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

Deep Blue (Computer) vs Garry Kasparov
"Tangled Up in Blue" (game of the day Oct-16-2016)
IBM Man-Machine (1997), New York, NY USA, rd 6, May-??
Caro-Kann Defense: Karpov. Modern Variation (B17)  ·  1-0


Click Here to play Guess-the-Move
Given 66 times; par: 22 [what's this?]

explore this opening
find similar games 11 more Deep Blue/Kasparov games
sac: 9.O-O PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can change the color of the light and dark squares by registering a free account then visiting your preferences page. Or, you can change it with the "SETTINGS" link in the lower right.

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

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 16 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Sep-25-03  mack: Now please forgive me for being incredibly stupid here, but why DOES Kasparov let Deep Blue take his question? I'm not being frivolous, just stupid I guess... there was no real threat was there? Apologies for my dumbness but I just don't get it...
Sep-25-03  bishop: <mack>< Now please forgive me for being incredibly stupid here, but why DOES Kasparov let Deep Blue take his question?.> Your question is difficult to understand but here is my take on this game. Kasparov gets paid a million dollars to lose by IBM. He pockets the money and goes home happy. IBM gets world wide headlines because its computer beat the world champion. They get millions of dollars worth of publicity, and the company stock goes up making the company worth billions of dollars more, and they go home happy.
Sep-26-03  Drstrangelove: Has Kaspaorv ever commented on the theory that he took a million dollars to throw the game? I hear that he is very defensive when the the match is brought up in general, let alone a theory such as this.
Sep-26-03  bishop: After some thought I have a slightly different opinion as to what really happened in the Deeep Blue- Kasparov match. The match was suppose to be a draw! Lets remember that earlier in the match Kasparov resigned in, as later analysis proved, a drawn position. The last game was suppose to be drawn, Kasparov would pocket his under the table money and he could look forward to an even higher payday in a future rematch. But, the IBM people put one over him by giving Deep Blue some human help during the final game. Evidence of this is the failure of IBM to turn over the computer logs from the game and the quick dismantling of the super computer. Supposedly Kasparov was furious and stormed off when he resigned the game, this is in line with my theory that he had been double crossed. He of course could not have spilled the beans and admitted the match was suppose to be drawn. I have of course no way to prove my ideas but find it hard to believe that the champion of the world would play such a weak move as 7...h6? in this game. I remember reading a quote from a Grandmaster (I don't remember who) that "Kasparov owed the chessplayers of the world an apology for making such a move."
Sep-26-03  Benjamin Lau: I have another theory to offer as well though. I think that Kasparov came into game six with a misunderstanding of Deep Blue. He thought that computers NEVER sacrifice unless they see a definite way to regain the material. I think that for Deep Blue, this was true (though not so for newer programs)... Unfortunately, Kasparov forgot one very important exception- Deep Blue may not willingly sacrifice material in a middlegame for purely "strategic reasons," but it may sacrifice material in the opening, if its opening library dictates it (because the program's evaluation mechanism doesn't kick in until it's "out of book.") The aftermath would thus make sense. Garry, stunned at the supposedly "human" move of the computer, storms out in rage after being beaten in 19 moves, the shortest loss of his entire career (excluding his simul loss to Nigel Short.) He took it for granted that Deep Blue would not play such a move and that if it didn't, he would have a good game. He likely expected 8. Ne4. (Seirawan notes that 8. Ne4 Nxe4 9. Bxe4 Nf6 10. Bd3 c5 instead would have yielded equality for black.) See Gufeld vs Speelman, 1986 for a game with this position.
Sep-28-03  mack: Haha, not question, QUEEN! God I'm an idiot
Oct-10-03  evansgambit: i was reading the earlier kibitzings and someone talked about Nemeth. i've never heard of this i googled him and i think his anti-comp style is very convincing. has anyone flip through Ernest F. Pecci's book about his games against Fritz? i must say...good stuff man.
Oct-11-03  drukenknight: try looking up the game; Jets vs Colts, SB III; 1969.
Premium Chessgames Member
  lostemperor: The Seirawan annotations given by <ksadler> confirmed my earlier suspicions/ conviction of the charade between IBM and Kasparov this match/game was. After the dissapointing fifth game draw Kasparov said:" <the match is over>". Now why did he say that?? There was still this one game to go and everything (the human race) depended on this outcome. He can still win the match or lose. He can even play for a draw. It was anything but over!!

So why did he say that it was over (as to give us a hint)?? Because he knew he agreed to lose this prearranged game! No Cashparov knew the Caro-Kann perfectly because it was the main defense of his arch-rival Karpov. This kind of sacrifice is a beginners theme and Kasparov even sacrificed a knight himself on e6 against a Caro-Kann under far more complicated circumstances Kasparov vs Karpov, 1988

A beginner can see that after 7.. h6?? 8. Nxe6 will give a dangerous attack if only because after ...fxe6 a bishopcheck at g6 looks murderous (what also happened in this game). After the game Kasparov admitted he knew the game was over after Nxe6. Quo vadis Gary? Kasparov owes the world much more than just an apology.

Oct-21-03  Chris00nj: Here is a very interesting article on the match by Kasparov himself.

I believe he has numerous good points and unanswered questions by IBM. I think there is a strong chance that there was some human hanky-panky by IBM. The way Kasparov convincingly won in the first game, and then computer changed it's play... at least on certain moves.

Kasparov claimed "this match is over" after game 5 because he knew there was some serious human intervention after game 1. He was unnerved after game 2. Would anyone react any differently? If all of a sudden he was playing Deep Blue and a 2600 GM?

I bet in equal setting, where Kaparov had enough rest in between (computer need none), a board to work out variations (the computer does), and the computer was without human help, Kasparov would win 5 1/2-1/2.

If you took out the databases (Kasparov doesnt have MCO or next to him), there is no way that any computer would score even a draw.

Oct-21-03  Diggitydawg: There's a new documentary out regarding the '97 match, which I'm hoping to see soon with a friend who's going to film school. Here's a link to the review by Chessbase: Apparently the film's message is that IBM, in a cold and businesslike fashion, sought the World champion's scalp as a means to raise its stock price, as opposed to conducting a scientific experiment (which was what Kasparov believed). Lostemperor's theory is interesting food for thought, but I am willing to give Kasparov the benefit of the doubt. An alternative explanation for Garry's poor performance in game 6 is that he let his suspicion that Deep Blue had grandmaster help grow into paranoia and it affected his OTB performance. Another interesting link is: In the link, there are realplayer clips covering key points of the match.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Eggman: Is my memory playing tricks on me or wasn't the computer that beat Kasparov in 1997 called Deeper Blue, while Deep blue was its predecessor?

To add to Chris00nj's points about the match perhaps not being fair: a grandmaster is not allowed to consult with a computer during a game, and by this standard Deeper Blue was certainly being given an unfair advantage - it IS a computer!

I never really saw the match as a competitive thing; and in sports, we never worry about whether, say, some machine could run faster than, say, Ben Johnson. He was the champ because he was the fastest MAN (person). Competitors in other games are only asked to outdo other PEOPLE - I don't see why it should be any different with Kasparov. And if you do want to see the match in competitive terms than I would say that it was unfair, with or without some conspiratorial scandal.

Oct-21-03  Benjamin Lau: <lostemperor>

If you read the report in context, you'll notice that Kasparov supplements his "the game is already lost" statement after game 5 with "I just completely lost my fighting spirit, after game five, I was emptied completely."

Oct-21-03  Drstrangelove: I asked this question before and while I donít think itís really appropriate to fill up the board with the same question, I am very interested if anyone has an answer (my apologies):

<Has Kaspaorv ever commented on the theory that he took a million dollars to throw the game? I hear that he is very defensive when the the match is brought up in general, let alone a theory such as this.>

I donít know whose theory it was that the match was arranged to be a draw but then IBM pulled a fast one on Kasparov, but it seems pretty interesting and even logical to me. I could easily see Kasparov go in to a deal with IBM to have a draw. I could even easily see him being able to justify it, in that the rematch would draw much more attention to the game of chess, and hense it would be a good thing. I donít mean to say that I canít see Kasparov taking money, but his ego is much more important to him and it seems as if this match has done serious damage to him.

Oct-21-03  John Doe: Take away a computer's opening and ending books, and it will lose in no time.

I think computer power is too overstated. One, they can't play positionally. And two they can't even analyze tactics properly in some ocasions.

Oct-21-03  Benjamin Lau: <Eggman>

I think it was Deeper Blue too, but I think treats computer programs almost like humans- improvements over time still go into a single Deep Blue folder, just like how Kasparov's games aren't organized as "Kasparov of 1988," "Kasparov of 1989," etc just because he changes over time. Deep Fritz only has one folder, yet the games in that folder are from multiple versions.

Premium Chessgames Member <I think treats computer programs almost like humans- improvements over time still go into a single Deep Blue folder, just like how Kasparov's games aren't organized as "Kasparov of 1988," "Kasparov of 1989," etc just because he changes over time.> Exactly correct, and well stated.
Oct-22-03  Diggitydawg: <Deeper Blue> The Deep Blue appellation is appropriate. The IBM site that refers to the '97 machine as Deep Blue: I think the Deeper Blue name was coined by the media to distinguish the new version from the previous one.
Premium Chessgames Member
  lostemperor: no doubt IBM has human assistent available/ at work to avoid a possible debacle. But see it this way IBM needed at least one win to make a sucess of the match of it's supercomputer!! A 2600 GM assistent is no garantee. The only thing to be sure of a win is to buy one (even if giving one loss in return). I think Kasparov was not unhappy with this agreement (just in case Deep Blue was a monster).

The Seirawan analysis of this game is very clear though. Not only did Kasparov went for a losing 7...h6?, he also played 8...Qe7? and even his novelty 11 ...b5 was bad. And: "Kasparov resignation was premature to say the least". This is 4 coincedences too many of (very) weak play. Kasparov, very obviously, did not want to fight as he also expressed several times before and after the game. And this is inexcusable!!

For a man called the killer, who was able to fight on at gunpoint being 5 matchpoints down in a WC-match, to play so childishly, there is only one explanation: Kasparov sold this game. All the excuses that he lost his fighting spirit or fatigueness is poor, pathetic and ridiculous at best (although he'd like to have the world to believe this and he could have fooled me).

Unfortunately, IBM was clever enough not to give Kasparov or others the chance of playing Deep Blue again. The computer was dismantled immediately and it's secret burried. I can only say Garry got what he deserved (if it were not the world suffered this unparalleled deceit).

Premium Chessgames Member
  Eggman: "For a man called the killer, who was able to fight on at gunpoint being 5 matchpoints down in a WC-match, to play so childishly, there is only one explanation: Kasparov sold this game."

I agree that's Kasparov's bad play was no coincidence, but another explanation might simply be that he was greatly disturbed by something. What was that something? Maybe his suspicions that IBM was cheating (referred to in earlier posts), or his total inability to understand or predict its play (I remember him at the time making comments in the press to the effect that the computer was making decisions that were unprecedented for a computer).

At the time I never heard any cheating allegations, and I just thought that Kasparov had fallen apart when he found himself in an unexpectedly tough fight with, for the first time in his career, an opponent whose head he was simply unable to get inside.

Oct-22-03  zorro: Joe Gallagher suggests that someone may have tricked Kasparov into thinking that 8. Nxe6 was not in Deep Blue's opening book.
Oct-22-03  AdrianP: <All> I find it extremely unlikely that Garry simply slipped up, allowing Nxe6 (if so, it would be virtually unique in Gazza's career): he must have been banking on one of two erroneous assumptions: (i) that Deep Blue did not have Nxe6 in its opening book (...and had a less favourable continuation in its book)(<Zorro>'s conjecture following J Gallagher); (ii) that Deep Blue would be out of its book and would not be able to evaluate the N sac as being favourable for W.

One thing that should be remembered is that, as I remember things, Gazza did *not* have access to DB's opening book *at all* (contrast the match with DJ where Gazza could play against an earlier version of DJ until bored witless). I wouldn't be surprised, however, if Gazza had some sort of inside info which turned out to be misleading.

Gazza had prepared for this match with an anti-computer strategy (e.g. getting Deep Blue out of its opening book a.s.a.p.) but at the end of the match said that this was a mistake next time he would be coming out fighting with the Najdorf etc.

It is interesting that Gazza successfully tried a gamble on Deep Junior's opening book in Kasparov vs Deep Junior, 2003 where most people assume that Gazza had already spotted that Deep Junior's book had a flaw in it in response to g5.

I tend to think that this game was simply a risky gamble by Gazza that spectacularly backfired - he thought he could get a decent position by playing on Deep Blue's incomplete opening knowledge. By this time in the match, he wasn't really up for a full-on fight.

Oct-22-03  Diggitydawg: <lostemperor's theory that IBM and Kasparov had a prearranged deal that Kasparov would win game 1 in exchange for IBM winning game 6 so that the contest was really over 4 games> Well, like I said before, it's interesting food for thought. If you look at this realplayer clip you'll see that Garry is clearly distraught when asked about 7...h6?. The person who wrote the article where the clip is from, invites everyone to "draw your own conclusion".

What is clear is that Garry accepted very bad terms for this match (no examples of the computer's play beforehand, no adjournment, allowing the computer to be reprogrammed every night, allowing a restart when the computer crashed instead of counting that as a forfeit) in exchange for IBM's money.

I found an account of a writer who was was hired by IBM to cover the Kasparov camp during the match. He attempted to do his job honestly but was overruled by IBM's PR department because his copy might make the computer look bad (regarding a draw that Garry missed in game 2). IBM's PR department eventually fired the guy for reporting honestly and not being their "spin doctor". What interested me was his contention that Kasparov tried to quit the match before game 4 and had to be cajoled back into the match.

Oct-22-03  zorro: <AdrianP> There are many reasons that make Gallagher's suggestion plausible: 1) Kasparov's opening choice, a Caro-Kann. This is not his opening. A part from a game with Fritz and a couple of games in the '80s, you have to go back to year '78 to find K use it. 2) He's been the White side of the Nd7 variation against Karpov, he was bound to know that 7...h6 was a sort of a blunder. But the most important one is that 3) after 8. Nxe6 he played another weak move 8...Qe7, "I think this move is the proof that Kasparov didn't expect to reach this position. Black has lost virtually every game he has played with this move. It was quite well known that 8...fxe6. 9. Bg6+ Ke7 10. 0-0 Qc7 followed by ...Kd8 offers a better chance of a successfull defence (although not enough to actually want to play this line with Black)" (J. Gallagher). Kasparov furious reaction at the loss could be taken as a sign that he knew he'd been set up.
Jan-09-04  LOUDERMILK: I say, despite Kasparov being one of my favorite players, a million or two under the table, they both walk away happy.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 16)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 16 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is 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, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
  3. No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
  6. NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
  7. Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
  8. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
  9. The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
  10. All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
  11. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a Moderator.

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, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
<This page contains Editor Notes. Click here to read them.>
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
Solitaire Chess by Bruce Pandolfini
from yPublished Game by Year & Unconfirmed Source II by fredthebear
A great game by a computer programme
from Masterpieces of chess history by ahmadov
Kasparov loses in 19 moves against Deep Blue.
from K Players of Yesteryear by fredthebear
Kasparov vs Deep Blue
by piatos blue
Garry subsequently accused the programmers of cheating.
from Off-Board Shenanigans by Nasruddin Hodja
Kasparov vs Deep Blue
by paire
Kaspy goes down to machine!
from champs vs champs by kevin86
no comment
from uponthehill's favorite games by uponthehill
by damafe
7...h6?! forces 8. Nxe6!, & wins after 8...Qe7 (8...fxe6!? = )
from Demolition of Pawns: f6 (f3), e6 (e3), a7 (a2) by patzer2
A popularized knight scrifice beats world champion
from The art of sacrifice by neverfallen
toreohm's favorite games
by toreohm
from Fischer and Kasparov: the Patzers by GumboGambit
Segunda derrota com Deep Blue
from Partidas de Xadrez by adalav
Tangled Up in Blue
from My Favorite Games by gabriel112000
Kasparov loses in 19 moves
from Chess Miniatures, Collection I by nionios
7...h6?! forces 8. Nxe6!, & wins after 8...Qe7 (8...fxe6!? = )
from Demolition of Pawns: f6 (f3), e6 (e3), a7 (a2) by Del ToRo

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 | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC