Deep blue vs kasparov

I just finished watching an amazing documentary about IBM computer vs kasparov and I wonder if the computer was probably controlled by an human player inside the building where they were playing. I want to know what you think about this theory.

In 1996 Kasparov beat Deep Blue 4-2. After that match IBM employed a number of grandmasters to help them improve Deep Blue's play. GM Joel Benjamin was brought in to play games against Deep Blue and identify where it made ugly computer moves to help IBM's computer scientists improve the coding. Other grandmasters were brought in to work on Deep Blue's opening book. IBM also improved the hardware of the computer. As a result the computer Kasparov played against in 1997 was very different to the computer he played against in 1996. I don't know if the IBM team cheated during the 1997 match but they definitely put a lot of work in before the match.

If it is more than one on one,that is cheating. They cheated in my opinion.If people are with the machine in another room no one can observe....during the game....& they know how to play chess & IBM's stock went through the roof the next day....2+2 =4    They cheated, in my opinion! If you do not say the last part of the previous sentence you can be sued by IBM for everything You own.            CHESS RULES !!!

The chances that IBM cheated are miniscule. I mean heck, they already lost one match - so what if they lose again? I'm guessing by the rematch they were pretty confident. Plus, Deep Blue was fed all Kasparov's known games and trained specifically to beat Kasparov, not the game of chess. In that sense, it was unfair. Like Watson, however, I assume that Deep Blue learned at least slightly from each game during the match (okay it isn't really learning at all like Watson, but its evaluations of positions and such should be updated).

With Watson, IBM has a track record of doing far more amazing things, except that almost (and sometimes definitely) no human can replicate its feats. Historically, IBM has been on the cutting edge of computer technology, and I don't see a reason not to believe them in this instance.

$2.00 + $2.00 =$4,000,000.00 overnight. No reason for cheating? You have got to be kidding. If you want to get to the truth... follow the money. Kasparov asked for the commutations for the games of the day by Big Blue, was told by IBM that he would get them, then he NEVER DID receive them!     CHESS RULES !!!

This reminds me of being a kid. What was that saying....oh ya. Liar, liar, pants on fire! Nose as long as a telephone wire! Another one learned while little was.... Fool me once, your the fool, fool me twice I"m the fool.           CHESS RULES!!!

Kasparov was nobody's fool !!!        CHESS RULES !!!

The Deep Blue team seemed pretty genuinely shocked and appalled by Kasparov's allegation. 

Garry went into the 1997 match too lightly. He wasn't prepared. 

I wouldn't be surprised though, if there was a little bit of fiddling in BIOS or possibly DOS.

;)

MarkProb wrote:

$2.00 + $2.00 =$4,000,000.00 overnight. No reason for cheating? You have got to be kidding. If you want to get to the truth... follow the money. Kasparov asked for the commutations for the games of the day by Big Blue, was told by IBM that he would get them, then he NEVER DID receive them!     CHESS RULES !!!

+1

The logs were released many years later and the entries didn't make any sense. Some suspect that the logs were also tampered. They dismantled Deep Blue after that match. They got what they wanted i. e. help evolve IBM in computing world. Job well done, I'd say.

Anyone who is more interested in facts than in speculation may go over the GK vs DB games with a strong engine. I fear the results will not please the adherents of conspiracy theories.

No one mentioned the computers move 37. Be4 instead of what was expected 37. Qb6 in game 2.

The machine lost badly in game 1 and then played this move in game 2 which Kasparov said a machine would never play, he accused IBM of cheating saying that a human inputted this move into the computer (the computer was kept in a locked room and Kasparov was refused entry during the match)

Deep Blue was brute force (200 million calculations per second) and any modern day chess engine running on your computer would easily beat it.

Modern day engines are no longer brute force, techniques have been developed that make them more efficient when evaluating positions.

I am against the use of computers in chess, just play over any modern grandmaster game, it looks like machines are playing, not humans, the humans are just repeating computer moves and playing (re-playing?) long theory (book) lines.

So I figured out a solution to the problem

www.finalwars.com

I played about 2 dozen games OTB with a chess grandmaster when I was fine tuning the game rules.

:))

bb_gum234 wrote:

VibrantMoves wrote:

The logs were released many years later and the entries didn't make any sense.

I've never heard this. Source?

Also remember Kasparov gave his opinion in an earlier interview that he thought computers would never be as good as a world champion because of the creativity in chess. Of course today we laugh at that when engines do correctly judge seemingly abstract ideas like king safety and weak squares.

So it makes sense that a strong move or two would make Kasparov think a human was playing when in fact it was just the machine.

chessgames.com You need to dig a bit.

iirc the match was a bit uneven, Deep Blue had evey single Kasparov move that was ever published in its database, while Kasparov wasn't allowed to see any game from Deep Blue beforehand.

There was also the curious fact that the team around Deep Blue included chess GMs who were neither engineers nor programmers - why were they there and what did they actually help with when the rules forbade them to input moves into the computer ?

It was all a very cunning marketing ploy by IBM, and Kasparov went into the match way to naively imho, thinking it was only about playing chess.

If the IBM team wasn't cheating they certainly behaved as if they were. 1) After suspicions were aroused, they refused to provide the computer logs which would prove each move was the computer's choice and not human intervention. Joel Benjamin on the IBM team tried to justify this decision saying to do so would give Kasparov an advantage. This makes no sense at all because the machine calculates millions of moves a second. Good luck trying to get the edge sorting through that data. Reminds me of the chess cheater who refuses to let his shoes be inspected by the TD and instead gives some lofty moralistic excuse. 2) Disallowing anyone near the computer to even see it, thereby making human collaboration a piece of cake. They kept everyone far away and acted like it was Fort Knox 3) Dismantling the computer after the match. Who does that? What should have been in a museum is destroyed. Nothing like getting rid of the evidence.

why would you say that? he was clearly upset on how IBM team didn't allow him near the cpu and how many of the cpu moves reminded him about human opponents he encountered in his life before.

We can't say for sure that IBM cheated but the match was very strange indeed. Why did they dismantle this computer right after this match? It was like a top secret project. Deep Blue 2 didn't play before and after. Kasparov asked IBM about sheets of game trees after the event and of course they dind't give them to him. I think Kasparov understood in advance that it would be dirty but he coudn't resist such money.

1. I never said he did not agree, I said the match was a bit uneven there. And it was.

2. GMs that worked with the team merely cooked and wiped the floor. See, I can make unproven claims as well. Neither of us actually knows what they really did, but circumstances were quite suspicious.

3. I read it. It doesn't change anything for me - if IBM did indeed cheat then everything he says is suspect anyway. If they did not cheat, he should talk about why they never even tried to refute suspicions by actually adressing the more than suspicious circumstances. NM gbidari explains some of these quite well in post #22 in this thread.

In the end, when IBM had already payed a ton of money for this PR event, it is hard to imagine a valid reason why they would not adress every single suspicious point made in order to show the world they were legit.

For me, the only reason that does seem to make sense is that they did indeed cheat and were therefore unable to prove their innocence.

Calling this a conspiracy theory is just a cheap way to try to deal with it, without having to make any valid points.

However, clearly even today the world has not forgotten about it. Chess players mostly aren't stupid enough to fall for cheap propaganda, they want facts.

And no matter how you try to spin this, refusing to let the world see the actual facts about it has made IBM look guilty.

Always has, always will.

IBM did not comply with Kasparov's demands because:

1) IBM wasn't required to do so according to the terms that Kasparov and IBM agreed to.  And considering Kasparov's  obnoxious behavior (see reason 2), why should IBM have been nice to him?

2) Kasparov acted very rudely (like a typical sore-loser) for accusing IBM of cheating without any solid proof.  It's one thing to suspect cheating, and to hint or insinuate about it. But Kasparov flat-out accused IBM of cheating.

IBM could have probably successfully sued Kasparov for libel, but they knew he was just having a melt-down, and dragging out the unpleasantness was not the sort of publicity they wanted.

IBM didn't address Kasparov's baseless accusations because they knew that you cannot argue with conspiracy theorists. This very thread is good evidence for this fact.

As I said before, "conspiracy theorist" is just a saying people do instead of adressing a point - it's worthless.

As for IBM not suing Kasparov for libel, I guess they did not wish for things to get examined too closely in court.