Kasparov and thirty years of computer chess

[Ted Summers]

"At some point I realized that I was drifting into trouble in a game against one of the "Kasparov" brand models. If this machine scored a win or even a draw, people would be quick to say that I had thrown the game to get PR for the company, so I had to intensify my efforts. Eventually I found a way to “bluff” the machine with a dubious sacrifice that any modern chess computer would refute in a split-second. But in the good old days of computer chess (to me!) and in my spry youth I could keep coming back to the board fast enough to terrorize the machine with a mating attack."

[Event "Hamburg Spiegel sim comp"]<br> [Site "Hamburg"]<br> [Date "1985.??.??"]<br> [Round "26"]<br> [White "Kasparov, Garry"]<br> [Black "Comp Turbostar 432"]<br> [Result "1-0"]<br> [ECO "A13"]<br> [WhiteElo "2715"]<br> [Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]<br> [PlyCount "87"]<br> [EventDate "1985.??.??"]<br> [EventRounds "32"]<br> [EventCountry "GER"]<br> [Source "ChessBase"]<br> [SourceDate "2001.11.25"]<br> <br> 1. c4 e6 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 d5 4. Nf3 dxc4 5. O-O c6 6. a4 Be7 7. Qc2 Nbd7 8.<br> Qxc4 Nb6 9. Qc2 Nfd5 10. Nc3 Nb4 11. Qd1 O-O 12. d4 a5 13. e4 Bd7 14. Qe2 Be8<br> 15. Rd1 f6 16. Be3 Bh5 17. h3 f5 18. Bf4 Qd7 19. Re1 Bxf3 20. Bxf3 Bd6 21. Bxd6<br> Qxd6 22. Rad1 f4 23. g4 Rad8 24. Rd2 e5 25. d5 h6 26. Red1 c5 27. Qb5 Ra8 28.<br> Qf1 Qd7 29. b3 c4 30. bxc4 Rac8 31. g5 Nxc4 {[#]After getting a fine position<br> out of the opening, I drifted a little and the computer managed to get a small<br> advantage. As you can see in the diagram the black knights are menacingly<br> placed. After a passive move like Re2, the position would have been unpleasant<br> but only slightly worse for White. Instead I decided to throw the machine off<br> balance and sacrifice an exchange, which was objectively terrible but<br> "psychologically" brilliant. At the time, it was understood by any strong<br> player with experience versus computers that their main weakness was...<br> tactics! In particular, combinations more than a few moves deep or involving<br> pawn promotion, as the case here.} 32. Ra2 $2 {A terrible move, but not an<br> oversight!} (32. Re2 $17 {White's position would not be so bad.}) 32... Nxa2<br> 33. Nxa2 Qxa4 {Against any good human player, it should be all over, but...}<br> 34. gxh6 Qxa2 {So far so good...} 35. Qg2 Rc7 36. d6 Rd7 (36... Rcf7 $19 {was<br> better. But I was gambling that the computer would want more material instead<br> of returning any.} 37. Bh5) 37. Bg4 Qb3 $4 {What a relief! It's all over now.}<br> (37... Qa4 $1 $19 {This would have been much better but the computer back then<br> did not realize that it was more important to defend d7 than to take on d1. I<br> could still capture on d7 hoping it would blunder and take the rook with check<br> instead of taking the bishop.}) 38. Bxd7 Qxd1+ 39. Kh2 {The mate on g7 is<br> impossible to defend.} Rf7 40. Be6 Kf8 41. h7 $1 {The h-pawn queens.} Nxd6 42.<br> h8=Q+ {My modern computer says 42.Qg5 is a faster mate, so pardon me for<br> playing like a human.} Ke7 43. Bxf7 Nxf7 44. Qhxg7 {A slightly embarrassing<br> escape for me, I admit, but one that nevertheless serves as an educational<br> time capsule of the state of computer chess at the time. Despite this swindle<br> and a few other weak computer efforts, I wouldn't want to diminish my own play<br> entirely. Looking at all the games again, the computers rarely blundered and<br> it required energy and precision to make a clean score against them on so many<br> boards even 30 years ago.} 1-0

http://en.chessbase.com/post/kasparov-a ... uter-chess