Deeper blue chess full#

Today no one but a complete Luddite would doubt the power of chess computers, to the point that many people don’t find chess matches pitting human champions against computes very interesting anymore. What about a traditional twenty-four games?”Īnd so it goes, as soon as a computer clears the bar, somebody else just raises the bar. Within hours of Kasparov’s loss of the 1998 match, it started again, with online comments like, “Well, of course that was a six game match. What about longer time controls?” When Kasparov lost Game One of the 1997 Deep Blue match, the naysayers crowed, “Oh, sure, a game. What about speed games?” A few months later after he lost to Chess Genius at “game in 25”, the complaint went, “Oh, but that was a speed game.

After Kasparov’s loss to Fritz in a 1994 blitz tournament, their cant was, “Oh, but it was blitz.

Deeper blue chess full#

The naysayers were out in full force after the 1998 match between Garry Kasparov and Deep Blue. The Aftermath – Garry Kasparov Vs Deep Blue He resigned after White’s nineteenth move.

In the final game, the world champion, playing the Black pieces, committed a horrible blunder on his seventh move (and a surprising one, since the move was a well-known stinker, even at the amateur level) and he was never able to recover from his mistake. The final game was played on a Sunday, May 11th. By the end of Game Five, the score was tied at 2.5 games each. Supporters of the IBM team accused Kasparov mere blustering to mask the psychological shock he’d suffered by resigning in a drawn position. The champion publicly refused to believe that he’d been bested by a machine “fair and square” (despite the fact that he’d previously lost the first game of the 1996 match to an earlier version of the computer). Kasparov (as well as his supporters) began to accuse IBM of cheating by using human grandmaster analysis during games. Kasparov couldn’t believe what he’d done, and much of the fight seemed to go out of him at that point. There has been a world of controversy surrounding the match which began the day after Game Two, including arguments which persist to this day.

In an incident which demonstrates the power of the Internet (which at that time was just beginning to become a tool for the general public rather than the domain of academics), an amateur player posted analysis within hours of the game’s end in which he successfully demonstrated that Kasparov could have drawn Game Two. Garry won the first game, but lost the second – and, worse yet, had resigned in a drawing position. The following, in “Cliff Notes” terms, is basically what happened. I own two or three books written about the event and have perused innumerable web sites devoted to the subject. Much ink has been spilled in the print medium (and many electrons sacrificed online) in analysis of this match. In May, 1997 Garry Kasparov faced Deep Blue in New York City, in a six game match against the imposing behemoth housed in a pair of black metal cabinets. A solid year of tinkering and analysis brought forth a Deep Blue that was even stronger than the version Kasparov had fought the previous year. The following year brought the ultimate challenge for the human world champion. The champion scored a 4-2 victory (but a computer win in the last game would have made the match a tie). And, despite the fact that many of these people were programmers, technicians, or other computer professionals, nearly every one of them expressed the hope that Garry Kasparov would emerge victorious.įans rooting for Garry weren’t disappointed. Most of these folks were either non-players or interested casual players. The event garnered a huge amount of interest, even among the non-chessplaying public.Īt the time the match was played, I was employed as a computer analyst for a large corporation and, following each game, co-workers from all over the facility would drop by the lab to discuss the latest results with me. Garry Kasparov vs Deep Blue: Although chess engines running on high end home computer hardware had been able to defeat all but the world’s top echelon of chess players for a couple of years by the start of 1996 (and, even on average hardware, had been able to defeat club players for even longer), many human players held it as an article of faith that a computer program would never be able to defeat a world champion.Įarly in 1996, Garry Kasparov once again met his silicon nemesis, now rechristened Deep Blue (since “Big Blue” was now sponsoring the project) in a six game match played in Philadelphia.