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-11
Caro-Kann Defense: Karpov. Modern Variation (B17)  ·  1-0



Click Here to play Guess-the-Move
Given 71 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: To flip the board (so black is on the bottom) press the "I" key on your keyboard.

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 16 OF 16 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi Xonatron,

I'm only repeating was Danny King said.

"Garry shook his head in disbelief." and later on "...he was distraught".

I'm pretty sure he was not trying to out-psyche a computer by gestures.

In a review of the 'Deep Thinking' by Garry Kasparov:

We read.

"Because the company was sponsoring the rematch (and putting up the $1.1m prize money), its staff were able to structure the venue in subtle ways, some of which had the effect of discomfiting Kasparov.

(In contrast to standard tournament practice, for example, IBM did not provide a private “team room” where he could consult with his seconds.)"

I've no idea what that bit in brackets relates too. Maybe the reviewer thinks players are allowed to consult with their seconds during a game or he has misread what Kasparov was saying...

...and anyway according again to Danny King ' Kasparov v Deeper Blue' on page 53 he says:

"Kasparov has his own room to which he can retreat if he wants to get a drink or something to eat."

Premium Chessgames Member
  MissScarlett: <In Garry's new book, Deep Thinking, he explains 7... h6 was a planned attacked, not a mistake, knowing that Deep Blue would not play 8. Nxe6 and retreat the knight instead. Other chess engines at the time were known not to play it, due to material disadvantage. Apparently he discovered afterwards that Deep Blue would also have not played it, had it not been for the opening book.>

Was Kasparov unaware that Deep Blue had an openings' book?

Jun-04-17  john barleycorn: <Was Kasparov unaware that Deep Blue had an openings' book?>

Vladimirov's revenge

Jul-21-17  Albion 1959: Can't imagine why GK played the Caro Kann in the deciding game? He played a shocker, it was if he decided to play it on the spur of the moment and then tried to improvise and muddle his way through over the board. It is a tribute to Deep Blue's tactical prowess and opening knowledge that GK did not have the confidence to play his customary Sicilian Defence ! An opening with which his thoroughly familiar and has scored many fine wins with, but somehow he was not prepared to risk it against the IMB monster calculator, which in effect is all that Deep Blue really is:
Jul-27-17  WorstPlayerEver: <Was Kasparov unaware that Deep Blue had an openings' book?>


Let's take a look in retrospective; the surrounding facts.

First, it's 1997. PC is all the rage. I bought a PC in 1994. A 486dx2. The whole package. Which contained an encyclopaedia, another cd which I don't remember and last but not least: Alone in the Dark.. a very creepy game. Which consisted of the same polygon stuff as it basically still is the same as it is today.

This package costed me 3150 Dutch florins. About $1250 in 1994. Which was a two month's salary for me.

Needless to say it's a SYMBOLIC event: man loses to ehm.. you get the point.

Needless to say it was about as good as it gets: no better ad needed to promote *bubble fx* THE FUTURE. The illusion we had to live in an illusion. Unevitable. To seperate our focus from our environment. Being controlled by a fantom. A meaningless reflection of what you once thought you were. So to speak.


What is this future? As it was seen back then in 1997?

This *projected* future from then is now.

And what do you know? Kasparov was selling Kasparov chess computers all over the place. In other words: computers are the bomb. If he had won no one would have been interested. As most people are not interested in chess in the first place.

Although their strength was -and is- pretty average.


Is it deception? Or another conspiracy theory..

Well, de facto it is the symbolic submission to machinery...

However, Kaspy played so lousy it hardly was meant as a smokescreen, a masquerade. It was meant as a message to mankind: the gamer was born in submission!

Born to lose ha ha ha it's complete lunacy. If you think about it. The possession of the soul. Defeatism. As defined as the *new* intellectual norm. A standard. Something set to live up to. Buy more and more Pink Floyd records lol

It was an exposure as well, a declaration: the sacrifice of human intelligence was fulfilled. A symbolic event to clarify we -the human existence as we know it- are no longer the masters of our own destiny. Instead we have become nothing more ore less than matter to serve other more important matters. The purpose of this concept remains unquestioned, however. You are free to follow the orders to which you have to obey.

Let there be no doubt about; I address things exactly as I see they are. And I am convinced you cannot find a way around them.

Otherwise I would not even write this; I am sick of your sentimental crap. Your pettiness.

It was -so called- the sacrifice of the soul. Hahaha genius. Gotta love those concepts.

So let's work this out. yOur souls are kept at teh net. Strictly spoken it's categorical; the mind is separated from the body. It's literally buried in a book. A shrine. Cell phones and tabs are your new bibles AKA altars whateverness.

You carry them with you most of the time by now. You MUST obey to them. Given fact in particular. And download eh you know by now..

Again: a symbolic ritual. You are no longer the master of our own destiny. Now you must believe the machines control you. And they do. Ironically enough. And buy Pink Floyd records, obviously.

Let there be no doubt about; I address things exactly as I see they are. And I am convinced you cannot find a way around them. Unless you buy me a new swimming oool. We can freely negotiate here 😊

Otherwise I would not even write this; I am sick of your sentimental crap. Your pettiness. You must obey.

It was -so called- the sacrifice of the soul. Hahaha genius. Gotta love those concepts.

So let's work this out. yOur souls are kept at teh net. Strictly spoken it's categorical; the mind is separated from the body. Again: a symbolic ritual.

Being the WPE in this story I kinda thought it would be interesting letting you know.

Jul-27-17  WorstPlayerEver: <MissScarlett>

I forgot something. Only the first part of my previous post is supposed to be addressed to you lol

Jul-27-17  WorstPlayerEver: PS my edits are not my best today but I still kinda like it ☺
Dec-29-17  yurikvelo: <---- multiPV
Jan-21-18  Granny O Doul: I remember that Joel Benjamin at the time discounted the notion that 7...h6 was a "fingerfehler", adding that the move had fared well in recent editions of Computer Chess Reports.
Jan-21-18  zanzibar: <Granny> K talks about that very move in the youtube video I posted over on his page.
Jan-21-18  RookFile: It was a gamble on Kasparov's part, and a bad one.
Jan-23-18  zanzibar: <RookFile> my take on his video is that only after 8.Nxe6 did Kasparov realize it was a gamble. Before that he thought it a sure thing.

Am I correct in assuming that the Deep-Blue team had only added that variation into the opening book on the very morning of the game?

Mar-17-19  Albion 1959: Had another look at this one. Gave it the Rybka treatment. GK was a bit naïve to believe that DB would not play the sacrifice on e6, or maybe he simply under estimated DB? Kasparov's play was unrecognisable here. Sometimes, the best attacking players are not necessarily the best defenders. Attack-mined world champions do not go on the defensive as early as move 10. Did Kasparov have to play h6? Surely there were better moves than this? How about the modest Be7!? Another idea, instead of e6, was g6-Bg7 followed by O-O. This looks okay. Was Kasparov's really lost from as early move ten? He never got his rematch, where I suspect he could have won, allowing for a change in his attitude, tactics and mind set.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Diademas: Hannah Fry, a British mathematician (maybe best known from the Numberphile channel on YouTube) has written a book. The book "Hello World" concerns the influence of algorithms in the real world. In a chapter of her book she gets into the 1997 match Kasparov against Deep Blue.

Here she talks about it an interview

And here is an excerpt from the chapter.

Quite interesting stuff!

Premium Chessgames Member
  Diademas: BTW
Maybe this match deserves a page of its own?

With the possible exception of Spassky - Fischer World Championship Match (1972) it may be the best known chess match in history.

May-21-20  The Rocket: Kasparov did not gamble, he simply forgot the proper continuation of the line in a state of disarray. Even more mind-boggling thing is that Kasparov plays this Ng5 line himself, so it's not like he learned it once in his life and never looked at it again.

Deep Blue had already the sacrifice line programmed into it's opening book. The programmers later revealed that Deep Blue did not actually spot the sacrifice when they turned off the book. So it would not have played it had the opening book been off.

So much for underestimating the strength.... It wasn't even DBs own move.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Diademas> Thanks for the links. Dr. Fry might be a fine mathematician but I don't think that she knows much about chess engines, which is not excusable if you want to discuss them in 2018. In both the YouTube video and the excerpt from her book "Hello World" the indicated that the IBM engineers designed Deep Blue to appear more uncertain than it was by making the machine occasionally hold off from declaring its move once a calculation had finished, to make it look like as if the machine was struggling, churning through more and more calculations.

I don't know where she got that from. Feng-Hsiung Hsu in his book "Behind Deep Blue" makes no mention of this, and he seems pretty forthright about other things that he and his team wanted to do but didn't have time. He did, however, allude to "chinks in Kasparov's armor" although he did not elaborate. And I will be buying her book to see if she references where she got that from.

Doing something like that would seem to me as a deep gamble given the limited search depths achievable by Deep Blue, it would not be able to search as deeply if it was "twiddling its thumbs" in an attempt to psych out Kasparov. Nor do I know how a chess engine could determine that it's calculations were "complete" and which move to make. Normally a chess engine continues to analyze until its time management function decides that it's time to make a move, then it makes the best move found to date. Unless, of course, the game is played at a time control that specifies a maximum time to take for each move, then the time management function is trivial, when the time expires just make the best move found. Deep Blue's development team included at least one GM, Joel Benjamin, and I'm sure that he was familiar with Lasker's maxim: "When you see a good move, look for a better one."

Oh, I suppose that the engine could be programmed that if it was evaluating more than one principal variation (a misnomer since there can be only one "Principal Variation" but the term has unfortunately become common practice) that you could check the evaluation of the best and second best moves and, if it exceeds a certain evaluation difference threshold for several ply <and> the evaluations are increasing, then the engine could "conclude" that the best move had been found. But I fail to see the purpose of taking additional time and effort in doing that, Deep Blue's development team already had their hands full trying to get it to work as good as they could, fixing many of the bugs they knew existed in both the software and the hardware.

From all I have read about the match it seems that Kasparov was psyched before the match started without any help from Deep Blue and its developers. He had a paranoid personality and he simply didn't understand how Deep Blue worked (which is understandable in 1997 but inexcusable given that Deep Blue worked along the same lines described in Shannon's classic paper , "Programming a Computer for Playing Chess, published in 1949)so he was suspicious of everything that he didn't understand. Besides, his intimidation tactics would have had no effect against Deep Blue, and he knew that. I suspect that if Deep Blue had been available 30 years earlier, Fischer would have been in a similar situation and probably would have behaved similarly.

Something like that would never worked today, where all the top-level GMs have extensive experience using chess engines and probably have a good working knowledge of how they work.

I do agree with you that his match deserves a page of its own, but the <> staff does not seem too interested in computer matches. But Deep Blue does have its own page, Deep Blue (Computer), which lists all the games it has officially played.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<The Rocket> So much for underestimating the strength.... It wasn't even DBs own move.>

I don't think that's a fair criticism. Top-level GMs (as well as ordinary mortals like you and I) depend on opening books based on previously played games and analyses performed by others. And many of their known analyses contain opening traps that were discovered by others, and they simply sometimes are able to take advantage from the fact that their opponents might not be as book-savvy as they are.

Aug-12-20  Leeness: @Sally Simpson
It was nor a finger slip nor an oversight by Mr. Kasparov. So please stop talking nonsense.

Kasparov says he played 7...h6 knowing that it could "provoke white to sacrifice a piece, which is very strong...

"But machines don't sacrifice a piece for a pawn without having a concrete outcome in sight, so I expected that the computer would go back on e4 because this move was not in the special database prepared by a grandmaster team that worked with Deep Blue. And to my horror Deep Blue immediately took on e6, which means that the move was already put in." - Gary Kasparov

"Now, of course, the free chess app on your mobile phone is stronger than Deep Blue."

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: ***

Hi Leeness, (welcome to Chessgames )

I was quoting Danny King (I gave a source) - he said it was a 'finger slip.' page 109, 'Kasparov v Deep Blue' by Danny King who was there, saw it happening, saw Kasparov's reaction...and talking nonsense. (or as I think, was genuinely mistaken.)

We have gone over this before:

Deep Blue vs Kasparov, 1997 (kibitz #386)

Kasparov may have been tricked into going this way, apparently; some top commercial computers had this line removed from their opening D.B. so he did not expect the sac.

" Kasparov reasoned that an engine wouldn't play the move without a concrete gain. The only reason Deep Blue played in that way, as was later revealed, was because that very same day of the game the creators of Deep Blue had inputted the variation into the opening database."

It is a pity when the games where Kasparov was White prior to the Deep Blue game Black did not play 7...h6 then I'm sure Kasparov would have sacced on e6 and not played it as Black v Deep Blue as he knew they would have his games.

Kasparov vs Kamsky, 1994

Kasparov vs Epishin, 1995

At least your post makes a lot more sense than the that being discussed at start of this thread suggesting that Kasparov threw this game as a bribe. (Again I am quoting a source it is not my opinion.) Deep Blue vs Kasparov, 1997 (kibitz #2)


Aug-13-20  SChesshevsky: Interesting that sometime in the year before this game a name computer did take on e6 versus a GM:

Fritz vs G Timoshchenko, 1996

Also seems a real possibility that Deep Blue versus Kasparov was more hype than anything else. Though IBM had the name and likely plenty of computing power and tricks, Fritz was probably the better engine at the time. By this match, per the cg database, appears Fritz already had wins against Kasparov, Anand, Gelfand and Kramnik. Draws against Karpov and two wins versus an earlier Deep Blue.

Given that, guessing Kasparov and most GM's weren't taking computers in general too lightly at the time. But Kasparov might've been taking Deep Blue's team and pedigree a bit too lightly. Wonder if he would've played 7...h6 against Fritz?

Sep-12-21  WNRRRWN: Duh, why the heck resiign here.... one can fight on for draw with precision, gary always looks like dumb ass and is not psychologically strong, same happened in 2000 with kramnik's berlin defence... kasparov lost this match but won first one, the final score is 6:6 and media does not get it and ibm are wikiegoists by not giving gary third match, im sure he would not lose!
May-07-22  Herr Stauffenberg: 7. ...h6? Busqué esta partida para buscar este error en la séptima jugada de Kasparov al cual hace referencia Iván Mórovic en <La pasión del ajedrez>, de Leontxo García y Javier Danés (1998), en el primer capítulo del nivel avanzado. Según el jugador chileno, la jugada correcta "automática" era Ad6.
Oct-24-22  Ninas Husband: The day Garry Kasparov let down the entire human race. :(
Jul-10-23  generror: Well, <7...h6?!> isn't much good, but it *is* playable. Yes, White does get an edge after <8.Nxe6!>, but I think that back then, it was a risk that was worth taking by Kasparov. HOWEVER, he doesn't seem to have been preparing anything in case his gamble goes wrong, and that he obviously didn't was just careless -- the real mistake here is <8...Qe7?>.

The "old" Kasparov wouldn't have felt the need to resort to this gamble anyway. (Let alone playing the Caro-Kann and using a variation named after his arch-enemy :) Kasparov really wasn't quite himself during this match, it feels like he really didn't have the confidence that he could be winning it by himself, without resorting to cheap tricks.

Did he "let down the entire human race"? I think that's a bit of an overstatement. That a machine beats the human world champion in a match would have happened sooner or later. Kasparov was just the world champion at the point in time that computers overtook humans in chess, and that he loses it in this way is of course humiliating -- but it's rather humiliating Kasparov, not me or the "human race", whatever that is.

I think it would have been smartest for Kasparov to have decline a rematch, but I guess his ego just was too big to be able to do so.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 16)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 16 OF 16 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

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: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, 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 ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

<This page contains Editor Notes. Click here to read them.>

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
World champions lose miniatures 2.
by ughaibu
when Garry losted in 19 movements...
from jaime gallegos' favorite games by jaime gallegos
Kaspy goes down to machine!
from champs vs champs by kevin86
no comment
from uponthehill's favorite games by uponthehill
kasparov resigns after 19 moves
from "x" vs computer by S4NKT
The most phoney game of chess I've ever seen
from PinkPanther's favorite games by PinkPanther
Kaspy is more human than Deep Blue, computers dont take bribes
from Rise Of The Machines by ferrarini
Man Vs. Machine
from Isa333's favorite games by Isa333
michlo's favorite games
by michlo
Queen killer's favorite games
by Queen killer
"Deeper" Blue's Revenge
from Computer - GM games 1963-2002 by biglo
rugged's favorite games
by rugged
7...h6?! forces 8. Nxe6!, & wins after 8...Qe7 (8...fxe6!? = )
from Demolition of Pawns: f6 (f3), e6 (e3), a7 (a2) by patzer2
deep blue kasparov 19drag!
from xfer's favorite games 2006 by xfer
mcgaughp's favorite games
by mcgaughp
Open the pod bay doors HAL...
from The Best of the Caro-Kann by EnglishOpeningc4
by zentovic
Deep Blue (doesn't live)
from PLayer of the day:notable game II by nikolaas
A great game by a computer programme
from Masterpieces of chess history by ahmadov
plus 126 more collections (not shown)

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | 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 2001-2023, Chessgames Services LLC