Chess Genius 3 Beat Kasparov on a Pentium 90?

[BrendanJNorman]

It's very interesting how computer chess progresses over time.

Chess Genius 3 playing in the 1994 Intel Grand Prix on a Pentium 90 defeated Gary Kasparov, and also beat GM Nikolic (a very strong GM) 2-0.

With this in mind, I was enormously proud when, as a teenager I drew a 30 0 game against Chess Genius 3.

Recently, I pulled it out and was shocked by how easily I crushed it.

Obviously I have become a stronger player, but for example, I have a lot more trouble against even Comet A90 (another old fav), so it's kind of weird how strong GMs lost to this computer.

Here's my game anyway, clearly 11...0-0?? is a terrible, losing move which proves Kramnik's old assertion that "computer's weakness is tactics".

These words perplexed me at the time, but this game (and others) prove his point.

I think in those days (1994) players assumed that "computers see everything" (they do NOW) and played too safely against them. I'm pretty sure the typical Kasparov attack would have roasted CG3 like a beginner.

[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "Macbook Pro"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Norman"]
[Black "Chess Genius 3"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 e6 4.d4 Bb4 5.Bd2 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Be7 7.Qg4 g6 8.Bd3 d6 9.h4 dxe5 10.dxe5 Nc6 11.Nf3 O-O 12.h5 Bc5 13.hxg6 Bxf2+ 14.Kxf2 fxg6 15.Kg1 Qe7 16.Re1 b6 17.Rh3 Qc5+ 18.Kh1 Ne7 19.Bg5 Nf5 20.Bf6 Qxc3 21.Rg1 Bd7 22.Ng5 h5 23.Qf4 Qc5 24.Ne4 Qd4 25.Qg5 Kf7 26.Rxh5 Rg8 27.Rh7+ 1-0[/pgn]

[Vinvin]

...
Here's my game anyway, clearly 11...0-0?? is a terrible, losing move which proves Kramnik's old assertion that "computer's weakness is tactics".

Some points of my view about this :
- The computer strength has always been the "accuracy" but bound at some depth.
- The old cliché that says "computers are strong in tactic" was invented because they found simple winning combinations that humans didn't imagine. Now, humans have improved a lot in this area.
- The human strength was to dig very deep in best line (or several lines, sometimes) and knowledge about some specific chess patterns (special endgames, king hunt, fortress, permanent threats for long move sequence [as for trapped pieces]). The computer weaknesses that still now are zugzwang positions and not dig enough in sacrificing lines (as Karjakin-Anand 2008 : 24...Nc7+!!).

The themes I marked in my set "hard-CCC-2009-beta1" are :

Code: Select all

Attack the castled king
crippled position
Deep combination
deep mate threats
Deflection sacrifice
Endgame
Fortress
King's attack
King's attack threats
Long mate threats
Manoeuvres
Mate
Mate threats
Pawns endgame
perpetual threats
Pertpetual check
Pin
Positional move
Positional squeeze
promotion
promotion threat
queens endgame
Rising the pressure
sac for 2 linked passed pawns
sac winning tempo
Sacrifice
Sacrifice for the initiative
Simplification
Stalemate
Trapped piece
underpromotion
Zugzwang

About Kramnik's tactical ability : 19.Nxf7??
[pgn]
[Event "Brains in Bahrain"]
[Site "Manama BAH"]
[Date "2002.10.15"]
[EventDate "2002.10.04"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Vladimir Kramnik"]
[Black "Deep Fritz (Computer)"]
[ECO "E15"]
[WhiteElo "2807"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "68"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Ba6 5. b3 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 Be7
7. Bg2 c6 8. Bc3 d5 9. Ne5 Nfd7 10. Nxd7 Nxd7 11. Nd2 O-O
12. O-O Rc8 13. a4 Bf6 14. e4 c5 15. exd5 cxd4 16. Bb4 Re8
17. Ne4 exd5 18. Nd6 dxc4 19. Nxf7 Kxf7 20. Bd5+ Kg6 21. Qg4+
Bg5 22. Be4+ Rxe4 23. Qxe4+ Kh6 24. h4 Bf6 25. Bd2+ g5
26. hxg5+ Bxg5 27. Qh4+ Kg6 28. Qe4+ Kg7 29. Bxg5 Qxg5
30. Rfe1 cxb3 31. Qxd4+ Nf6 32. a5 Qd5 33. Qxd5 Nxd5 34. axb6
axb6 0-1
[/pgn]

[Werewolf]

Nice game.

Genius 3 was one of my favourite engines ever. Classy pawn play and simple clean chess.

But it had a weakness with king safety

[MikeB]

I always believed Roman Dzindzichashvili played as well against computers as anyone. He used to play on ICC before it became a paid service and had many a game with him using Chess Genius Exclusive 68030 ( dedicated machine). I guess most of those games are gone forever, But here's one against Fritz that happened to be memorialized :

[pgn][Event "*"]
[Site "*"]
[Date "1991.*.*"]
[Round "*"]
[White "Dzindzichashvili"]
[Black "Fritz"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. d4 e6 2. e4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. Bd3 cxd4 6. O-O Bc5 7. Re1 Nge7 8.
Nbd2 O-O 9. Bxh7+ Kxh7 10. Ng5+ Kg6 11. Qg4 Nxe5 12. Rxe5 f5 13. Qg3 Rf7
14. Ndf3 Qh8 15. Nh4+ Qxh4 16. Qxh4 Rf8 17. Qh7+ Kf6 18. Nf3 Ng6 19. Bg5+
Kf7 20. Qh5 Rh8 21. Rxf5+ Kg8 22. Qxg6 exf5 23. Bf6 Rh7 24. Re1 d3 25. Re8+
Bf8 26. Ng5 Rh6 27. Rxf8+ Kxf8 28. Qf7#
1-0[/pgn]

9 Bxh7 is sound, but 9. Nb3 is even a stronger move , especially against the more natural looking 9. ... Bb6

[Thomas Lagershausen]

i can´t find the game Karjakin-Anand 2008 with 24... Nc7+!!.

Do you have the pgn for us?

thx in advance.

[Vinvin]

i can´t find the game Karjakin-Anand 2008 with 24... Nc7+!!.

Do you have the pgn for us?

thx in advance.

sure :
[pgn]
[Event "Corus"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "2006.01.14"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Sergey Karjakin"]
[Black "Viswanathan Anand"]
[ECO "B90"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "74"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5
7. Nb3 Be6 8. f3 Be7 9. Qd2 O-O 10. O-O-O Nbd7 11. g4 b5
12. g5 b4 13. Ne2 Ne8 14. f4 a5 15. f5 a4 16. Nbd4 exd4
17. Nxd4 b3 18. Kb1 bxc2+ 19. Nxc2 Bb3 20. axb3 axb3 21. Na3
Ne5 22. h4 Ra5 23. Qc3 Qa8 24. Bg2 Nc7 25. Qxc7 Rc8 26. Qxe7
Nc4 27. g6 hxg6 28. fxg6 Nxa3+ 29. bxa3 Rxa3 30. gxf7+ Kh7
31. f8=N+ Rxf8 32. Qxf8 Ra1+ 33. Kb2 Ra2+ 34. Kc3 Qa5+ 35. Kd3
Qb5+ 36. Kd4 Ra4+ 37. Kc3 Qc4+ 0-1
[/pgn]

Code: Select all

[Event "Corus"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "2006.01.14"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Sergey Karjakin"]
[Black "Viswanathan Anand"]
[ECO "B90"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "74"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5
7. Nb3 Be6 8. f3 Be7 9. Qd2 O-O 10. O-O-O Nbd7 11. g4 b5
12. g5 b4 13. Ne2 Ne8 14. f4 a5 15. f5 a4 16. Nbd4 exd4
17. Nxd4 b3 18. Kb1 bxc2+ 19. Nxc2 Bb3 20. axb3 axb3 21. Na3
Ne5 22. h4 Ra5 23. Qc3 Qa8 24. Bg2 Nc7 25. Qxc7 Rc8 26. Qxe7
Nc4 27. g6 hxg6 28. fxg6 Nxa3+ 29. bxa3 Rxa3 30. gxf7+ Kh7
31. f8=N+ Rxf8 32. Qxf8 Ra1+ 33. Kb2 Ra2+ 34. Kc3 Qa5+ 35. Kd3
Qb5+ 36. Kd4 Ra4+ 37. Kc3 Qc4+ 0-1

[Uri Blass]

It's very interesting how computer chess progresses over time.

Chess Genius 3 playing in the 1994 Intel Grand Prix on a Pentium 90 defeated Gary Kasparov, and also beat GM Nikolic (a very strong GM) 2-0.

With this in mind, I was enormously proud when, as a teenager I drew a 30 0 game against Chess Genius 3.

Recently, I pulled it out and was shocked by how easily I crushed it.

Obviously I have become a stronger player, but for example, I have a lot more trouble against even Comet A90 (another old fav), so it's kind of weird how strong GMs lost to this computer.

Here's my game anyway, clearly 11...0-0?? is a terrible, losing move which proves Kramnik's old assertion that "computer's weakness is tactics".

These words perplexed me at the time, but this game (and others) prove his point.

I think in those days (1994) players assumed that "computers see everything" (they do NOW) and played too safely against them. I'm pretty sure the typical Kasparov attack would have roasted CG3 like a beginner.

[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "Macbook Pro"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Norman"]
[Black "Chess Genius 3"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 e6 4.d4 Bb4 5.Bd2 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Be7 7.Qg4 g6 8.Bd3 d6 9.h4 dxe5 10.dxe5 Nc6 11.Nf3 O-O 12.h5 Bc5 13.hxg6 Bxf2+ 14.Kxf2 fxg6 15.Kg1 Qe7 16.Re1 b6 17.Rh3 Qc5+ 18.Kh1 Ne7 19.Bg5 Nf5 20.Bf6 Qxc3 21.Rg1 Bd7 22.Ng5 h5 23.Qf4 Qc5 24.Ne4 Qd4 25.Qg5 Kf7 26.Rxh5 Rg8 27.Rh7+ 1-0[/pgn]

I think that chess genius used a different opening book against kasparov so kasparov could not play this game.

I do not believe that there was a chance for 1.e4 Nf6 in the book of Genius against kasparov.

I also know that kasparov believed he was playing genius2 and not genius3 during the game.

I think that getting conclusions based on a single game is wrong and I doubt if you can beat Genius3 with different openings when it does not choose 1....Nf6.

[BrendanJNorman]

...
Here's my game anyway, clearly 11...0-0?? is a terrible, losing move which proves Kramnik's old assertion that "computer's weakness is tactics".

Some points of my view about this :
- The computer strength has always been the "accuracy" but bound at some depth.
- The old cliché that says "computers are strong in tactic" was invented because they found simple winning combinations that humans didn't imagine. Now, humans have improved a lot in this area.
- The human strength was to dig very deep in best line (or several lines, sometimes) and knowledge about some specific chess patterns (special endgames, king hunt, fortress, permanent threats for long move sequence [as for trapped pieces]). The computer weaknesses that still now are zugzwang positions and not dig enough in sacrificing lines (as Karjakin-Anand 2008 : 24...Nc7+!!).

The themes I marked in my set "hard-CCC-2009-beta1" are :

Code: Select all

Attack the castled king
crippled position
Deep combination
deep mate threats
Deflection sacrifice
Endgame
Fortress
King's attack
King's attack threats
Long mate threats
Manoeuvres
Mate
Mate threats
Pawns endgame
perpetual threats
Pertpetual check
Pin
Positional move
Positional squeeze
promotion
promotion threat
queens endgame
Rising the pressure
sac for 2 linked passed pawns
sac winning tempo
Sacrifice
Sacrifice for the initiative
Simplification
Stalemate
Trapped piece
underpromotion
Zugzwang

About Kramnik's tactical ability : 19.Nxf7??

-The computer strength has always been the "accuracy" but bound at some depth. Agree

-The old cliché that says "computers are strong in tactic" was invented because they found simple winning combinations that humans didn't imagine. Now, humans have improved a lot in this area. Agree!

-The human strength was to dig very deep in best line (or several lines, sometimes) and knowledge about some specific chess patterns (special endgames, king hunt, fortress, permanent threats for long move sequence [as for trapped pieces]). Agree!

-The computer weaknesses that still now are zugzwang positions and not dig enough in sacrificing lines (as Karjakin-Anand 2008 : 24...Nc7+!!). Agree, although ...Nc7 wasn't check and the entire game was home prep by Anand.

-The themes I marked in my set "hard-CCC-2009-beta1" are... Awesome list...How can I check them out?

[BrendanJNorman]

I always believed Roman Dzindzichashvili played as well against computers as anyone. He used to play on ICC before it became a paid service and had many a game with him using Chess Genius Exclusive 68030 ( dedicated machine). I guess most of those games are gone forever, But here's one against Fritz that happened to be memorialized :

[pgn][Event "*"]
[Site "*"]
[Date "1991.*.*"]
[Round "*"]
[White "Dzindzichashvili"]
[Black "Fritz"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. d4 e6 2. e4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. Bd3 cxd4 6. O-O Bc5 7. Re1 Nge7 8.
Nbd2 O-O 9. Bxh7+ Kxh7 10. Ng5+ Kg6 11. Qg4 Nxe5 12. Rxe5 f5 13. Qg3 Rf7
14. Ndf3 Qh8 15. Nh4+ Qxh4 16. Qxh4 Rf8 17. Qh7+ Kf6 18. Nf3 Ng6 19. Bg5+
Kf7 20. Qh5 Rh8 21. Rxf5+ Kg8 22. Qxg6 exf5 23. Bf6 Rh7 24. Re1 d3 25. Re8+
Bf8 26. Ng5 Rh6 27. Rxf8+ Kxf8 28. Qf7#
1-0[/pgn]

9 Bxh7 is sound, but 9. Nb3 is even a stronger move , especially against the more natural looking 9. ... Bb6

Indeed buddy, Roman used to be famous for beating up engines on ICC. I used to watch him play as a kid back in around 2000-2001.

[BrendanJNorman]

It's very interesting how computer chess progresses over time.

Chess Genius 3 playing in the 1994 Intel Grand Prix on a Pentium 90 defeated Gary Kasparov, and also beat GM Nikolic (a very strong GM) 2-0.

With this in mind, I was enormously proud when, as a teenager I drew a 30 0 game against Chess Genius 3.

Recently, I pulled it out and was shocked by how easily I crushed it.

Obviously I have become a stronger player, but for example, I have a lot more trouble against even Comet A90 (another old fav), so it's kind of weird how strong GMs lost to this computer.

Here's my game anyway, clearly 11...0-0?? is a terrible, losing move which proves Kramnik's old assertion that "computer's weakness is tactics".

These words perplexed me at the time, but this game (and others) prove his point.

I think in those days (1994) players assumed that "computers see everything" (they do NOW) and played too safely against them. I'm pretty sure the typical Kasparov attack would have roasted CG3 like a beginner.

[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "Macbook Pro"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Norman"]
[Black "Chess Genius 3"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 e6 4.d4 Bb4 5.Bd2 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Be7 7.Qg4 g6 8.Bd3 d6 9.h4 dxe5 10.dxe5 Nc6 11.Nf3 O-O 12.h5 Bc5 13.hxg6 Bxf2+ 14.Kxf2 fxg6 15.Kg1 Qe7 16.Re1 b6 17.Rh3 Qc5+ 18.Kh1 Ne7 19.Bg5 Nf5 20.Bf6 Qxc3 21.Rg1 Bd7 22.Ng5 h5 23.Qf4 Qc5 24.Ne4 Qd4 25.Qg5 Kf7 26.Rxh5 Rg8 27.Rh7+ 1-0[/pgn]

I think that chess genius used a different opening book against kasparov so kasparov could not play this game.

I do not believe that there was a chance for 1.e4 Nf6 in the book of Genius against kasparov.

I also know that kasparov believed he was playing genius2 and not genius3 during the game.

I think that getting conclusions based on a single game is wrong and I doubt if you can beat Genius3 with different openings when it does not choose 1....Nf6.

You're hilarious man.

You are so motivated to sh!t on me that you ignore logic.

Firstly, I wasn't bragging, so there's no need to "bring me down" anyway, but let's handle this properly...

"I think that chess genius used a different opening book against kasparov so kasparov could not play this game."

Beginning a biting statement with "I think" kills any form of credibility in the words that follow, but regardless of this...

I am probably 2180-2200 ELO and scored this easy win against Chess Genius 3.

Kasparov was 2800+ and Nikolic around 2680...

Are you saying that this "magical" opening book gave Chess Genius 500-600 ELO - even back in 1994? Wow! Impressive.

I also know that kasparov believed he was playing genius2 and not genius3 during the game.

Oh...so a guy who is arguably the strongest player in history and had never lost to a computer is going to play more cautiously against an older program?

Besides this, Kasparov played 1.c4 not 1.e4 in the game he lost, so how was he even to TEST how the program is going to respond to the king's pawn?

I think that getting conclusions based on a single game is wrong and I doubt if you can beat Genius3 with different openings when it does not choose 1....Nf6.

Who cares what you doubt?

Who was "getting an impression" anyway?

I made the comment that I have more trouble than I did in that game against Comet A90, but never did I say that I'm a stronger player than Chess Genius. I myself was referring to a single game.

I'm gonna just assume that you're another one of the negative-minded, "bring em down if they do something good" types on TC...

So many of you.