Talk:Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JoePezzulla.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

new article

This summary article was started by user:ZeroOne. Bubba73 (talk), 01:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, I don't think you properly moved this page from Userspace. You probably just cut and paste the move from the user space, which is not the way pages are supposed to be moved. I'm therefore going to tag it with the template at WP:CPMV so an admin can pay attention to it. FrozenPurpleCube 05:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed --Stemonitis 06:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I could've copy-paste moved this article myself because I was the only one to edit it, but it do is nice to have the history available. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 10:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1/2 versus ½

The move lists are using 1/2 and not ½ because they are supposed to be in Portable Game Notation format, so that you can copy-paste them into your favorite chess application. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 10:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see now. I guess programs that can read PGN can't read "white moves the pawn in front of his king two squares." Bubba73 (talk), 15:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Improving this article

Ok, so this article still need improvement. The introduction is mimimal. It would help to reference why they were famous, perhaps a few quotes documenting the history. Right now, it's just a bare assertion, with no references. That should be fixed. Coverage of the re-match should also be brought up more heavily.

Next, I don't suggest using small text to cover the moves. It makes things harder to read for me, that problem may affect other people as well. It's usually a bad idea to use in-line font styles, and in this case, I at least recommend you use font-size in the manner suggested by WP:MOS. It might help to seek further input from someone more familiar with style choices to see what other choices you might have though. Of course, it would be helpful if the WP:CHESS project had a consistent pattern used for all such moves.

Game 1. So....what are normal time controls? The link to time controls doesn't explain that, perhaps you should describe the conditions more explicitly so people who don't play competitive chess know what you're talking about. Here's a reference [1] though as a blog it's not preferred, so if you can find a better one, go ahead. Of course, since not all of the games were played under such controls, it might help to cover which ones weren't, and what their conditions were instead. Might be worth putting in the table to start.

Game 2. Tries to do what?

Game 3,4. Minimal content. More coverage of the reaction would be appropriate.

Game 5, ok, though I'm not sure it's complete. Fix the spelling of embarrassing.

Game 6. Fix the last sentence. It's very awkwardly written.

1997 as I said, coverage of the rematch would be very appropriate. Especially if, as one of the references says, Kasparov tried to play to exploit the weaknesses of the machine.

Game 1, more content. Explain the conditions of the match, the reaction, etc.

Game 2....might help to explain the accusation of cheating, or what a "real Karpov-like move" is. Hopefully the citation will help. May need to cite it directly too, if it's a quote.

Game 3, well, at least it brings up the idea that Kasparov was trying to exploit weaknesses in the machine, but I think it'd work better in the opening. Perhaps explaining that it was part of his plan there.

Game 4, hey, an explanation of time controls. That's the way to do it. Probably needs to be cited better.

Game 5, so what was brilliant about Deep Blue's end game? Anything meaningful about the King's Indian Attack being used?

The position after 7...h6?, before 8.Nxe6!---probably need to remove this explanation point.

Game 6 probably needs a bit more coverage on the reaction. I would suggest taking some of the more general purpose content from the Main Article and merging it here. (Actually, I'd suggest merging the whole article and trimming it, but one thing at a time). This is especially true for Kasporov's challenge to a rematch, and IBM declining to continue, as well as his feelings coming into the game.

Anyway, those are my first pass thoughts on how to improve the quality of this page. I could make some of the changes myself, but I'd rather not rewrite the page just now. FrozenPurpleCube 15:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from above "The position after 7...h6?, before 8.Nxe6!---probably need to remove this explanation point." Have you read algebraic chess notation yet? The exclamation point means that it was a good move. Bubba73 (talk), 15:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know why you would think explaining that would change my position, though perhaps I should have explained further. Yes, I know from the ! it was trying to express the move as a good one. However, I'm not sure that's the appropriate tone. Flavor commentary like that may have its place in journalism, but it's not quite an encyclopedic tone, but even if so...is the image description the right place to put it? I don't feel so. If you're going to put it anywhere, put it somewhere you can explain why it's considered a good move. Like the image's description page. Just throwing out the ! looks strange to me. FrozenPurpleCube 16:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and ditch the question mark as well. In fact, I'd say the whole image needs to be better captioned. It doesn't even say what game it was. FrozenPurpleCube 16:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You are proving that you still haven't read algebraic chess notation. In particular, see Algebraic chess notation#Common shorthand notation for the meaning of "!" and "?". These are absulutely part of chess journalism, see any book or article. I can no longer assume that you are editing in good faith. Bubba73 (talk), 17:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

PS, (1) at the top of the diagram, it does say what game it is from, and (2) it is in the section about that game. Bubba73 (talk), 17:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And you are proving that you are making this more about me than about the subject. Please stop. Reply to what I'm saying, not your opinion of me. Wikipedia is not part of Chess journalism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Note the difference. The way you'd write the page on a chess fan site is not the same as it should be written here. Beyond that, I think having the description broken up is a bad idea. I certainly didn't notice it. Better captions are a good thing. Try it, maybe you'll like it. In fact, I note a lot of images in chess articles are uncaptioned. Probably need to review that. FrozenPurpleCube 18:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I just pulled out the World Book Encyclopedia, and the article on chess gives moves in chess notation. Bubba73 (talk), 19:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll just address a few of your points for now.

Time controls: it is quoted everywhere that they are just "normal tournament time controls", which I have assumed as being the official FIDE time controls[2]. However, in the second match, although similar, they were different to the FIDE controls.[3] I think the main point is that the games were long tournament games as in opposite to blitz.

Image captions/titles: The board diagrams aren't actually images so they do not have a description page. The diagrams are generated from individual pictures of pieces using a template. The template is already the second one used in the English Wikipedia. The previous one did not have a place for the title so when the images were converted, titles weren't automatically added. If you think the title of the diagram is not visible enough then just be bold and do something to it by editing Template:Chess diagram.

Introduction: I added a quote and a source to it. "The most spectacular chess event in history" should, at least partly, explain, why the match is famous, no?

! and ?: In the official IBM site it says that "As early as move seven, Kasparov made a clear mistake allowing a sacrifice of a knight that is known to be very strong." which should justify those symbols.

Font size: The references-small CSS class already defines font size relatively, like WP:MOS suggests font size should be changed. I think the moves can be listed in small font because they just supplement the prose. When small, a casual reader has it easier to jump past them, but a more advanced player may still copy them to their favorite chess application for further study.

--ZeroOne (talk | @) 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The "!" and "?" are in Deep Blue - Kasparov, 1997, Game 6. They have nothing to do with "tone", and they don't "try to express a good/bad move", they do denote a good/bad move. Bubba73 (talk), 20:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And it is very appropriate for you to put it in the caption, in order to show the position between those two moves. Bubba73 (talk), 20:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

result tables

The result tables have a result column that have 1-0, etc. I think it would be good to have a column to list the winner, or "draw" in case of a draw. This could be in addition to the current "result" column or replace it. Bubba73 (talk), 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. However, I implemented it, for now, by rendering the winner in bold text. Do you think that's enough? --ZeroOne (talk | @) 22:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Winner in bold is enough. Thanks. Bubba73 (talk), 00:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy is NOT a controversy?

Game 2 of rematch is claimed to be a controversy because it was resigned in a drawn position.

However, after 47.Qc7+ (or Qd7+) I cannot see a forceful draw by repetition for black. I have tried Rybka 3 at 20 ply...

If I am not missing any move, then the article should be updated.

Notes:

The key is that after 47.Qc7+ (or Qd7+), white can now park his queen on c6 unblocking his pawn. This pawn can then itself move forward to unblock the white queen and allow king to trade queens on g2 if necessary.

Here are the two lines:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 O-O 9. h3 h6 10. d4 Re8 11. Nbd2 Bf8 12. Nf1 Bd7 13. Ng3 Na5 14. Bc2 c5 15. b3 Nc6 16. d5 Ne7 17. Be3 Ng6 18. Qd2 Nh7 19. a4 Nh4 20. Nxh4 Qxh4 21. Qe2 Qd8 22. b4 Qc7 23. Rec1 c4 24. Ra3 Rec8 25. Rca1 Qd8 26. f4 Nf6 27. fxe5 dxe5 28. Qf1 Ne8 29. Qf2 Nd6 30. Bb6 Qe8 31. R3a2 Be7 32. Bc5 Bf8 33. Nf5 Bxf5 34. exf5 f6 35. Bxd6 Bxd6 36. axb5 axb5 37. Be4 Rxa2 38. Qxa2 Qd7 39. Qa7 Rc7 40. Qb6 Rb7 41. Ra8+ Kf7 42. Qa6 Qc7 43. Qc6 Qb6+ 44. Kf1 Rb8 45. Ra6 Qe3 46. Qxd6 Re8 47. Qc7+ Re7 48. Qc6 Qf4+ (48. .. Qf4+ 49. Bf3 Qc1+ 50. Kf2 Qd2+ 51. Kg1 Qc1+ 52. Kh2 Qf4+ 53. Kh1 Qc1+ 54. Bd1 Qxd1+ 55. Kh2) 49. Bf3 Qc1+ 50. Kf2 Qd2+ 51. Kg1 Qe3+ 52. Kh2 Qf4+ 53. Kh1 Qc1+ 54. Bd1 Qxd1+ 55. Kh2 *

What move am I missing for the forced draw?

So if I am not missing any move, then the article should be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.213.210 (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not say what's true or facts - in my view many articles are riddles with errors. Wikipedia says what 3rd party sources verify. Saying that, I'm going to look at the position for you(and my own interest). SunCreator (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Okay, so what happens after 48. ..Qxe4. This is the line you spoke of but did not show in your above moves. SunCreator (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

48...Qxe4 49. d6 Qd3+ 50. Kg1 Re8 51. Qd7+ (51. Ra7+ Kf8 52. Qc5 Kg8=) Kf8 52. Kh2 Qd2 equal. SunCreator (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, of course. The position is equalish. My point is that it is not a _forced_ draw at these variations. There is still room for blunders, psychological pressure, etc., which may then warrant the resignation, and makes this not the controversy that it would be if the resignation was at a point where a draw could be _forced_. There are presented variations that supposedly show the forced lines with some h-pawn moves, but we have shown that these moves can be avoided and retain a position which still has life. Thanks for looking into this. 72.245.213.210 (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In particular the following statement in the article and statements based on it, are in error: "Kasparov missed the fact that after 45... Qe3 46.Qxd6 Re8, black can force a draw by perpetual check. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.213.210 (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(Although, if it can be shown that the program which Kasparov played would have play the inferior moves which force a draw for black, and not the moves which we explain above, then the statement would not be in error since our retrospect analysis would be irrelevant.) 72.245.213.210 (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• The article gives the impression that all of the perpetual check claims are correct. They are not correct and it should be pointed out in the article. It would not be a matter of opinion to specifically say the claims have been proven to be false. I'd love to see someone with more passion on the subject than myself take the time to correct this in the article because it IS giving people who read the article the wrong impression. It's been proven that there is not a perpetual check and that it is possible for the game to continue at equal if not a better position for deep blue. You can see the argument against the claims illustrated in Kingscrusher's (on youtube) part II of "How did the computer play a human move?!" here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvA6zKPUwqE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.116.220 (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a post dated 06/28/07 on chessninja.com message board by person named "Zahl" where it is demonstrated that there was no perpetual check in the final position of game 2 of the 1997 rematch. I quote the relevant part of the post here:

"and here Kasparov resigned only to learn that after 45...Qe3 46.Qxd6 Re8 47.h4 h5 etc. the position is drawn by repetition.

However, Rybka says that's not all there is to it. After 45...Qe3 46.Qxd6 Re8 white has 47.Qd7+ Re7 48.Qc6 Qxe4 49.d6, hitting the rook and the queen at the same time. Black can try 49...Qd3+ 50.Kg1 Re8, but after 51.Ra1 there is no perpetual and the attack continues."

http://www.chessninja.com/boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=102426#Post102426

Later in the same thread the same person gives the following line as won for white: 45. ... Qe3 46. Qxd6 Re8 47. Qd7+ Re7 48. Qc6 Qxe4 49. d6 Qd3+ 50. Kg1 Re8 51. Ra1 h5 52. Qxb5 Rd8 53. Qb7+ Kg8 54. Qe7 Qxd6 55. Qxd6 Rxd6 56. Ra8+ Kf7 57. Rc8 Rd1+ 58. Kh2 Ke7 59. Rxc4 Kd6 60. Kg3 Rb1 61. Rc8 Kd5 62.Kf3 Rf1+ 63. Ke3 Re1+ 64. Kd2 Rg1 65. Kd3 Rd1+ 66. Ke2 Rg1 67. g4 hxg4 68. hxg4 Rxg4 69. b5 Kd6 70. c4 Kd7 71. Rc5 Rg2+ 72. Kf3 Rb2 73. Rc6 Ra2 74. Ke4 Rd2 75. c5 Rd4+ 76. Ke3 Rd5 77. Kf3 Rd3+ 78. Ke2 Rc3 79. Kd2 Rc4 80. Rd6+ Kc7 81.b6+ Kb7 82. Rd7+ Ka8 83. Rd5 e4 84. Ke3 Kb8 85. Rd8+ Kb7 86. Rd7+ Kb8 87. Rc7 Ka8 88. Rxg7 Rxc5 89. b7+ Kb8 90. Kxe4 Re5+ 91. Kf4 Re1 92. Rd7 Re2 93. Rf7 Rf2+ 94. Ke4 Rd2 95. Rxf6 1-0

94.101.3.3 (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A draw has since been claimed at http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070913 varying from the above with 49...Qxf5+ (see post there by Atking Dec 1 2011) and the debate may well continue back and forth for years as computers become even stronger. What is clear is that Kasparov resigned prematurely - it may have been a draw with best play, it may have been a forced win for Deep Blue, but it was not so clearly lost that it justified throwing in the towel, and indeed if it was a forced win Deep Blue may not have found it. Kasparov just underestimated his resources and incorrectly thought he was going a piece down with no hope.

In terms of the article, the initial analysis of the position as clearly drawn because of the perpetual is clearly oversimplifying things so hopefully at some stage there will be a "reliable" source by Wikipedia standards showing this that can be cited. But despite this, that Kasparov resigned prematurely remains notable - it doesn't stop becoming a notable resignation just because the draw is not clearcut. And that the game was soon after thought to be a draw, and Kasparov's reaction to that, is an important part of the history of the match. Therealsleepycat (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Denouement?

This article is entirely devoid of any discussion of the implications of the matches in the chess world or for computer chess, or artificial intelligence, or anything else. Surely there were "lessons learned" from the matches—the Deep Blue – Kasparov, 1997, Game 6 article even points out that "Deep Blue was further strengthened from the previous year's match with Kasparov". What were the lessons learned? - dcljr (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheat allegations

It would be good if Kasparov's allegations in 1997 were explained. --Dweller (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

here are two sites that say something about the clain:

• https://www.chess.com/blog/clizaw/did-ibm-cheat-kasparov - cites Wikipedia!
• http://time.com/3705316/deep-blue-kasparov/

other sites talk about the 2nd end-game in terms of a possible machime error.64.53.191.77 (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of Cheating by IBM

I remember watching a TV documentary on this match some years ago, which suggested that IBM had a roomful of chess experts sneakily helping the computer, yet there is no mention of this in the article. Was this content removed from Wikipedia by IBM staff ? Darkman101 (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

who won which game

In the intro it says Kasparov won the first 1996 game but in the table further down the page it shows the 1st game as won by deep blue. SOmeone needs to check and adjust the info.Khasab (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)khasabKhasab (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it says "The first match was played in Philadelphia in 1996 and won by Kasparov." (A 'match' consists of 6 'games'.) --IHTS (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

1997 rematch, game 1

It is reported that "Deep Blue's 44th move in this game puzzled Kasparov, and he attributed it to "superior intelligence"." This is wrong, as in game 1, Kasparov was already lost at move 44. The move that sparked controversy, was instead move 37th in game 2, as also reported in the comments to that game Pasqualobos (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right. I removed the nonsense text about move 44 in the commentary on game 1 of the 1997 match. Quale (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Deep Blue's "bug" move was in 1997 Game 1, not Game 2

Currently, the page states that the controversial move was revealed to be a bug by Murray Campbell, but this is not supported by it's two citations. The first citation is a ChessBase article which analyzes the move, but makes no claim about whether it was a bug. In the second citation, the Wired article does make that claim, but it looks like Wired is misreporting it's source: The source for that Wired article is Nate Silver's book "The Signal and the Noise," where Murray Campbell was interviewed and claimed that move 44 in the first game was a bug, not the controversial move in game 2. This is correctly reported in other articles based on that source, such as this CNet article: https://www.cnet.com/news/did-a-bug-in-deep-blue-lead-to-kasparovs-defeat/ For this reason, I've deleted that line. I've also restored the lines about the bug in game 1, since that seems to be factually supported. However, to address the concerns in the talk page above, I've reworded it so it is clear the notion Kasparov could have considered the move a sign of "superior intelligence" is unique to Nate Silver's analysis, and is not necessarily a universally accepted fact. Supernoob5000 (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

1997 game 5 "Deep Blue played a brilliant endgame"

This is really editorializing, because 43... Rg2 would have drawn; DB's move 43 was a blunder. This is mentioned in "Deep Thinking" by Kasparov 2017.

Chapter 9 notes, can't see the page number. Cancerward (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

what was the format?

like best of 6 and if 3-3 then go into tiebreaks? i think we should please include 'under normal chess tournament conditions (in particular, standard time control; in this case 40 moves in two hours)' and other info. Thewriter006 (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live

It's of little or no relevance to the actual article, but their parody of Ted Koppel lost his mind because Kasparov lost. Even Will Ferrell as the Unabomber was trying to calm him down. Just a bit of silliness for you. Hellbus (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)