Same story here. I'm a Howard Stern fan and stumbled across a clip that I thought was standard Stern stuff, but ended up being Jerry annotating one of Howard's games. I fell in love on the spot, and for the past two years chess has been my life. I shudder to think what would have happened if anybody but Jerry had done that video. At 38 I'm a bit old to be starting chess, and not progressing at the rate you are zerr0ww, but I started a small club at the library and we're having fun!
Fascinating commentary, especially exposing the computers weakness for gaining material and give Kasparov the chance to gain a superior position. Thanks!
I wish you would do the rest of these matches, they show interesting strategies even though they aren't from lc0 they are still very informative, it's fun to root for the human
Jerry, would just like to thank you seriously for all the videos and streams that you do. I only got into Chess about 9 months ago, and i have gone from a rating of 750 to 1200 on chess.com. This is almost all thanks to you and your videos. I am now a member of the chess club at university, and play everyday online. No chance that I would have got so keen for the game if it wasn't for your entertaining, expert, fun and funny videos... One day i will beat you ;)
Hey could you perhaps change the aspect ratio of the video a bit, so that the picture would be more wide and so the pieces? Else I think this is another great video :)
Still, the number of possible chess positions is many orders of magnitude greater than the number of rubik's cube possibilities (plus there are two players rather than just one). 43 quintillion = 4.3x10^19. The number of possible chess positions is approximately 10^47 with the "game tree complexity" being approximately 10^123. These are not simply geometric differences in order of magnitude, but exponential. More info at wikipedia(...)/shannon_number
I have a question... If they can make a super computer that can do every single calculation. Couldn't it figure out how to win no matter what the other person does. So if you gave it the white pieces, after the first move you've already lost. You just choose the losing path
Hello, Jerry. May you please do a commentary on game 2 of this 1997 series between Deep Blue and Kasparov? That one was the most controversial game, and I'm very interested to hear your thoughts on it.
tape4684 it appears that deep blue used a lot more time than the normal to calculate in a specific move and rejected a sacrifice from Kasparov; from that moment K started to think that there was human intervention (from Karpov) behind that move, and never played calmed again during the match.
If you have some understanding of both chess and computer science it is not a problem to accept Deep Blue's play in game 2. Chess engines can be adjusted to play sacs which cannot be calculated to a win and to refuse the same type of sac.
ahh, the monotone jerry is back in this vid... don't know if anyone else notices the changes in Jerry's tone of voice between videos... I have noticed and its freakin fascinating
This was amazing to watch. Once you start trying to play chess seriously, and enjoying it (I suggest getting a timer app on your phone, because the thing that can make chess boring is when people take too long, try 1/2 an hour each), then your mind starts to boggle at how good these grand masters, and national champions (Jerry) are!
Hi Jerry. Very beautiful game, one of my favourites. Fantastic Kasparov, only a genius could think to sacrifice the exchange against a supercomputer. In your opinion what was the elo rating of Deep Blue in 1997? About 2800?
Thumbs up if you want to see Jerry speed these games up to a 1min Blitz game and analyse them Warzone style! Love your work Jerry, really appreciate all your energy :)
Hey Jerry, what was your rating during this analysis, ballpark? I have a good idea where you are now as I have been watching your vids for a few years, but not sure your age and how much you may have advanced in the intervening years. Thanks for your awesome videos and hopefully your response.
Great analysis. Looking forward to your analysis of game 2...the one that Kasparov resigned and which critics later found out he shouldn't have. I was in an evening computer class when this game was played, and all the time I was watching the game instead.
Maybe regular computers. To be honest I don't think we are that far away from the computing power needed to get it from the start. I believe it's google who has the highest amount of computing power. And if you need it for some type of study, you can use it. They used it to figure out what the maximum amount of moves required to solve a rubik's cube (it's 20) but they had to do it by testing all 43 quintillion possible starting positions.
At first my impression was that Kasparov was playing too scared; but his eventually sterilizing all Deep Blue’s maneuvering and launching a final attack of his own was beautiful. I guess in the 97 Rematch we’re so fixed on Kasparov’s defeat (especially, what was it, Game 2?), we forget what masterful chess he played in his wins.
Hi Jerry!!! I am a big fan of your channel and a daily visitor, I have a request for you, can you analyse the second game of this rematch ? thank you a lot
What would be really interesting is to see the variables Deep Blue assigned to its pieces each turn, that is which pieces it valued the most, felt which gave a more strategic advantage, or more favorable in other ways. Even though Deep Blue wouldn't have emotions it still might be exploited as though it did simply by having an insight as to which pieces it calculated to be most valuable to it. Of course I know that would change with each turn, but I'd still like to see that data, see its strategic processing.
After watching the documentary and seeing how the games went, it struck me that if Kasparov had played the board, not his paranoia of the men behind the scenes, he would have won. I believe it was Karpov that said something like the computer couldn't be intimidated by him, i'm paraphrasing. Also humans versus machines and machines being superior and we are the weaker ones now etc misses the whole point of the contest, that is, between human minds challenging ourselves to be better.
I beg to differ, Kasparov played x3d Fritz in 2003 with an estimated 2800 rating and it ended in a draw, Houdini 2 x64 is much stronger. Kasparov's draw match was because of blunders, which computers don't make. Kramnik lost to deep fritz in 2006, engines today are much stronger than 97' Deep Blue, Pocket Fritz 4 reached the same high performance as Deep Blue on a slow computer. Computers will only keep getting stronger and stronger, the reign of man is over.
Without a doubt, Jerry and KingCrusher's videos are both very insightful and educational. I have nothing against you Jerry, but I think KingCrusher is more entertaining and funny.
Yea, so it could happen theoretically. That's what I was wondering. It doesn't really matter anyways... Even though it has the potential to be solved, humans can't do it. So I don't know if it really matters I was just wondering. Thanks for answering
Right now, super computers cannot calculate THAT far. Chess is not a "solved" game, meaning there is no sure way to win (or at least force a tie), like, for example, tic-tac-toe. Theoretically, if computers advance enough so that they could calculate many more moves ahead of time, the game could be solved.
exactly COMPUTERS don't recognize losing there is always a hope that your opponent will blunder, this is a SUPERcomputer so he is not dumb enough to think a GM like Kasparov would commit a mistake in such easy end-game position :)
Yeah, even if it were solved by computers, humans would have to memorize every single possible variation which will probably not ever be possible. Right now, computers have solved endgames involving no more than 6 (or maybe up to 8, I honestly forget the exact number) pieces on the board. That is nowhere near the 32 that start on the board. Also remember that adding pieces exponentially increases the complexity so it will probably be a long time before the game gets solved by computers.
Kasparov played the whole match with the strange openings like 1.d3??? and with black 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d6??? Kasparov played his knight to h7???? in the ruy lopez.Kasparov played The Caro Kan 1.e4 c6 he never played that with a human player.Kasparov lost the final game with a poor analysis 1.e4 c6 opening.The Deep Blue without the opening theory starts game 1.Knight c3?????
Excelent analysis. Very clear and comprehensive. Subscribed and looking for more quality chess videos. Cheers :)
Thanks Ali. :D
@@ChessNetwork dumb ass, if there’s 1 attacker and 1 defender it’s not unprotected
Dumb ass
Same story here. I'm a Howard Stern fan and stumbled across a clip that I thought was standard Stern stuff, but ended up being Jerry annotating one of Howard's games. I fell in love on the spot, and for the past two years chess has been my life. I shudder to think what would have happened if anybody but Jerry had done that video. At 38 I'm a bit old to be starting chess, and not progressing at the rate you are zerr0ww, but I started a small club at the library and we're having fun!
Fascinating commentary, especially exposing the computers weakness for gaining material and give Kasparov the chance to gain a superior position. Thanks!
I could only dream of thinking this far ahead
Thats either deep, or inception..
awsome a new analysis.This type of videos was always my favourite and im really fascinate when you upload a new one.Thnk you
I wish you would do the rest of these matches, they show interesting strategies even though they aren't from lc0 they are still very informative, it's fun to root for the human
Great analysis. Please make more like this.
Thanks A lot Jerry.. I Wanted to see this game Yesterday! and u posted it today! Amazing Game!
Jerry, would just like to thank you seriously for all the videos and streams that you do. I only got into Chess about 9 months ago, and i have gone from a rating of 750 to 1200 on chess.com. This is almost all thanks to you and your videos. I am now a member of the chess club at university, and play everyday online. No chance that I would have got so keen for the game if it wasn't for your entertaining, expert, fun and funny videos... One day i will beat you ;)
Hope you feel better Jerry. Appreciate your efforts uploading
wow! kasparov forcing a supercomputer to resign lol
Missed these analysis videos :)
Thank you so much for these vids. I learn so much!!!
How the fuck does a computer resign?
It was probably programmed to resign when it can see that its opponent has a forced mate, or an insurmountable advantage with no chance for drawing.
By saying, "I resign," and then kicking the table over and leaving in a huff, ignoring all requests for interviews.
It probably resign when it notices all possibility is a loss or like Jovan Scarsno said , it is a forced mate
SpinBlade, deep blue does not have legs and it doesn't have feelings just like other engines
xi chen The joke flew waaayy over your head....
Hey could you perhaps change the aspect ratio of the video a bit, so that the picture would be more wide and so the pieces? Else I think this is another great video :)
thnx a lot jerry for dis videos..ur doin a great job!!!
Thanks for the great analysis! Any chance you could use a higher contrast board in future videos? The black on brown can be hard to follow!
hope you keep uploading vids of this match
Very deep and instructive analysis.
Thank you Jerry!
It was very deep analysis, but was it very blue?
more of these jerry
Jerry, you are the best! Thanks again for the video!
Jerry you are AMAZING! With all the depth of my heart, I thank you for all your amazing content.
At 16:17 How does advancing the rook (d5) impede bishop (f6)? Yes, the rook can take the pawn (f5), but the white rook still mates (h4).
Still, the number of possible chess positions is many orders of magnitude greater than the number of rubik's cube possibilities (plus there are two players rather than just one). 43 quintillion = 4.3x10^19. The number of possible chess positions is approximately 10^47 with the "game tree complexity" being approximately 10^123. These are not simply geometric differences in order of magnitude, but exponential. More info at wikipedia(...)/shannon_number
I have a question... If they can make a super computer that can do every single calculation. Couldn't it figure out how to win no matter what the other person does. So if you gave it the white pieces, after the first move you've already lost. You just choose the losing path
Hello, Jerry. May you please do a commentary on game 2 of this 1997 series between Deep Blue and Kasparov? That one was the most controversial game, and I'm very interested to hear your thoughts on it.
calidude146 what was so controversial?
tape4684 it appears that deep blue used a lot more time than the normal to calculate in a specific move and rejected a sacrifice from Kasparov; from that moment K started to think that there was human intervention (from Karpov) behind that move, and never played calmed again during the match.
If you have some understanding of both chess and computer science it is not a problem to accept Deep Blue's play in game 2. Chess engines can be adjusted to play sacs which cannot be calculated to a win and to refuse the same type of sac.
Will you be doing videos for the other 5 games Jerry?
ahh, the monotone jerry is back in this vid...
don't know if anyone else notices the changes in Jerry's tone of voice between videos... I have noticed and its freakin fascinating
This was amazing to watch. Once you start trying to play chess seriously, and enjoying it (I suggest getting a timer app on your phone, because the thing that can make chess boring is when people take too long, try 1/2 an hour each), then your mind starts to boggle at how good these grand masters, and national champions (Jerry) are!
Thanks so much!!
Hi Jerry. Very beautiful game, one of my favourites. Fantastic Kasparov, only a genius could think to sacrifice the exchange against a supercomputer. In your opinion what was the elo rating of Deep Blue in 1997? About 2800?
MarcoMate87 the elo rating for the deep blue in this game would be 2780 and if we had a cpu with the power today it will have 3450 easily
The strongest chess engine today has an elo of 3415.
@ Sick Dece, can you provide a source? I would like to see some games at 3400 elo strength.
MrSupernova111 check out stockfish 8 and Houdini 5 games. Jerry actually has an analysis or two of their games
Google’s Alpha zero has an elo of infinity
loving the vids! keep them coming :)
you communicate well. simple yet complete and clear.
you are right, that makes a lot of sense, thank you. by the way, i think your space bar isnt working.
Thumbs up if you want to see Jerry speed these games up to a 1min Blitz game and analyse them Warzone style! Love your work Jerry, really appreciate all your energy :)
this is very interesting. the rest of the games are not available in this channel?
Here for me is just fine. It may be your audio settings.
On move 22. Nhf1 you said it was interesting, and I thought the idea was Nd2-c4, that looks pretty good as well.
Game 2 will be interesting I think Mr Network:-)
Absolutely incredible game by Kasparov!
eager to have videos on famous endgames from u
Amazing analysis
I love you Jerry, you are awesome at your analysis, you helped me so much in my chess games!!!
Awesome analysis
kasparov! you are a true hero man beating deep blue like that? man you are amazing
Excellent analysis of a very good game. Very happy seing Kasparov winning the machine.
Hey Jerry, what was your rating during this analysis, ballpark? I have a good idea where you are now as I have been watching your vids for a few years, but not sure your age and how much you may have advanced in the intervening years. Thanks for your awesome videos and hopefully your response.
Jerry's rating is USCF master which to convert to approximate Elo you subtract 150 from USCF.
Great analysis. Looking forward to your analysis of game 2...the one that Kasparov resigned and which critics later found out he shouldn't have. I was in an evening computer class when this game was played, and all the time I was watching the game instead.
I would like to see the other games, please
Where are the rest of the games
Come on please do them
Jerry please game 2
What was Deep Blue's rating?
Maybe regular computers. To be honest I don't think we are that far away from the computing power needed to get it from the start. I believe it's google who has the highest amount of computing power. And if you need it for some type of study, you can use it. They used it to figure out what the maximum amount of moves required to solve a rubik's cube (it's 20) but they had to do it by testing all 43 quintillion possible starting positions.
At first my impression was that Kasparov was playing too scared; but his eventually sterilizing all Deep Blue’s maneuvering and launching a final attack of his own was beautiful.
I guess in the 97 Rematch we’re so fixed on Kasparov’s defeat (especially, what was it, Game 2?), we forget what masterful chess he played in his wins.
If youre sick get better soon!
I have a thick lawn Guyland accent....it's weird to hear you saw "pons" instead of PAWns ;-) love the analysis!
I am missing Jerry :C No new videos yet :D
11:44 Nd6# right?
Hi Jerry!!! I am a big fan of your channel and a daily visitor, I have a request for you, can you analyse the second game of this rematch ?
thank you a lot
at 11:42 Isn't Qg8 Checkmate?
What would be really interesting is to see the variables Deep Blue assigned to its pieces each turn, that is which pieces it valued the most, felt which gave a more strategic advantage, or more favorable in other ways. Even though Deep Blue wouldn't have emotions it still might be exploited as though it did simply by having an insight as to which pieces it calculated to be most valuable to it. Of course I know that would change with each turn, but I'd still like to see that data, see its strategic processing.
IIRC DB's evaluation function had thousands of features.
I notice it, very different when he's in tournaments.
I could use the moves Kasparov used in a game against my friend right?
Only if your friend is a computer.
Or opponent. If you're playing online. Oh..
I doubt many people would pull off trying some of Kasparov's aggressive moves.
Why did you write this! Now I have to go to kingscrusher and search for "puh-thith-eh-yuh" XD
thx
You watched it, didn't you?
Exchange sac against a computer.. damn
Positional Masterpiece
what program is this?
engine*
After watching the documentary and seeing how the games went, it struck me that if Kasparov had played the board, not his paranoia of the men behind the scenes, he would have won. I believe it was Karpov that said something like the computer couldn't be intimidated by him, i'm paraphrasing. Also humans versus machines and machines being superior and we are the weaker ones now etc misses the whole point of the contest, that is, between human minds challenging ourselves to be better.
+Minkki82 Yes your right , i agree with you completely, well said too.
"Douglas, makes life beautiful."
"Jerry, makes Chess wonderful." :)~
The team usually has a formula in which they have the computer resign. If the computer gets behind by more than 2 points or something, they resign.
KASPAROV IS LEGEND !
Jerry make new videos
What is the point of 33. ...Qb5? And then when white plays Qf1 why does black trade queens? These couple moves seemed to give the advantage to white.
or threat. "Frettening the pawn, fret on the knight, FRETS EVERYWHERE."
Please, do The Game of the Century (Donald Byrne vs 13-year-old Bobby Fischer)
stream!
Sweet analysis Jerry! :))
I beg to differ, Kasparov played x3d Fritz in 2003 with an estimated 2800 rating and it ended in a draw, Houdini 2 x64 is much stronger. Kasparov's draw match was because of blunders, which computers don't make. Kramnik lost to deep fritz in 2006, engines today are much stronger than 97' Deep Blue, Pocket Fritz 4 reached the same high performance as Deep Blue on a slow computer.
Computers will only keep getting stronger and stronger, the reign of man is over.
brilliant man he was. was a great battle between two titans
titan vs god
Men's Rights brilliant man he IS
Guz Man he WAS at the battle
Without a doubt, Jerry and KingCrusher's videos are both very insightful and educational.
I have nothing against you Jerry, but I think KingCrusher is more entertaining and funny.
Yea, so it could happen theoretically. That's what I was wondering. It doesn't really matter anyways... Even though it has the potential to be solved, humans can't do it. So I don't know if it really matters I was just wondering. Thanks for answering
Right now, super computers cannot calculate THAT far. Chess is not a "solved" game, meaning there is no sure way to win (or at least force a tie), like, for example, tic-tac-toe. Theoretically, if computers advance enough so that they could calculate many more moves ahead of time, the game could be solved.
u said it
exactly COMPUTERS don't recognize losing there is always a hope that your opponent will blunder, this is a SUPERcomputer so he is not dumb enough to think a GM like Kasparov would commit a mistake in such easy end-game position :)
Thanks, I found it.
Man has no chance of beating the chess machine of today's standards though :((
Yeah, even if it were solved by computers, humans would have to memorize every single possible variation which will probably not ever be possible. Right now, computers have solved endgames involving no more than 6 (or maybe up to 8, I honestly forget the exact number) pieces on the board. That is nowhere near the 32 that start on the board. Also remember that adding pieces exponentially increases the complexity so it will probably be a long time before the game gets solved by computers.
I hate playing chess to the point where Im never going to play it again. But, I love to watch others playing chess.
This is what people watch?
There's a chess network
in 11:49 Qg8#
+Ala Abdo Knight to f8.
Deep Blue had a rating of around 2700, top engines today are much stronger Houdini, Rybka. No human could win a match against these beasts.
Hi , Jerry . please play with houdini and post in youtube.
great video jerry! i dont like kasparovs opening choice
Kasparov played the whole match with the strange openings like 1.d3??? and with black 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d6??? Kasparov played his knight to h7???? in the ruy lopez.Kasparov played The Caro Kan 1.e4 c6 he never played that with a human player.Kasparov lost the final game with a poor analysis 1.e4 c6 opening.The Deep Blue without the opening theory starts game 1.Knight c3?????
Great Jerry
Damn is it weird analyzing a game with a computer.
i beat computer level 4 twice. xD