago 3
Also, he suspected of human intervention on the machine's moves. He thought they were cheating and couldn't concentrate enough to respond the way he would have done against a human opponent. Search for Kasparov and "Game over" and you'll find the documentary about this match (it's split in 8 parts, I think).
TheSleepingLynx 2 years ago
shady8mile:
I am the author of a chess program, with an elo of 2600 points, I studied a lot about computer-chess and I can assure you that it is absolutely impossible "to give" personality and creativity of a human to a program. A program can not be Fisher. If you want to see Kasparov against Fisher, get the time machine ... and you'll see Fisher defeated by the young Kasparov of 22 years old.
carik2004 3 years ago
I like the way his accent gets stronger and he repeats things over and over when he's pissed. =]
TheSleepingLynx 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
deep blue was bobby fischer playing kasparov thats how bobby showed the chess world in secret that hes the best of the best poor kasparov if he only knew that bobby is behind this no wonder he got crushed badly in the last game oh well all hail to bobby
shady8mile 3 years ago
to shady8mile:its nice that you are fan of Bobby Fisher,but telling lies is something completely different
Geppy23 3 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
fake. that's not kasparov.