chessgames.com
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

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Click Here to play Guess-the-Move
Given 67 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 should register a free account to activate some of Chessgames.com's coolest and most powerful features.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE.  [CLICK HERE]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 16 OF 16 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Oct-18-16  Mendrys: <WorstPlayerEver: <Mendrys>

Really? So why they dismantled DB? To destroy the evidence. What else? DB team just put a psychological trick on Kasparov.>

If that were true, which it is not - One bank is at the National Museum of American History while the other bank is at another museum, it still would not prove anything. This is specious logic at its best.

It's really down to what RookFile said - "Kasparov underestimated Deep Blue's strength..."

Oct-18-16  Absentee: <Mendrys: <WorstPlayerEver: <Mendrys>

Really? So why they dismantled DB? To destroy the evidence. What else? DB team just put a psychological trick on Kasparov.>

If that were true, which it is not - One bank is at the National Museum of American History while the other bank is at another museum, it still would not prove anything. This is specious logic at its best. >

You're only saying that because you haven't seen the pictures of Joel Benjamin chained inside Deep Blue. They're a little blurred, but it's clearly him.

Jan-20-17  posoo: it is OVIUS dat kaspovar THREW da match at da behest of da IBEMERS in order to advance da cause of da compoters and corpotions. a SHAM!

now we have stuckfoil and people sniff their rubkas. a true tragedy and LASKER CRIES.

Mar-27-17  ahmadov: Is this not the game that Kasparov called a "catastrophe"?
Apr-28-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  kbob: Even in retrospect it seems to me that Kasparov was remarkably behind in what was already ancient theory at the time. Karpov discussed these moves at length in his book "The Caro-Kann in Black and White" (1994) citing Geller-Meduna, Sochi 1986 and Chandler vs Huebner, 1987 ("...Grandmaster Heubner fell into the same trap a year later, and this time the crush was more convincing.") Karpov goes on to mention the correct, or at least playable move 8. ...fxe6 "achieving excellent chances" in Wolff vs Granda Zuniga, 1992
Apr-28-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi kbob,

Kasparov knew of the theory but his 7..h6 was a finger slip, (it happens to the best of them from time to time).

"Garry shook his head in disbelief."

page 109, 'Kasparov v Deep Blue' by Danny King.

This 7...h6 may have caused a quick sweat for the Deep Blue team because according to Danny King 8.Nxe6 was in the Deep Blue opening database.

So if at that stage DB was accessing it's ROM and told to sacrifice on e6 without working it out the BD team would have thought the worst:

"Why did Gary allowed it..Did he have a defensive improvement?"

The answer was no and judging from Kasparov's reaction the DB team would have breathed a quick sigh of relief. Gary simply got the move order mixed up.

Jun-04-17  Xonatron: 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. There was a story coming from Deep Blue's team that this opening was entered into the database the morning of the game. As well, there was a story from Deep Blue's side that contradicting this.

Read the book!

Also read Behind Deep Blue, by Feng-Hsiung Hsu (the lead coder of Deep Blue).

Deep Blue's only positional advantage in the match came from a GM's entry in an opening book.

A rematch was deserved by both the chess world and computer chess world.

Jun-04-17
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:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...

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."

Jun-04-17
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
Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: <Was Kasparov unaware that Deep Blue had an openings' book?>

<MissScarlett>

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
Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: <MissScarlett>

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

Jul-27-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: PS my edits are not my best today but I still kinda like it ☺
Dec-29-17  yurikvelo: https://pastebin.com/K2qzrRt6 <---- 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.
May-02-19
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yec...

And here is an excerpt from the chapter. https://www.sciencefriday.com/artic...

Quite interesting stuff!

May-02-19
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.

May-21-20
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 <chessgames.com> 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.

May-21-20
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.

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.

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 Chessgames.com, 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?]
Kasparov vs Deep Blue
by paire
Knight Kamikaze-two
from Arcus' favorite games by Arcus
no comment
from uponthehill's favorite games by uponthehill
Garry subsequently accused the programmers of cheating.
from Off-Board Shenanigans by Nasruddin Hodja
Deep Blue crushes Kasparov playing Karpov's variation in 19
from modminiatures copy FTB enhanced by fredthebear
CK Kas gets beat by computer
from Rick's Picks by rickturner7
deep blue kasparov 19drag!
from xfer's favorite games 2006 by xfer
Kasparov loses in 19 moves against Deep Blue.
from 1990s Speed Cuts & Turn Crashes ECO C Missed FTB by fredthebear
The worst loss by a reigning World Champion
from morphyvsfischer's favorite games by morphyvsfischer
Kasparov vs Deep Blue
by piatos blue
Game 24
from Starting out : The Caro-Kann by diegoami
16...Bc6 - 18...Bxe7
from World Championships Blunders by amadeus
toreohm's favorite games
by toreohm
Kasparov
from Great masters losing by WhiteRook48
Segunda derrota com Deep Blue
from Partidas de Xadrez by adalav
Man Vs. Machine
by LOUDERMILK
A BAD 'BLUE' BY KASPAROV
from wals' favorite games by wals
FAILING HUMANITY
from Fischer and Kasparov: the Patzers by GumboGambit

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 2001-2020, Chessgames Services LLC