Deep Blue was configured specifically to play against Kasparov. GM Joel Benjamin worked with developers on the project for a long time after the first match, helping them tweak the program to play him. And of course its "book" included every game he ever played.
Kasparov requested that since his games were available, the programmers should provide him with a series of Deep Blue's most recent games to prepare equally. They refused. He should have held out, they would have caved.
They dismantled Deep Blue because they won. It was just like the Fidelity Par Excellence dedicated computer game in the '80s. They submitted the ParX for computer rating, expecting/hoping to top 1800. But the human players were unnerved playing computers under tournament conditions and it came back 2100, at the time by far the best achieved by a computer (even though others were pretty evidently stronger) and they never had it tested again.
Whether or not they broke the rules during the second match - and Kasparov's argument was fairly detailed, he was not only the best player of the day but he understood much about how the program "thought," too - there could be no advantage to a rematch for them. If they should win again, it wouldn't have the impact of the "first computer to beat a World Champ at classical chess." If they lost, it would hurt their marketing efforts. Deep Blue was part of a project to demonstrate super-computing applications.
The series was always going to end after Deep Blue first won a match, whenever it happened.
OK fair explanations of the whole thing, although I still think it seems potentially suspicious lol.
Re: that Deep Blue was always going to be only a one-time thing:
OK, but it seems a shame that the supercomputer didn't even get a place in a museum somewhere. Why dismantle it? It's not like IBM needed spare wires or circuits or something lol. Better to have become a museum exhibit, than spare parts, I think... Not necessarily suspicious; It might just be a shame how it happened.
@OP - I can't really tell if you're trolling or not. (Should I give you the benefit of the doubt? )
In a nutshell, I doubt the IBMers were cheating, but I guess it's possible. Or maybe they were acting like George Costanza and just wanted to go out on a high note. I like Kasparov, but he's always had a HHHUUUGGGEEE ego, and I don't think he'll ever get over that loss. Your friend is in the 1300s here, and chess programs for PCs were hitting the 2200s in the early 90s. I don't understand how he could think they aren't worth playing. Anything I'm forgetting to weigh in on?
Haha, well I promise I wasn't trolling, although I'll admit that I'm pretty unfamiliar with the whole Deep Blue event, beyond the basics which I already explained (and which could potentially suggest cheating). Of course, blaming his accusations on his ego, would explain it away...
Re: Chess programs on PC being in the 2200's in the early 90's: I didn't know such specifics, so I'm glad to know. OK so then it definitely makes no sense to slam all chess software in the 90's.
It makes me wonder if my friend might have been slamming chess video games specifically (and not PC software)? Even so, I would have thought that the Chessmaster series (and probably others) would have offered a proper challenge in the mid- to late-90's...?