Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

register now - it's free!
Garry Kasparov vs Deep Blue (Computer)
"In Too Deep" (game of the day Apr-18-10)
IBM Man-Machine, New York USA (1997)  ·  Zukertort Opening: Queen Pawn Defense (A06)  ·  1-0
To move:
Last move:

Click Here to play Guess-the-Move
Given 31 times; par: 62 [what's this?]

explore this opening
find similar games 11 more Kasparov/Deep Blue games
sac: 30.f4 PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: Help with kibitzing features can be found on our Kibtizing Help Page.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with the default chess viewer, please see the Pgn4web Quickstart Guide.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·  Later Kibitzing>
May-29-15  latvalatvian: Kasparov's great faith in computers stemmed from this match. In his volumes of My Great Predecessors, he used computer analysis regularly--a deep tragedy as computer don't know how to play chess.
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<latvalatvian> a deep tragedy as computer don't know how to play chess.>

I suppose it all depends on how you define "know how to play chess". Would you agree that computers are "capable" of playing chess?

May-30-15  latvalatvian: In order for a computer to play chess they would have to know: 1 What chess is.
2. What their opponent looked like.
3. chess psychology
4. what is was like to be excited.
5. What it felt like to move a piece
6. What it felt like to win and lose
Because computers don't know these things, they are not chess players. Whatever they do in the realm of chess is without importance and humans should never play them. Humans should never use computers for chess.
May-30-15  latvalatvian: 4 should read "what it's like to be excited"
May-30-15  latvalatvian: A human learns chess but a computer is programmed. If your playing someone or something that hasn't learned chess, you are not playing chess.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi latvalatvian,

If I may add:

7. Have no knowledge of previous wins/defeats/draws against an opponent (no desire for revenge.)

8. Cannot be put off by OTB facial gestures etc... or noise.

9. Cannot swindle, knowingly play a bad move in a lost position hoping for a blunder. Humans win this way everyday.

10. They don't even know they are playing a game.

Computers have their part to play in chess but this is overrated. Constantly playing them will lose you the art of playing v a human and (unless you set the position up on a full sized board) it will destroy your full board vision.

Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <latvalatvian> What about self-learning programs? :D

Or a human who has no idea of the things you mentioned but good at chess?

Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: I once wrote a self-learning program which learned to play quite decent Tetris. And that knowing just the very basics of learning algorithms.
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: I am sure I'm not the only person who's been surprised how strong the engines have gotten. An opening book, endgame database, decent evaluation algorithm, pruning to increase depth, and the tactical chops to destroy any mistake are all it takes to be better than the best human players. A bit depressing, really, but there you go.
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <OCF> Moder engines would probably not even need opening book and endgame TB.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Penguincw: Analysis of this game:
May-30-15  latvalatvian: Oh, computers can't teach chess either. I have asked my computer lots of questions and it has no answer. Some programs pretend to be interactive but its a scam.
May-30-15  latvalatvian: If a computer defeats me, I couldn't care less. What do computers know about the divine love that surrounds all chess knowledge.
May-30-15  latvalatvian: I would rather ask my dog about the pros and cons of the king's gambit than Fritz, and I believe my dog would have a better answer.
May-30-15  latvalatvian: I would rather memorize the phone book than look at the boring and lifeless variations of a computer.
May-31-15  dumbgai: By <latvalatvian>'s logic, computers can't do anything, including compute. In order for a computer to compute they would have to know:

1. What computing is.
2. What the numbers they're computing looked like.
3. What it felt like to compute.
4. What it felt like to be excited about computing.


May-31-15  latvalatvian: Computer's don't compute then. They were programmed to compute and did not learn to compute. So no, they don't compute.
May-31-15  latvalatvian: Someone computed a computer and then exclaimed, "Look it has a soul!" It's like blowing on a feather and claiming it's alive when it moves.
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: It looks like we have a new troll in our midst. Or perhaps an old troll with a new name. Oh well, we all know what to do even if we don't always do it.
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Alan Vera> I think that Komodo 9 would win easily. A lot would depend on the hardware that Komodo 9 was running on. Deep Blue was capable 200 million positions per second using 30 nodes each containing a 120 MHz processor, and assisted by 480 special-purpose chips that supported position evaluation ( On, say, an 8-core, 3 GHz system (and much faster systems are readily available and affordable), it is doubtful that Komodo 9 could evaluate anywhere near 200 million positions per second. To give you an idea, on my antiquated 4-core, 32-bit, 2.66 GHz Intel system in the test described below Komodo 9 was evaluating only about 1.8 million positions per second.

But today's chess software is much, much better than the chess software of 1997. Modern chess engines' evaluation functions are implemented in software, not hardware, which makes them much more easy to change. And they have been tuned in tens of thousands of engine vs. engine games, making them much more accurate.

And not only is Komodo's position evaluation more accurate, but its searching algorithms and search tree pruning heuristics are much more effective, eliminating from comparison almost all of the positions that are not worth evaluating. For example, Deep Blue relied primarily on brute force, and it would typically search to a depth of only 6 to 8 ply, although in some positions (presumably greatly simplified endgame positions), it could search about 20 plies deep (see link above). So even if the computer that Komodo ran under was only capable of evaluating 2 million nodes per second it could search much deeper, and correctly evaluate the results of moves much better than Deep Blue.

So I decided to put it to a test. I had Komodo 9 evaluate the following position that arose recently in The World vs Naiditsch, 2014 after 13...d5:

click for larger view

At a time control of 40 moves in 2 hours that is an average of 3 minutes per move. In my antiquated system Komodo 9 was able to search to a depth of 23 ply in a little over 2 minutes. Consider what the results would be if in a chess game you were able to calculate 8 half-moves ahead and your opponent was able to calculate 23 half-moves ahead and evaluate the positions with better accuracy! You would probably have no chance.

So, if Deep Blue were to play a 6-game match against Komodo 9 at classical time controls of 40 moves in 2 hours, running on my antiquated computer, I would guess that the final result would be 5-1 or 5˝-˝ in favor of Komodo, and that would be giving Deep Blue the benefit of the doubt.

And these results are not unique to Komodo 9. I had Houdini 4 and Stockfish 6 analyze the same position and in about 2 ˝ minutes Houdini was also able to search to a depth of 23 ply and Stockfish, the "deep searching" champion, was able to reach a depth of 29 ply in less than 3 minutes. Houdini was evaluating about 4.9 million positions per second and Stockfish was evaluating about 2.9 million positions per second. So a match between Deep Blue and Houdini 4 or Stockfish 6 would probably have similar results.

Jun-03-15  dumbgai: <AylerKupp> I agree with your assessment, but it should be noted that Deep Blue had much of its search and evaluation done using its custom-built hardware, which greatly improved computational speed. In this respect, Deep Blue would have an advantage.

Still, I would wager my money on a moderately fast machine that was smart (Komodo/Stockfish/Houdini), over a super-fast machine that was much less smart (Deep Blue).

Jun-06-15  jdc2: <AylerKupp> On a 2.1Ghz laptop with 3072MB hash, SF 020615 gets to 24 ply in 14.4 seconds for that position.
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<dumbai> it should be noted that Deep Blue had much of its search and evaluation done using its custom-built hardware, which greatly improved computational speed.>

Yes, I know. It was much more efficient, probably by a factor of at least 10X, in evaluating a position. But its search tree pruning heuristics were probably primitive, if it had any at all (besides alpha-beta pruning, which I consider an algorithm and not a heuristic), so it HAD to evaluate a lot more positions. After all, if you don't have to evaluate any of the positions in a search tree branch that was pruned, the time for each position evaluation in that branch is zero, and you can't get more efficient than that!

That's probably why Deep Blue could typically only get to search plies 6 or 8, although in presumably much simplified positions it could get to 20. So it evaluated a lot of branches that it didn’t need to evaluate. And, of course, Deep Blue didn't have endggame tablebases available.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <jdc2> You clearly have a 64-bit laptop with lots of memory. I only have 4 GB on my 32-bit desktop (of which about 3.3 GBs are usable) and use a 1024 hash table. On that machine Stockfish 6 reached a 24-ply search depth in 31 seconds.

After I wrote my response to <Alan Vera> I got curious as to how much engines' search tree pruning had improved in recent years. I think that the results, while perhaps interesting, are perhaps off-topic for this page so I have posted the details in AylerKupp chessforum (kibitz #1391) for those who are interested.

Premium Chessgames Member
  andrewjsacks: Perfect style in which to play such a beast. Should have been done in more games by Garry, Kramnik, et al.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 5)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·  Later Kibitzing>

Kasparov on Kasparov: Part I
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. Don't post personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collections [what is this?]
King's Indian Attack opening
from Human vs Computer Games by lucius87x
howaruri's favorite games
by howaruri
Hybrid Openings
by Zhbugnoimt
Will humans be able to defeate Artificial Intelligence?
from Man vs. Machine by neverfallen
GM vs Computer
by larrewl
98_A07_King's Indian Attack
by whiteshark
Thunders games
by mboss615
Kasparov vs Deep Blue
by piatos blue
King Kasspy
by gareeb
kcb's favorite games
by kcb
Oxnard's favorite games
by Oxnard
Hypermodernism in action
by norcist
Kasparov defeats Blue in first remach ("computer played lousy")
from arnab's favorite games by arnab
September 2001 1997 Rematch: Kasparov versus Deep Blue
from Inside Chess(YS) by sorrowstealer
Deep Blue goes down against two brave pawns
from alexandrovm's favorite games by alexandrovm
I love this opening for white
from All Games by lucius87x
from joseraul2014's favorite games by joseraul2014
Exchange sacs - 2
by obrit
King's Indian Attack: General
from KASPAROV GAMES by gambitfan
Kasparov-Deep Blue 1997
by FSR
plus 39 more collections (not shown)

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2015, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies