hello again

             I'll keep this question simple. Do you think if a top ranked player like Kasparov would take on a machine like Deep Blue again the human could win if the parameters where set before the match that there would be no reprogramming of the the machine once play began?

                                 Thank You,

                                     Gungnir

I think the human player would adapt and win the match for sure. I think do think there was a human influence on Deep Blue in game two of the match in 1997. Was it a conspiracy by the IBM programmers?

For the record, Deep Blue was dismantled after the second Kaparov match. So in theory, a computer company would have to make a different machine, if a game was to take place.

Why was it dismantled ?

Rybka (which is only software) running on some decent hardware would destroy any of the top players in a match, something like deep blue (which had dedicated hardware built for chess) is just overkill.

As far as i can tell IBM did not give a reason for dismantling Deep blue but it did happen after Kasparov demanded a rematch. One of the two racks that made up Deep Blue is on display at the National Museum of American History.

I don't know that much about the history of chess but he should have let go of it.

And top GMs readily admit this too. There's simply no point anymore in Man-vs-Machine matches. The software and hardware are simply too powerful now.

Didn't Kasparov make a big deal about deep blue NOT playing by itself, but was aided by a good human player. He said it suddenly made a very "human" like move. A good player looking at the analysis could see past what the computer could in theory and have helped out.

So the first machine ever to beat a human, and no proof of it happening. No logs, no code... nothing. Dismantled? Only a couple of racks of it in a museum?

To me it seems likely that deep blue didn't win by itself.