However, that is NOT the way the chess
world viewed this in the 1990's.
The line was unclear. In black's favor is one forgotten detail: his extra knight. Kasparov may have had the
view that this line was a perfect way to
take advantage of the fact that normal rules
of evaluation sometimes don't apply. And black in fact won won games during this time. Watch
here as a player of unquestioned strength loses with the white pieces:

There are a couple of plausible explanations to why Kasparov may have intentionally played a move he knew very well to be objectively bad - Feng-Hsiung Hsu has a couple of theories in "Behind Deep Blue":

<So why did Garry play the move? Black's position was generally considered difficult at best after the knight sacrifice. This is true in games played by human players, but it is not true in games played between computers and human players. The commercial chess programs apparently had serious problems avoiding losing the game as White! Several Grandmasters had tried playing the Black side of the game positions against the top commercial chess programs and were able to win every single game. This fact did not come out until well after the match, but by then the media had moved on to other stories. What Garry played in game six on move seven was a very risky anti-computer chess move.

(...)

Several of the top commercial chess programs at the time were explicitly prohibited in their opening books from playing the knight sacrifice that Deep Blue played. So, apparently, lots of the commercial chess programmers knew that their programs could not play the sacrificial line. There were some rumors during the match that Garry thought Deep Blue was using the opening book of one of the commercial chess programs, so it was conceivable that he was expecting Deep Blue to retreat its knight as the other programs did.

(...)

So there were lots of potential reasons to select the move 7..h6. First, Deep Blue might just retreat the knight. In this case, Garry would have equalized very easily. Second, Deep Blue might not "understand" how to attack. Then, Garry would have won the game and become the toast of the human race...>

Computers at the time following
their normal rules of evaluation
could not properly evaluate Nxe6.
And GM Wolff had lost as white.
So, Seirawann thought black had
blundered, but apparently GM Timoscenko had deliberatly made the same 'blunder' the year before and
had the better half of a draw.

Perhaps Kasparov was looking at how
the computer had played this line,
only the year before this game was
played:

[Event "Jena m"]
[Site "Jena"]
[Date "1996.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Comp Double Fritz/Boss PP"]
[Black "Timoscenko,Gennadij"]
[Result "1/2"]
[Eco "B17"]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ng5 Ngf6 6.Bd3 e6 7.N1f3 h6 8.Nxe6 Qe7 9.0-0 fxe6 10.Bg6+ Kd8 11.Bf4 Nd5 12.Bg3 Qb4 13.Qb1 Ne7 14.c3 Qa5 15.Bh4 Kc7 16.Bg3+ Kd8 17.Bh4 Kc7 18.b4 Qd5 19.Bg3+ Kd8 20.Bc2 Qh5 21.Re1 Nf5 22.Bf4 Nh4 23.Nxh4 Qxh4 24.Bg3 Qf6 25.b5 c5 26.Qb3 Nb6 27.dxc5 Bxc5 28.Rad1+ Ke8 29.a4 Rf8 30.Kh1 Kf7 31.Re5 Qe7 32.a5 Nd7 33.Bg6+ Kxg6 34.Rxe6+ Qxe6 35.Qxe6+ Nf6 36.Qe5 b6 37.Bh4 Ng4 38.Qc7 Bf5 39.f3 Ne3 40.Re1 Kh7 41.Bg3 Rfe8 42.Qb7 Rad8 43.Qxa7 Ra8 44.Qf7 Re7 45.Qxe7 Bxe7 46.axb6 Bc8 47.Rxe3 Bc5 48.Re1 Bxb6 49.h4 Ra3 50.Kh2 Bc5 1/2

In this case, we have a new dimension:
not playing the man, but playing the computer. Kasparov did underestimate the computer.

The scary thing is, as computers get
stronger and stronger, a lot of their
decisions in long range middlegames
closely resemble those of the strongest humans. It seems, there is no long a sanctury of certain positions a human can hide out in.

I have been successful at beating
Fritz, at full strength, playing the
Caro-Kann. The time control was:
40/2, 20/1, then 30 minutes for the
whole game. The game started:
(I have black)

1. e4 c6
2. d4 d5
3. e5 e6
4. Nf3 b6
5. Be2 Ba6

So, I equalized without too much
difficulty. Then, the computer
rejected my numerous draw offers,
and actually lost on time on move
252! (I'll spare you the details...)

As to the possibility 8...exf6, Sierawan in the Chess Base article sited above, indicates he thinks after the dubious 7...h6?! (Sierawan also prefers 7...Bd6) that 8...exf6 is the move Kasparov should have made instead of 8...Qe7 (which in the Chess Cafe article in 1997 Sierawan labeled (?) as a mistake. I ran it to 17 depth on Fritz 8 and the program came up with 8...fxe6 9. Bg6+ Ke7 10. 0-0 Qc7 11. Re1 Kd8 12. c4 Bd6 13. a3 b6 14. c5 Be7 15. Bf7 Bb7 = when White seems to have sufficient compensation for the sacrificed piece in a difficult position for both sides.

There exist at <chessgames.com> several groups of individuals. Two of these groups are: CHESSPLAYERs [CPs] and CHESS-non-PLAYERs [CNPs]. The CPs can be numbered in the tens; the CNPs are numbered in the 1000s.

If DEEPest BLUest won this game, what, almost eight years ago, where is the SOFTWARE program? Where are the results of other DEEPerEST BLUerEST vs ANY-GREAT-OTHER-CHESSPLAYER results? Why is DEEPerESTer BLUE-AS-BLUE-CAN-BE not listed at SSDF [Svenska schackdatorföreningen---the Swedish Chess Computer Association]: http://web.telia.com/~u85924109/ssd... *1* CPs understand this; CNPs do not!

IBM set out to promote its RS/6000 server and chose Chess to accomplish this task. One game does not a CHAMPION make! For whatever reason that KASPAROV blundered, IBM quit when it was ahead. CPs understand this; CNPs do not!

Interested individuals may wish to visit these URLs:

http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/050811/0929... *2*
http://www.computerhistory.org/abou... *3* http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... *4*

Full URL citations:
*1* http://web.telia.com/
~u85924109/ssdf/rlwww052.txt
*2* http://biz.yahoo.com/
iw/050811/092966.html
*3* http://www.computerhistory.org/
about/press_relations/releases/20050817_chess/
*4* http://www.chessbase.com/
newsdetail.asp?newsid=2573

CPs will check out these URLs, and be happy to have the FULL ones when the abbreviated become broken; CNPs don't understand what they just read!

Chessically speaking,...just a thought!
Molly S, KVCS Chess Correspondent

1. Are you asserting the IBM Big Blue team cheated during the match with Kasparov?

2. If so, what definitive proof do you have that such cheating took place?

3. If there is definitive proof the IBM Big Blue team cheated, then what difference does it make whether one is a player or non-player (such as the now retired Kasparov) as to whether one would find such actions deplorable?

However, if in the absence of conclusive evidence otherwise one assumes Big Blue won in a fair contest, then I can think of one good reasons IBM might have scrapped the Big blue program after beating Kasparov. It's possible IBM didn't wish to risk a rematch against another business competitor or another human match, when a loss would hurt IBM's prestige and lower its stock price.