In May 1997, an updated version of Deep Blue defeated Kasparov 3½–2½ in a highly publicised six-game match. The match was even after five games but Kasparov was crushed in Game 6. This was the first time a computer had ever defeated a world champion in match play.

Kasparov claimed that several factors weighed against him in this match. In particular, he was denied access to Deep Blue's recent games, in contrast to the computer's team that could study hundreds of Kasparov's.

After the loss Kasparov said that he sometimes saw deep intelligence and creativity in the machine's moves, suggesting that during the second game, human chess players, in contravention of the rules, intervened. IBM denied that it cheated, saying the only human intervention occurred between games. The rules provided for the developers to modify the program between games, an opportunity they said they used to shore up weaknesses in the computer's play revealed during the course of the match. Kasparov requested printouts of the machine's log files but IBM refused, although the company later published the logs on the Internet.Kasparov demanded a rematch, but IBM declined and retired Deep Blue.

Game 1

Game 2:This game truly stunned -- or just plain terrified -- many observers. Deep Blue caught the world champion in its boa constrictor grip and swallowed him whole. Depressed to the point of despair after being roundly outplayed, Kasparov actually gave up in a position later found to be drawn. He never recovered from this emotional scar. 

with some annotations

Game 3

Game 4:Once again Kasparov achieved a comfortable advantage with an offbeat opening and once again Deep Blue found a perfect defense to rescue a difficult position. "I think I was winning at one point, but I was very tired and couldn't figure it out," said the drained, ashen-faced champion.

Game 5

Game 6:Today was Kasparov's bluest day -- the shortest, saddest loss in his career. He played the opening slowly, spending two minutes on the risky 7...h6?! which is known to be dubious (instead of the usual Bd6). After this inversion of moves he shook his head and rolled his eyes as Deep Blue instantly sacrificed a knight. The champion crumbled instead of putting up a strong defense.     (with some annotations)

Deep Blue 3.5 - Kasparov 2.5. The champion didn't even wait for 19...bxc4 (or 19...Nb4 20. Qxf5 bxc4 21. Ne5 Rd8 22. Nxc6 Nxc6 23. Qf4) 20. Qxc4 Kb7 21. Qa6 mate. "Kasparov's resignation was probably premature," said one commentator. "But what we have seen today is psychological weakness of the sort I'd never expect from him." In a press conference Kasparov lashed out at IBM, claiming it was difficult to prepare for an opponent whose games were not made available to him beforehand.

Thank you for posting. Would be intresting to hear how many of you think that IBM cheated with human intelligence; at least I do.

I am not sure if human intervening happened or if it was really all that beneficial, I did not like that Kasparov had no access to Blue's recent games. 

Thanks Aris !!!

thanks for the post.

I wonder why IBM declined the rematch :P  of course the cheated

But hey, even though they cheated, they only won by ONE point!  

This event teaches human players that in 1997 it was the first time artificial intelligence had won the best human player without any senses, emotions and so on. Very good!

what color is what? dont make any sense to post the game if you dont state who is whom

Hammy21, in the heading on the game windows, the first player mentioned is white, and the second is black.

It seems very likely that IBM cheated, they were at least very shallow and shadey about the match, but I also consider that the computer's programming was aided by various grandmasters and they also had access to Kasparov's games. So in reality, even if IBM did play "fair", Kasparov really lost to the GM's that aided in its development - also consider that a computer calculates moves much faster and Kasparov didn't have unlimited time to think either, not to mention the fact that the openings the computer used weren't actually thought of by the computer. I think it's quite clear Kasparov had the ability to beat the computer itself which is pretty incredible in my opinion.

I honestly believe he played too many games (6) in too few days (9).

Humans get tired, computers do not.

I would have liked to see a rematch in which Kasparov got a day off after every single game -- with the option to get 2 days off twice during the match.

Fatigue and worry caused him to crumble.

I don't think IBM cheated by letting Joel Benjamin substitute "human moves" into game 2, at pivotal junctures. I think they simply devised a scoring system to evaluate positions that was better than anything that is contained in a computer that you and I might buy on-line.

That is the fascinating part of computer programming to play chess. Decades ago computers could find the elusive mate in 5 better & faster than humans.

What is the mate in 5?  Is it Scholar's Mate for black?

There is no significance to "the mate in 5".

I could equally have said ..... "the sharp, tactical winning lines". Even Garry K admitted in 1996 that DB could out-calculate him in really tactical games -- that is why he played so positionally in 1997 -- so unlike he played against other humans.

bobby would had a good game with kapov