Interesting

Deep Blue defeats Garry Kasparov in chess match

Deep Blue defeats Garry Kasparov in chess match


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

On May 11, 1997, chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov resigns after 19 moves in a game against Deep Blue, a chess-playing computer developed by scientists at IBM. This was the sixth and final game of their match, which Kasparov lost two games to one, with three draws.

Kasparov, a chess prodigy from Azerbaijan, was a skillful chess player from childhood. At 21, Kasparov played Anatoly Karpov for the world title, but the 49-game match ended indecisively. The next year, Kasparov beat Karpov to become the youngest world champion in history. With a FIDE (Federation International des Echecs) score of 2800, and a streak of 12 world chess titles in a row, Kasparov was considered the greatest chess player in history going into his match with Deep Blue.

Chess-playing computers had existed since the 1950s, but they initially saw little success against accomplished human players. That changed in 1985, when Carnegie Mellon doctoral student Feng-hsing Hsu developed a chess-playing computer named “Chiptest” that was designed to play chess at a higher level than its predecessors. Hsu and a classmate went to work for IBM, and in 1989 they were part of a team led by developer C.J. Tan that was charged with creating a computer capable of competing against the best chess players in the world. The resulting supercomputer, dubbed Deep Blue, could calculate many as 100 billion to 200 billion positions in the three minutes traditionally allotted to a player per move in standard chess.

Kasparov first played Deep Blue in 1996. The grandmaster was known for his unpredictable play, and he was able to defeat the computer by switching strategies mid-game. In 1997, Kasparov abandoned his swashbuckling style, taking more of a wait-and-see approach; this played in the computer’s favor and is commonly pointed to as the reason for his defeat.

The last game of the 1997 Kasparov v. Deep Blue match lasted only an hour. Deep Blue traded its bishop and rook for Kasparov’s queen, after sacrificing a knight to gain position on the board. The position left Kasparov defensive, but not helpless, and though he still had a playable position, Kasparov resigned—the first time in his career that he had conceded defeat. Grandmaster John Fedorowicz later gave voice to the chess community’s shock at Kasparov’s loss: “Everybody was surprised that he resigned because it didn’t seem lost. We’ve all played this position before. It’s a known position.” Kasparov said of his decision, “I lost my fighting spirit.”


The Greatest Chess Game Of All Time Explained - Kasparov vs. Topalov, 1999

Can there ever be a consensus when the word "greatest" is used? Start a conversation about the greatest chess player ever or the greatest player of any sport, and you will get 15 opinions from 10 people. Still, the chess world is pretty unanimous that Garry Kasparov's 1999 victory against Veselin Topalov is the greatest chess game of all time.

The setting, the players, the game, and the variations unseen all contribute to this game's stature. Garry Kasparov had been relatively inactive after his 1997 defeat by the IBM engine Deep Blue, and discussions about a world championship match with Alexei Shirov had fallen through. Anand was making rating gains on Kasparov and seemed due for a rematch against Kasparov that many he thought he might win.

In this setting, Kasparov's 1999 is even more impressive. He kicked things off with Wijk aan Zee where he won his masterpiece against Topalov and won the tournament with a record score. The rest of 1999 was equally impressive, with a huge victory at Linares and undefeated performances at Sarajevo and Siemens, allowing Kasparov to reach a record rating of 2851, a mark not equaled until Carlsen surpassed it 14 years later in 2013.

The game features an incredible rook sacrifice on move 24 that Topalov *should* have turned down, but once the sacrifice was accepted, Kasparov was able to launch a king hunt that hinged on a breathless cascade of sacrificial checkmating ideas.

  • Defending dubious openings can be a risky proposition.
  • The defender's task is usually harder.
  • You should be optimistic when you can separate your opponent's king from his forces.

I've annotated the game below. Even though I've seen this game numerous times over the years and there is a TON of great analysis available on the game, it was enormously rewarding to review all the main lines and sub-variations again with a modern engine. You never really know a rich game like this until you try to explain it yourself.

If you want to support the content and see more games, subscribe and follow on YouTube and Twitch!


Deep Blue vs. Garry Kasparov: 20th Anniversary of Epic Chess Match

It took just 19 moves. Today marks the 20th anniversary of an epic chess match between IBM's computer Deep Blue and world chess champion Garry Kasparov. On May 11, 1997, the undefeated Kasparov faced off against the chess-playing machine in the sixth and final game of a hotly contested match. After only 19 moves, Deep Blue claimed victory over the chess champ, marking a key milestone in the burgeoning world of artificial intelligence.

"I lost my fighting spirit," Kasparov said as he resigned the final game, reported The New York Times.

It was the first time a chess champion was bested by a machine in a traditional chess match, and it was a stunning demonstration of the computing power of machines over the human brain. In the best-of-five match, Kasparov won the first game, Deep Blue won the second, and then the subsequent three matches ended in draws, setting the stage for the sixth and final game.

After the fifth game, Kasparov said he had not been in the mood for playing, and when asked to elaborate on his outlook, he said: "I'm a human being. When I see something that is well beyond my understanding, I'm afraid," he said, according to the Times.


Deep Blue defeats Garry Kasparov in chess match - HISTORY

History on Today: Deep Blue defeats Garry Kasparov in chess match on May 11, 1997

Editor: Zhang Jianfeng 丨CCTV.com

On May 11, 1997, chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov resigns after 19 moves in a game against Deep Blue, a chess-playing computer developed by scientists at IBM. This was the sixth and final game of their match, which Kasparov lost two games to one, with three draws.

Deep Blue defeats Garry Kasparov in chess match on May 11, 1997

Kasparov, a chess prodigy from Azerbaijan, was a skillful chess player from childhood. At 21, Kasparov played Anatoly Karpov for the world title, but the 49-game match ended indecisively. The next year, Kasparov beat Karpov to become the youngest world champion in history. With a FIDE (Federation International des Echecs) score of 2800, and a streak of 12 world chess titles in a row, Kasparov was considered the greatest chess player in history going into his match with Deep Blue.

Chess-playing computers had existed since the 1950s, but they initially saw little success against accomplished human players. That changed in 1985, when Carnegie Mellon doctoral student Feng-hsing Hsu developed a chess-playing computer named &ldquoChiptest&rdquo that was designed to play chess at a higher level than its predecessors. Hsu and a classmate went to work for IBM, and in 1989 they were part of a team led by developer C.J. Tan that was charged with creating a computer capable of competing against the best chess players in the world. The resulting supercomputer, dubbed Deep Blue, could calculate many as 100 billion to 200 billion moves in the three minutes traditionally allotted to a player per move in standard chess.

Kasparov first played Deep Blue in 1996. The grandmaster was known for his unpredictable play, and he was able to defeat the computer by switching strategies mid-game. In 1997, Kasparov abandoned his swashbuckling style, taking more of a wait-and-see approach this played in the computer&rsquos favor and is commonly pointed to as the reason for his defeat.

The last game of the 1997 Kasparov v. Deep Blue match lasted only an hour. Deep Blue traded its bishop and rook for Kasparov&rsquos queen, after sacrificing a knight to gain position on the board. The position left Kasparov defensive, but not helpless, and though he still had a playable position, Kasparov resigned&ndashthe first time in his career that he had conceded defeat. Grandmaster John Fedorowicz later gave voice to the chess community&rsquos shock at Kasparov&rsquos loss: &ldquoEverybody was surprised that he resigned because it didn&rsquot seem lost. We&rsquove all played this position before. It&rsquos a known position.&rdquo Kasparov said of his decision, &ldquoI lost my fighting spirit.&rdquo


Deep Blue Defeats Kasparov

The chess match that occurred on February 10, 1996 was truly a clash of titans. The two combatants, computer program Deep Blue and Chess Grandmaster Garry Kasparov were, at the time, the two greatest chess players of their respective species. And while everyone remembers Deep Blue’s victory in 1997, the battle in 1996 signified the end of an era.

This match signified the last time man could honestly say it was better than machine in the game of chess. Deep Blue took the first game off of Kasparov, but the Russian rallied back to ultimately win the match 4-2.

The match in 1997 ended up differently, with Deep Blue winning the 6-game match 3.5 to 2.5, dethroning the Kasparov, reigning World Champion. Although most people would consider these matches dull and trivial, they illustrate several truths that become only more prevalent as the world moves forward.

Computers have begun to perform tasks that only humans were once thought capable of, like chess. A grandmaster may have an extensive knowledge of chess openings, but for most of the game they rely on pattern recognition. Because there are billions of different board states that can occur in any given game of chess, humans have to use their time economically and look only for the most apparently good moves. Computers do not have to worry about this. Deep Blue had in its database over 700,000 grandmaster games, meaning that it had more information than someone like Kasparov could acquire over several lifetimes. Additionally, Deep Blue was able to calculate up to 20 moves ahead in some cases, whereas even the best of humans can only think 3 to 5 moves ahead.

Considering all this, it is surprising that Kasparov even held his own against such a behemoth. Despite the sheer power of Deep Blue, Kasparov’s creativity and ingenuity was able to give him a leg up. Instead of playing the most common openings which would allow Deep Blue to tap its massive databases, he played uncommon or strange openings to catch the machine off guard. But even creativity cannot stand up to brute force after a certain point, as seen during the 1997 match.

Other developments in the field of artificial intelligence parallel the rise of Deep Blue and signify the prominence of computers in pretty much every field. While Deep Blue is impressive, it is diminished somewhat by the fact that chess has very strict rules that don’t rely on probability or chance. Something like facial recognition is a similar development in that computer programs utilize brute force to accomplish something that computers really have no business doing. And in most fields programmers are stepping forward to supply automated solutions to problems.

In the first game of the 1997 match Deep Blue made a move that would play a huge part in determining the outcome of the series. It was a move that seemed counter intuitive to Kasparov’s eyes. Even so, he believed that Deep Blue was seeing something that he didn’t, that the computer was planning so far ahead that he had no chance to respond. Kasparov lost his composure and forfeited that game. Unfortunately for the World Champion, that move Deep Blue made was a bug, a random move that occurred because the program malfunctioned. And as we look back on this event in history, the end of human domination of chess, we have to wonder what would’ve happened if Kasparov identified that move as a bug. Instead, he treated the computer as infallible, and in doing so, let the end of an era occur.


Defeated Chess Champ Garry Kasparov Has Made Peace With AI

To revist this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories.

“I always say I was the first knowledge worker whose job was threatened by a machine,” says Garry Kasparov of his loss to IBM's Deep Blue in 1997. Photograph: Stan Honda/Getty Images

To revist this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories.

Garry Kasparov is perhaps the greatest chess player in history. For almost two decades after becoming world champion in 1985, he dominated the game with a ferocious style of play and an equally ferocious swagger.

Outside the chess world, however, Kasparov is best known for losing to a machine. In 1997, at the height of his powers, Kasparov was crushed and cowed by an IBM supercomputer called Deep Blue. The loss sent shock waves across the world, and seemed to herald a new era of machine mastery over man.

The years since have put things into perspective. Personal computers have grown vastly more powerful, with smartphones now capable of running chess engines as powerful as Deep Blue alongside other apps. More significantly, thanks to recent progress in artificial intelligence, machines are learning and exploring the game for themselves.

Deep Blue followed hand-coded rules for playing chess. By contrast, AlphaZero, a program revealed by the Alphabet subsidiary DeepMind in 2017, taught itself to play the game at a grandmaster level simply by practicing over and over. Most remarkably, AlphaZero uncovered new approaches to the game that dazzled chess experts.

Last week, Kasparov returned to the scene of his famous Deep Blue defeat—the ballroom of a New York hotel—for a debate with AI experts organized by the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. He met with WIRED senior writer Will Knight there to discuss chess, AI, and a strategy for staying a step ahead of machines. An edited transcript follows:

WIRED: What was it like to return to the venue where you lost to Deep Blue?

Garry Kasparov: I’ve made my peace with it. At the end of the day, the match was not a curse but a blessing, because I was a part of something very important. Twenty-two years ago, I would have thought differently. But things happen. We all make mistakes. We lose. What’s important is how we deal with our mistakes, with negative experience.

1997 was an unpleasant experience, but it helped me understand the future of human-machine collaboration. We thought we were unbeatable, at chess, Go, shogi. All these games, they have been gradually pushed to the side [by increasingly powerful AI programs]. But it doesn't mean that life is over. We have to find out how we can turn it to our advantage.

I always say I was the first knowledge worker whose job was threatened by a machine. But that helps me to communicate a message back to the public. Because, you know, nobody can suspect me of being pro-computers.

What message do you want to give people about the impact of AI?

I think it's important that people recognize the element of inevitability. When I hear outcry that AI is rushing in and destroying our lives, that it's so fast, I say no, no, it's too slow.

"I always say I was the first knowledge worker whose job was threatened by a machine."

Every technology destroys jobs before creating jobs. When you look at the statistics, only 4 percent of jobs in the US require human creativity. That means 96 percent of jobs, I call them zombie jobs. They're dead, they just don’t know it.

For several decades we have been training people to act like computers, and now we are complaining that these jobs are in danger. Of course they are. We have to look for opportunities to create jobs that will emphasize our strengths. Technology is the main reason why so many of us are still alive to complain about technology. It's a coin with two sides. I think it's important that, instead of complaining, we look at how we can move forward faster.

When these jobs start disappearing, we need new industries, we need to build foundations that will help. Maybe it’s universal basic income, but we need to create a financial cushion for those who are left behind. Right now it's a very defensive reaction, whether it comes from the general public or from big CEOs who are looking at AI and saying it can improve the bottom line but it’s a black box. I think it's we still struggling to understand how AI will fit in.

A lot of people will have to contend with AI taking over some part of their jobs. What advice do you have for them?

There are different machines, and it is the role of a human and understand exactly what this machine will need to do its best. At the end of the day it's about combination. For instance, look at radiology. If you have a powerful AI system, I’d rather have an experienced nurse than a top-notch professor [use it]. A person with decent knowledge will understand that he or she must add only a little bit. But a big star in medicine will like to challenge the machines, and that destroys the communication.

People ask me, “What can you do to assist another chess engine against AlphaZero?” I can look at AlphaZero’s games and understand the potential weaknesses. And I believe it has made some inaccurate evaluations, which is natural. For example, it values bishop over knight. It sees over 60 million games that statistically, you know, the bishop was dominant in many more games. So I think it added too much advantage to bishop in terms of numbers. So what you should do, you should try to get your engine to a position where AlphaZero will make inevitable mistakes [based on this inaccuracy].

"Technology is the main reason why so many of us are still alive to complain about technology."

I often use this example. Imagine you have a very powerful gun, a rifle that can shoot a target 1 mile from where you are. Now a 1-millimeter change in the direction could end up with a 10-meter difference a mile away. Because the gun is so powerful, a tiny shift can actually make a big difference. And that's the future of human-machine collaboration.

With AlphaZero and future machines, I describe the human role as being shepherds. You just have to nudge the flock of intelligent algorithms. Just basically push them in one direction or another, and they will do the rest of the job. You put the right machine in the right space to do the right task.

How much progress do you think we’ve made toward human-level AI?

We don't know exactly what intelligence is. Even the best computer experts, the people on the cutting edge of computer science, they still have doubts about exactly what we're doing.

What we understand today is AI is still a tool. We are comfortable with machines making us faster and stronger, but smarter? It’s some sort of human fear. At the same time, what's the difference? We have always invented machines that help us to augment different qualities. And I think AI is just a great tool to achieve something that was impossible 10, 20 years ago.

How it will develop I don't know. But I don't believe in AGI [artificial general intelligence]. I don't believe that machines are capable of transferring knowledge from one open-ended system to another. So machines will be dominant in the closed systems, whether it's games, or any other world designed by humans.

David Silver [the creator of AlphaZero] hasn’t answered my question about whether machines can set up their own goals. He talks about subgoals, but that’s not the same. That’s a certain gap in his definition of intelligence. We set up goals and look for ways to achieve them. A machine can only do the second part.

So far, we see very little evidence that machines can actually operate outside of these terms, which is clearly a sign of human intelligence. Let's say you accumulated knowledge in one game. Can it transfer this knowledge to another game, which might be similar but not the same? Humans can. With computers, in most cases you have to start from scratch.

Let’s talk about the ethics of AI. What do you think of the way the technology is being used for surveillance or weapons?

We know from history that progress cannot be stopped. So we have certain things we cannot prevent. If you [completely] restrict it in Europe, or America, it will just give an advantage to the Chinese. [But] I think we do need to exercise more public control over Facebook, Google, and other companies that generate so much data.

People say, oh, we need to make ethical AI. What nonsense. Humans still have the monopoly on evil. The problem is not AI. The problem is humans using new technologies to harm other humans.

AlphaZero "values bishop over knight. I think it added too much advantage to bishop in terms of numbers."

AI is like a mirror, it amplifies both good and bad. We have to actually look and just understand how we can fix it, not say “Oh, we can create AI that will be better than us.” We are somehow stuck between two extremes. It's not a magic wand or Terminator. It's not a harbinger of utopia or dystopia. It's a tool. Yes, it's a unique tool because it can augment our minds, but it's a tool. And unfortunately we have enough political problems, both inside and outside the free world, that could be made much worse by the wrong use of AI.

Returning to chess, what do you make of AlphaZero’s style of play?

I looked at its games, and I wrote about them in an article that mentioned chess as the “drosophila of reasoning.” Every computer player is now too strong for humans. But we actually could learn more about our games. I can see how the millions of games played by AlphaGo during practice can generate certain knowledge that’s useful.

It was a mistake to think that if we develop very powerful chess machines, the game would be dull, that there will be many draws, maneuvers, or a game will be 1,800, 1,900 moves and nobody can break through. AlphaZero is totally the opposite. For me it was complementary, because it played more like Kasparov than Karpov! It found that it could actually sacrifice material for aggressive action. It’s not creative, it just sees the pattern, the odds. But this actually makes chess more aggressive, more attractive.

Magnus Carlsen [the current World Chess Champion] has said that he studied AlphaZero games, and he discovered certain elements of the game, certain connections. He could have thought about a move, but never dared to actually consider it now we all know it works.

When you lost to DeepBlue, some people thought chess would no longer be interesting. Why do you think people are still interested in Carlsen?

You answered the question. We are still interested in people. Cars move faster than humans, but so what? The element of human competition is still there, because we want to know that our team, our guy, he or she is the best in the world.

The fact is that you have computers that dominate the game. It creates a sense of uneasiness, but on the other hand, it has expanded interest in chess. It’s not like 30 years ago, when Kasparov plays Karpov, and nobody dared criticize us even if we made a blunder. Now you can look at the screen and the machine tells you what's happening. So somehow machines brought many people into the game. They can follow, it's not a language they don't understand. AI is like an interface, an interpreter.


DEEP BLUE VS KASPAROV: Most Historical Match Ever

Garry Kimovich Kasparov is a Russian chess grandmaster and former World Chess Champion. From 1986 until his retirement in 2005, Kasparov was ranked world No. 1. He is one of the smartest people in the world with an IQ-190.

He is the person who won several tournaments in chess and the word losing is not in his dictionary. Till now he has won most of the championships from the most brilliant chess players to the ones who are unknown to us.

He is a major talk in the society of chess, people talk about his techniques and also he is an idol figure of many people who have started learning.

Could someone beat a chess grandmaster in his own game?

But as it is been said that "No Matter How Often You Are Defeated, You Are Born To Victory"

The same happened with Garry. He was defeated by a computer DeepBlue, the irony being how he had once bragged he would never lose to a machine. Everyone was shocked that The Great Garry Kasparov got defeated by a computer. His words which he bragged lose the value in front of his own eyes.

Deep Blue was a chess-playing computer developed by IBM. It is known for being the first computer chess-playing system to win both a chess game and a chess match against a reigning world champion under regular time intervals. Kasparov and other chess masters blamed the defeat on a single move made by the IBM machine.

Deep Blue was capable of evaluating 200 million positions per second, twice as fast as the 1996 version. In June 1997, Deep Blue was the 259th most powerful supercomputer according to the TOP500 list, achieving 11.38 GFLOPS on the high-performance LINPACK benchmark.

On defeating Kasparov on May 11, 1997, Deep Blue made history as the first computer to beat a world champion in a six-game match under standard time controls.

The first match was played in Philadelphia in 1996 and won by Kasparov. He was confident that he will win the second match too but in the second match, he saw his very first defeat.

The second was played in New York City in 1997 and won by Deep Blue. The 1997 match was the first defeat of the reigning chess player. The 1997 match was the subject of a documentary film, The Man vs. The Machine, Everyone around him was shocked even he was sweating when he played the second match.

After only 19 moves, Deep Blue claimed victory over the chess champ, marking a key milestone in the burgeoning world of artificial intelligence. "I lost my fighting spirit", Kasparov said as he resigned from the final game, reported The New York Times.

It was the first time a chess champion was bested by a machine in a traditional chess match, and it was a stunning demonstration of the computing power of machines over the human brain. In the best of five matches, Kasparov won the first game, Deep Blue won the second and then the subsequent three matches ended in draws, but these draws in three matches states that a human mind can also compare an AI machine.

The stage got set for the sixth and final game.

After the fifth game, Kasparov said he had not been in the mood for playing and when asked to elaborate on his outlook he said " I am a human being. When I see something that is well beyond my understanding, I am afraid "he said according to the Times.

We should be proud of the brainpower of humans, we can also compete with the machines. People like Garry Kasparov can defeat a thousand IBMs. But we should be scared too because the machines which are made by the human mind can also be dangerous for our own generation.

In 1996 IBM defeated Garry in chess but remember this is 2020 and coming years can be unimaginable. A thousand IBMs will come and go but no one can compare human creativity.

AI has been the tool for us to do the more tedious job which computer should do and wasn't able to perform till now. With the help of AI and ML , we can spend more time on the creative and fun parts of a job or project. Programming and using them is in our own hands, it is on us how we want to use and what we have to do!


Deep Blue Defeats Garry Kasparov In Chess Match

On May 11, 1997, chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov resigns after 19 moves in a game against Deep Blue, a chess-playing computer developed by scientists at IBM. This was the sixth and final game of their match, which Kasparov lost two games to one, with three draws.

Kasparov, a chess prodigy from Azerbaijan, was a skillful chess player from childhood. At 21, Kasparov played Anatoly Karpov for the world title, but the 49-game match ended indecisively. The next year, Kasparov beat Karpov to become the youngest world champion in history. With a FIDE (Federation International des Echecs) score of 2800, and a streak of 12 world chess titles in a row, Kasparov was considered the greatest chess player in history going into his match with Deep Blue.

Chess-playing computers had existed since the 1950s, but they initially saw little success against accomplished human players. That changed in 1985, when Carnegie Mellon doctoral student Feng-hsing Hsu developed a chess-playing computer named “Chiptest” that was designed to play chess at a higher level than its predecessors. Hsu and a classmate went to work for IBM, and in 1989 they were part of a team led by developer C.J. Tan that was charged with creating a computer capable of competing against the best chess players in the world. The resulting supercomputer, dubbed Deep Blue, could calculate many as 100 billion to 200 billion moves in the three minutes traditionally allotted to a player per move in standard chess.

Kasparov first played Deep Blue in 1996. The grandmaster was known for his unpredictable play, and he was able to defeat the computer by switching strategies mid-game. In 1997, Kasparov abandoned his swashbuckling style, taking more of a wait-and-see approach this played in the computer’s favor and is commonly pointed to as the reason for his defeat.

The last game of the 1997 Kasparov v. Deep Blue match lasted only an hour. Deep Blue traded its bishop and rook for Kasparov’s queen, after sacrificing a knight to gain position on the board. The position left Kasparov defensive, but not helpless, and though he still had a playable position, Kasparov resigned–the first time in his career that he had conceded defeat. Grandmaster John Fedorowicz later gave voice to the chess community’s shock at Kasparov’s loss: “Everybody was surprised that he resigned because it didn’t seem lost. We’ve all played this position before. It’s a known position.” Kasparov said of his decision, “I lost my fighting spirit.”


Deep Blue defeats Garry Kasparov in chess match - HISTORY

Survey Said: Human
Over the past week, we asked you to bet on who would win the match: human or computer. The majority of you incorrectly chose Kasparov! Oh well, better luck next game .

On the Web
In honor of Deep Blue's victory, Yahoo has commissioned it to write its "Picks of the Week" page.

Editor's Note: Some of the above links will take you out of The Post's Web site. To return, use the Back button on your browser.

NEW YORK, May 11 -- In a stunning showdown between man and machine, the IBM supercomputer Deep Blue decisively beat world chess champion Garry Kasparov today, the first time a computer has been able to defeat the best human player in a match.

A visibly upset Kasparov stormed out of the small match room after only about an hour of play, effectively resigning the sixth -- and final -- game with a scant 19 moves played. Most chess experts here said Kasparov, who appeared frustrated from the start of today's game, likely would have been conquered by the computer within a few moves.

"This was the single most historic event in the history of chess," said Daniel Edelman, a grandmaster and an editor of the American Chess Journal.

"We have a machine here that is truly remarkable," said David Levy, the vice president of the International Computer Chess Association. "This was an amazing victory."

Kasparov, in a postgame news conference, accused International Business Machines Corp. of building a machine specifically to defeat him. "It was nothing to do about science. . . . It was zeal to beat Garry Kasparov," he said. "And when a big corporation with unlimited resources would like to do so, there are many ways to achieve the result. And the result was achieved."

Kasparov, who had never lost a match until today, said he "cracked under the pressure" of playing the computer. He apologized for his performance and his hasty exit, saying he felt "ashamed by what I did at the end of this match." At the same time, he said his loss "has nothing to do with the computer being unbeatable."

Other computer and chess experts here disagreed, predicting Deep Blue and its progeny will regularly be able to defeat the world's top players. Deep Blue's strong performance surprised many of them, who expected Kasparov to be able to trick the computer by playing unconventional moves.

But exactly the opposite happened. Deep Blue, which can evaluate 200 million possible moves each second, was expected to play a brute-force sort of game, like a tennis player smashing only powerful shots across the court. Instead, the computer dazzled spectators -- and Kasparov himself -- with its ability to develop strategies as a human player would. It was akin to surprising Kasparov with volleys and drop-shots across the chessboard.


"We have a machine here that is truly remarkable . . . This was an amazing victory."
-David Levy, vice president of International Computer Chess Association.

To make matters worse for him, Kasparov said his efforts to change his playing style -- sometimes trying to trick the computer and other times substituting his usual aggressive style for a more measured approach -- essentially backfired. "I was playing against myself and something I couldn't recognize," he said.

Deep Blue won the match 3 1/2-2 1/2. Kasparov won the first game, Deep Blue the second, and the two agreed upon draws in the third, fourth and fifth.

Kasparov said he was unable to maintain his concentration today because of his resignation in the second game on May 4 and the fact he was forced into a draw in the fifth game on Saturday. In the latter game he had the advantage of playing with the white pieces, which allowed him to move first.

Moments after offering the computer a draw following the 49th move of the game, a visibly angry Kasparov demanded that a record of the computer's logic during the four-hour game be sealed, the Associated Press reported.

Kasparov also introduced an element of controversy tonight when he questioned the origin of several of Deep Blue's moves and pointedly voiced skepticism about the computer's actions in the second game. In that game, Deep Blue made a series of brilliant moves but then failed to anticipate one Kasparov could have made -- but didn't -- to force a tie. Kasparov, who didn't notice the possible move until it was pointed out to him after the game, said: "I still don't understand how the machine couldn't see that."

When directly asked if he was accusing the IBM team of cheating, Kasparov responded: "I suggested that there were things in this match well beyond my understanding. . . . There's probably no way to prove that Deep Blue is making this move or that move."

IBM researcher Chung-Jen Tan, the leader of the Deep Blue team, said the computer received no human assistance during the games. He said his team was "very proud" of the match's outcome.

Kasparov, who has complained that he hasn't been able to study the computer's behavior more fully, today renewed his request that the IBM researchers provide a printout of the computer's log from the previous games, particularly Game 2. On Saturday, IBM officials agreed to place a copy of the logs with a neutral party, but tonight they said they would not release them to Kasparov or the public. Tan said portions might eventually be published in scientific journals.

Some chess experts here suggested that Kasparov's comments about Deep Blue's playing were sour grapes.

"I think it's nonsense," said Patrick Wolff, a grandmaster who watched today's game, held in a skyscraper here. "I don't think there's any evidence that IBM tampered with the machine. He's just making excuses."

Wolff and other chess experts agree that Deep Blue's unflappability and its ability to conceive of and execute moves unanticipated by Kasparov were the keys to its victory. If Kasparov, who admitted to being distraught after the second game, had played that game to a tie, the remaining games might have turned out differently, the experts speculated.

The nine-day match began with a riveting game on May 3 in which Deep Blue, playing black, attempted an aggressive series of moves in mid-game. But Kasparov skillfully used the opportunity to mount a bold counterattack, forcing the computer to concede defeat after nearly four hours.

The next day, however, the computer, showing a finesse never before seen in a chess-playing machine, rallied to force a Kasparov resignation. It was only the second time a computer had defeated the top world champion the first occurred at the first meeting of Kasparov and Deep Blue last February in Philadelphia, when the computer won the first game but went on to lose the match, 4-2.

In today's game, in which the computer played with the white pieces, Kasparov fell prey to a knight Deep Blue injected into his territory. By using one of his pawns to eliminate the knight, Kasparov opened himself up to attack.

Many observers here were dumbfounded Kasparov could make such a misstep. "Why did he do that?" asked Danny Kopec, a grandmaster and computer science professor who watched the match. "That's what everyone wants to know."

The 1.4-ton supercomputer relies on thousands of lines of complex mathematical equations and logic expressions to find the best move. Deep Blue was designed with the help of several grandmasters to play strategically. It has been programmed not to just make the best immediate move, but to execute a particular series of moves, an enhancement that makes its play appear much less machinelike.

Kasparov received $400,000 from IBM for his participation. IBM said it would devote the $700,000 winner's purse to further computer chess research.


Deep Blue defeats Garry Kasparov in chess match - HISTORY

This week in The History of AI at AIWS.net – IBM “Deep Blue” machine defeats Garry Kasparov, the then-reigning World Chess Champion, at chess, in a highly-publicised match on 11 May, 1997. This date was the conclusion of 2 matches, one starting the year before, 1996.

The face-off began on February 10, 1996, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Kasparov actually won this match 4-2. A year later in New York City, they would actually rematch, where Deep Blue defeated Kasparov 3.5-2.5. This rematch hosted a newer version of Deep Blue, dubbed “Deeper Blue”, that was upgraded after the first match. Deep Blue would also play against two other chess grandmasters. This battle was the subject of documentaries and talked about long after the match ended. It was speculated that the match was rigged in favour of IBM to boost their stocks.

IBM “Deep Blue” had its origins in a project by students at Carnegie Mellon University under the name ChipTest. It was later rebranded to Deep Thought. After these students graduated from Carnegie Mellon, they were asked by IBM to continue their research at the company. In 1989, it was renamed to Deep Blue after a competition. The machine was also helped in development by chess grandmaster Joel Benjamin. Deep Blue was released in 1996. After its rematch with Kasparov in 1997, it was dismantled. Its racks are held at the National Museum of American History and the Computer History Museum.

The HAI initiative considers this an event in the History of AI due to its impact on public perceptions of Artificial Intelligence. Similar to IBM’s public stunt with Jeopardy, this was also a display of the progress that AI has come from its heydays and origins in the 1960s.


Popular in Technology

However, while certain “human” aspects of the games have disappeared, recent developments have caused professional players to rethink what they know about their beloved board game. In 2017, a team of scientists at Google-owned DeepMind created AlphaZero, a self-learning “neural network” program that surpassed the strongest chess program after just four hours of playing against itself.

“Before the computer boom, and before the neural network boom, we were thinking quite dogmatically,” says Nielsen. “After both occurred, we were forced to rewrite our own solutions. It led to the game becoming more exciting.” Moreover, the two strongest chess engines—Leela (which is based on AlphaZero) and Stockfish—are available online, which signifies a remarkably more distributive and collaborative approach to chess innovation than that which was pioneered by Deep Blue, a closed circuit.

Despite all their progress, there are still some goals to which innovators in the chess world can aspire. “The next step is for engines to explain what they’re doing,” says Sadler, “so that the average player can understand why an engine says, ‘No, trading that piece is a bad idea.’ ” The relationship remains one of reciprocity.

One thing is certain: Chess programs will remain the most important piece of a professional player’s preparatory arsenal. “Not using a computer to do chess would be like not using a calculator to do math,” says Nielsen, “I like it—but it doesn’t matter if I like it or not. It’s the right way to do it.”

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.


Watch the video: Deep Blue Crushed Garrry Kasparov Mercilessly (June 2022).


Comments:

  1. Shelden

    This fun information

  2. Ring

    In my opinion you are not right. I am assured. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM.

  3. Kilar

    In my opinion you are not right. Enter we'll discuss.

  4. Gasho

    I have been looking for a blog on a similar topic for a long time and finally found it. It’s surprising that I didn’t know about its existence before, because for a long time I was engaged in things of this kind. Of course, I was pleased with the availability of useful information for me personally, and I absolutely agree with all other people who left their comments on this blog. Convenient navigation, I think, also pleased many. I would like to stir up such a blog myself, but no time, so it is easier to use this blog. The blog administrator is great. Keep it up! Everything is super, I have great respect for people who create blogs on such topics!

  5. Vizahn

    Yes they did



Write a message