Deep Blue

This was the article published on the IBM website after its Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov when both of them met for the second time. Gary won the match the year before.

 

Kasparov began this match with great optimism and won Game 1. However, after discovering that he could have drawn game 2 things seemed to go from bad to worse. He began to wonder if Deep Blue was being tampered with and eventually the machine seemed to totally psych him out. This is what he had to say in a message he sent to members of Club Kasparov:

 

This was a very tough match, which demanded a lot of my energy. It was also a very interesting match, that captured the imagination of millions of people all over the world. Unfortunately, they also got to see some errors on my part...

 

I admit that I was probably too optimistic at the start of the match. I followed the conventional wisdom when playing computers of playing 'ugly' openings [non-theoretical] to avoid early confrontation, to accumulate positional advantages and then I was confident that my calculation would stay at a high level once the confrontation occurred.

 

My whole preparation was a failure because Deep Blue played very differently from what I expected. My preparation was based on some wrong assumptions about its strategy; and when after game 2 it proved to be a disaster, I over-worked myself. I actually spent more energy on the games in this match than for any before in my life. Every game in this match took a lot out of me. There was enormous pressure because I had to keep my eye on every possibility, since I didn't want to miss any single shot.

 

This is also partly why I lost this match. When Game 6 finally came, I had lost my fighting spirit. I simply didn't have enough energy left to put up a fight. At the end of Game 5 I felt completely emptied, because I couldn't stand facing something I didn't understand. If I had been playing against a human whom I knew, then it would have been different. For example, I was one game down against Anand in the 1995 world championship, but I fought back. Here, I was fighting the unknown.

 

Despite the score of this match, I am firmly convinced that this thing is beatable. Having said that, I don't think there are that many players in the world who would be able to beat it. I think only four or five players in the world would stand a chance against Deep Blue You need outstanding chess qualities to play it - you simply can't make comparisons with other chess computers. Take my case: I have an enormous score in training against the best PC programs, but it didn't help me to prepare for Deep Blue. As a matter of fact, I think I made a mistake in doing that. In the future I have to prepare specifically for Deep Blue, and play normal chess, as well as normal openings.

 

Is there a future? Yes, I think so! I just challenged IBM for a rematch, to take place later this year, under slightly different conditions, such as 10 games, with one rest day between each game. Further, I want to receive ten practice game played by Deep Blue against a Grandmaster, as well as the nomination of an independent panel to supervise the match and Deep Blue, making sure there are no suspicions whatsoever. If this match takes place, and I hope it will, I am so confident I can win it, that I am even willing to play for a "winner takes all" prize. My score prediction? 6-4 in my favor!

 

Here is what Viswanathan Anand has to say about the match. (FYI: Anand met Kasparov in the 1995 world championship. He was in front,winning the first match. Gary bounced back and retained his title.)

 

I eagerly waited to see the Kasparov vs. Deep Blue rematch. Deep Blue was stronger. Deeper, to be precise. From my own experience, practical play exposes all sorts of weaknesses and strengths in my play that are hidden during preparation. Equally, the team behind Deep Blue must have benefited immensely from studying the six games played against Kasparov in 1996. And it would be faster. I can't tell the difference between 100 zillion positions and 497 zillion positions, but if it helped Deep Blue play stronger, so be it. I was looking forward to Deep Blue boldly going where no man had gone before.
 
Kasparov himself must have studied the games played last year. However, humans can't change their style drastically like computers. On top of that, all his games were accessible to the Deep Blue team, while he was in the dark about Deep Blue. He had two options: to play like Kasparov or to play like "Mr. Anti Deep Blue." The former runs the risk of playing to the strengths of the machines, the latter that the human ends up as disoriented as the machine. Humans, too, play weaker in unfamiliar situations and though they may find their way around better, machines can compensate for that with brute force.
 
Kasparov chose the latter. Unfortunately, as a result, we were never able to seethe fabulous calculating abilities of Deep Blue. Not once did we see a spectacular example of brute force producing a solution that differed significantly from that suggested by intuition. A lot has been made of Deep Blue's play in the second game, but in fact only one or two moments can be singled out - 26.f4 and 37.Bxe4. The rest of the game is not that difficult, even for a computer.
 
There is also the mystery at the end of the game. Did Deep Blue not see 45...Qe3? Why on Earth did it play 44.Kf1? Surely it could calculate 3 moves further!
 
His strategy might even have worked if he hadn't conceded so much territory to Deep Blue. By trying so hard to avoid any position where Deep Blue might be able to calculate its way through, he effectively self-destructed. Three tough draws followed where he was always better, but unable to overcome Deep Blue's stubborn defense. By the 6th game, he was a pale shadow of himself. Suffice it to say, that the trap he fell into in the 6th game is a well known one. It forms part of his own opening strategy as White!!
 
The chess may have been disappointing, but the media interest has been exceptional and that is a wonderful promotion for the game of chess.
 
Deep Blue has only played twelve games in two years against one single opponent. As such, it is impossible to tell how strong it is or what it is capable of.
 
IBM can hardly risk the reputation of its "blue-eyed" baby against some PC or mere mortal. So the rest of us (6,000,000,000 minus Kasparov) are left with more questions than answers.