Conference grim::chess_discussion

This week's time has an article on Kasparov and the new monster,
called "Deeper Blue".  Apparently there will be another match this May.

Mike

The latest match is underway.  I saw some mail that said
Karpov lost game 2...

Mike

    Kasparov won game 1, Deep Blue game 2.  No game today.
    
    Martin

    Kasparov is playing this match like he played the last match - trying to
    stay away from the computers strength which is tactical play. 
    
    In game 1 as White he employed the Reti Opening in order to avoid tactics. 
    A boxing analogy would be that he danced around the ring inviting the 
    computer to chase after him. He waited for the computer to over-extend 
    itself in the chase and then threw a counter punch. In this case the 
    counter punch was an exchange sacrifice in return for some passed kingside
    pawns which proved too strong for Deeper Blue.
    
    In the game 2 Garry played a closed Ruy Lopez as black in order to
    avoid the tactics. This variation of the Closed Ruy is not fluid like 
    the Reti though and there are fewer opportunities for counter attack. 
    To continue with the boxing analogies, in game 2 Kasparov tried to stand 
    so close the the computer that it could not throw an effective punch. 
    Conventional wisdom about computer play would suggest that this would 
    work for Garri, especially if he was only hoping to get a draw which 
    seems likely. BUT ! Deeper Blue played this kind of position
    beautifully in this game and squeezed the advantage to the point where 
    Kasparov's position was completely over run and resignation was required. 
    
    We shall see what happens next !
    
    Mark

Found a great web site for this!

http://www.chess.ibm.com/

It has a java applet to play the games for you... :-)

Moves below.

[Event "IBM Kasparov vs. Deep Blue Rematch"]
[Site "New York, NY USA"]
[Date "1997.05.03"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Kasparov, Garry"]
[Black "Deep Blue"]
[Opening "Reti: King's Indian attack, Keres variation"]
[ECO "A07"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 Bg4 3.b3 Nd7 4.Bb2 e6 5.Bg2 Ngf6 6.O-O c6 7.d3 Bd6
8.Nbd2 O-O 9.h3 Bh5 10.e3 h6 11.Qe1 Qa5 12.a3 Bc7 13.Nh4 g5
14.Nhf3 e5 15.e4 Rfe8 16.Nh2 Qb6 17.Qc1 a5 18.Re1 Bd6 19.Ndf1 dxe4
20.dxe4 Bc5 21.Ne3 Rad8 22.Nhf1 g4 23.hxg4 Nxg4 24.f3 Nxe3
25.Nxe3 Be7 26.Kh1 Bg5 27.Re2 a4 28.b4 f5 29.exf5 e4 30.f4 Bxe2
31.fxg5 Ne5 32.g6 Bf3 33.Bc3 Qb5 34.Qf1 Qxf1+ 35.Rxf1 h5 36.Kg1 Kf8
37.Bh3 b5 38.Kf2 Kg7 39.g4 Kh6 40.Rg1 hxg4 
41.Bxg4 Bxg442.Nxg4+ Nxg4+ 43.Rxg4 Rd5 44.f6 Rd1 45.g7 1-0

[Event "IBM Kasparov vs. Deep Blue Rematch"]
[Site "New York, NY USA"]
[Date "1997.05.04"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Deep Blue"]
[Black "Kasparov, Garry"]
[Opening "Ruy Lopez: closed, Smyslov defense"]
[ECO "C93"]
[Result "1-0"]

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 1-0

[Event "IBM Kasparov vs. Deep Blue Rematch"]
[Site "New York, NY USA"]
[Date "1997.05.06"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Kasparov, Garry"]
[Black "Deep Blue"]
[Opening "Mieses opening"]
[ECO "A00"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

1.d3 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c4 Nf6 4.a3 d6 5.Nc3 Be7 6.g3 O-O 7.Bg2 Be6
8.O-O Qd7 9.Ng5 Bf5 10.e4 Bg4 11.f3 Bh5 12.Nh3 Nd4 13.Nf2 h6 14.Be3 c5
15.b4 b6 16.Rb1 Kh8 17.Rb2 a6 18.bxc5 bxc5 19.Bh3 Qc7 20.Bg4 Bg6
21.f4 exf4 22.gxf4 Qa5 23.Bd2 Qxa3 24.Ra2 Qb3 25.f5 Qxd1 26.Bxd1 Bh7
27.Nh3 Rfb8 28.Nf4 Bd8 29.Nfd5 Nc6 30.Bf4 Ne5 31.Ba4 Nxd5 32.Nxd5 a5
33.Bb5 Ra7 34.Kg2 g5 35.Bxe5+ dxe5 36.f6 Bg6 37.h4 gxh4 38.Kh3 Kg8
39.Kxh4 Kh7 40.Kg4 Bc7 41.Nxc7 Rxc7 42.Rxa5 Rd8 43.Rf3 Kh8 44.Kh4 Kg8
45.Ra3 Kh8 46.Ra6 Kh7 47.Ra3 Kh8 48.Ra6 1/2-1/2

    It has been reported that Kasparov resigned a drawn position against
    Deep Blue, and that a software called Ferret found the blunder. There
    is also a suspicion that Kasparov has an interst in making Deep Blue
    look good, as IBM are paying big money and you don't bite the hand that
    feeds you. The pitch is certainly not level, as IBM is paying both
    players, so there is a conflict of interest, to say the least. 
    
    What do the chess gurus in here think of all this?
    
    ..Kevin.. 

In the running commentary found at the web site,
the assembled experts (notably Sierawan) did not see
how K could save the game. 

    I think it was an honest mistake. I think it is an unbelievably painful
    mistake for Garry too. I've made the same mistake myself more than once.
    For me, giving away the game like that was much more painful than the
    loss itself. Although, I'm accustommed to losing much more than GK.  ; )
    
    I've read some references to Garry making inuendos that somehow the
    Deeper Blue team ( read GM Joel Benjamin ) may have done something
    not altogether above board in that game to affect the outcome. If
    Garry is making that suggestion I would disagree with him.
    
    Opinions shift with each game but right now a drawn match seems like
    the most likely outcome. I guess we'll know this weekend. I am
    definitely hoping Garry can get a point and a half to win the match.
    
    Mark

In the commentary during game 4, everyone agrees game 2
would have been drawn.  But that K's team only discovered
it after the game, with much (computer) analysis.

Perhaps a more important point is that many grandmasters agree
that Game 2 was an artistic achievment they would have been
proud to play.  Deeper Blue appeared to have several different 
strategic ideas as the game evolved, it played like a human.

Fascinating stuff...

Mike

Well, it's finally happened.

Deeper Blue won this best-of-6 match by winning game 6.
Kasparov transposed moves in a known position.  DB
sacced a knight, refused several opportunities to regain
material equality, and kept attacking.

Here are the moves to games 4-6.

[Event "IBM Kasparov vs. Deep Blue Rematch"]
[Site "New York, NY USA"]
[Date "1997.05.07"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Deep Blue"]
[Black "Kasparov, Garry"]
[Opening "Pirc: Pribyl variation"]
[ECO "B07"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bg4 5.h3 Bh5 6.Bd3 e6 7.Qe2 d5
8.Bg5 Be7 9.e5 Nfd7 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.g4 Bg6 12.Bxg6 hxg6 13.h4 Na6
14.O-O-O O-O-O 15.Rdg1 Nc7 16.Kb1 f6 17.exf6 Qxf6 18.Rg3 Rde8
19.Re1 Rhf8 20.Nd1 e5 21.dxe5 Qf4 22.a3 Ne6 23.Nc3 Ndc5 24.b4 Nd7
25.Qd3 Qf7 26.b5 Ndc5 27.Qe3 Qf4 28.bxc6 bxc6 29.Rd1 Kc7 30.Ka1 Qxe3
31.fxe3 Rf7 32.Rh3 Ref8 33.Nd4 Rf2 34.Rb1 Rg2 35.Nce2 Rxg4 36.Nxe6+ Nxe6
37.Nd4 Nxd4 38.exd4 Rxd4 39.Rg1 Rc4 40.Rxg6 Rxc2 41.Rxg7+ Kb6
42.Rb3+ Kc5 43.Rxa7 Rf1+ 44.Rb1 Rff2 45.Rb4 Rc1+ 46.Rb1 Rcc2 47.Rb4 Rc1+
48.Rb1 Rxb1+ 49.Kxb1 Re2 50.Re7 Rh2 51.Rh7 Kc4 52.Rc7 c5 53.e6 Rxh4
54.e7 Re4 55.a4 Kb3 56.Kc1 1/2-1/2

[Event "IBM Kasparov vs. Deep Blue Rematch"]
[Site "New York, NY USA"]
[Date "1997.05.10"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Kasparov, Garry"]
[Black "Deep Blue"]
[Opening "Reti: King's Indian attack, Keres variation"]
[ECO "A07"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 Bg4 3.Bg2 Nd7 4.h3 Bxf3 5.Bxf3 c6 6.d3 e6 7.e4 Ne5
8.Bg2 dxe4 9.Bxe4 Nf6 10.Bg2 Bb4+ 11.Nd2 h5 12.Qe2 Qc7 13.c3 Be7
14.d4 Ng6 15.h4 e5 16.Nf3 exd4 17.Nxd4 O-O-O 18.Bg5 Ng4 19.O-O-O Rhe8
20.Qc2 Kb8 21.Kb1 Bxg5 22.hxg5 N6e5 23.Rhe1 c5 24.Nf3 Rxd1+ 25.Rxd1 Nc4
26.Qa4 Rd8 27.Re1 Nb6 28.Qc2 Qd6 29.c4 Qg6 30.Qxg6 fxg6 31.b3 Nxf2
32.Re6 Kc7 33.Rxg6 Rd7 34.Nh4 Nc8 35.Bd5 Nd6 36.Re6 Nb5 37.cxb5 Rxd5
38.Rg6 Rd7 39.Nf5 Ne4 40.Nxg7 Rd1+ 41.Kc2 Rd2+ 42.Kc1 Rxa2 43.Nxh5 Nd2
44.Nf4 Nxb3+ 45.Kb1 Rd2 46.Re6 c4 47.Re3 Kb6 48.g6 Kxb5 49.g7 Kb4 1/2-1/2

[Event "IBM Kasparov vs. Deep Blue Rematch"]
[Site "New York, NY USA"]
[Date "1997.05.11"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Deep Blue"]
[Black "Kasparov, Garry"]
[Opening "Caro-Kann: 4...Nd7"]
[ECO "B17"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ng5 Ngf6 6.Bd3 e6 7.N1f3 h6
8.Nxe6 Qe7 9.O-O fxe6 10.Bg6+ Kd8 11.Bf4 b5 12.a4 Bb7 13.Re1 Nd5
14.Bg3 Kc8 15.axb5 cxb5 16.Qd3 Bc6 17.Bf5 exf5 18.Rxe7 Bxe7 19.c4 1-0

After 10 ... Kd8 was this commentary:

MAURICE ASHLEY:  Kasparov is shaking his head as if something
  disastrous has happened, his king being chased around the
  board.  Is it possible that Kasparov has played incorrect
  theoretically?
YASSER SEIRAWAN:  Yes, he has.  He blunered.  What he did is he
  transposed moves.  What I mean by that is this position is
  quite well known, and you had witnessed me playing the move
  Bf8-d6.  The idea being that after Bd6, it's standard for white
  to then play Qe2, and then after h6, this sacrifice Nxe6
  doesn't work because black has the move Kf8 later.

    >Well, it's finally happened.
    
    It is clear that a master chess player should not have lost game 6 as
    Kasparov did.
    
    Secondly, the computer has been taught to play by a grand master, it
    did not defeat him through mathematical analysis. It would seem, (but
    we can't be sure) that Deep Blue recognised the position from memory
    and played the move it had been taught to trap Kasparov with a sucker
    punch. The suspicion is also that the computer had been taught stategic
    rules by the grandmaster coaching it, that is why it kept attacking and
    did not try to regain material. So what we have is computer/human assisted
    chess v. Kasparov. 
    
    The future may be that we have a special form of chess developing,
    namely computer assisted chess, just as we have simultaneous
    exhibitions and 5 minute games.
    
    ..Kevin..
    
    PS I am posting some of this in Humane::digital where there is a
    discussion on the IBM marketing aspects of the match.
    

>                    <<< Note 265.23 by 41027::MANNERINGS >>>
>                      -< NOT man V. mathematical machine >-

Kevin,

	I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

>    >Well, it's finally happened.
    
>    It is clear that a master chess player should not have lost game 6 as
>    Kasparov did.
 
So what?  It's clear that Spassky played like a child in several games
during his loss to Fischer.  

Kasparov was emotionally beaten by the computer.  Just as he's emotionally
crushed all others.  He made mistakes in games 2 and 6 (at least).
   
>    Secondly, the computer has been taught to play by a grand master, it
>    did not defeat him through mathematical analysis. It would seem, (but
>    we can't be sure) that Deep Blue recognised the position from memory
>    and played the move it had been taught to trap Kasparov with a sucker
>    punch. The suspicion is also that the computer had been taught stategic
>    rules by the grandmaster coaching it, that is why it kept attacking and
>    did not try to regain material. So what we have is computer/human assisted
>    chess v. Kasparov. 
 
Again, so what?  Deeper Blue is a computer.  Everything it did was according
to hardware or its programming.  Once the game starts, there is no human 
intervention.  

Humans remember openings and traps.  Is that somehow illegal?
Or simply less than elegant? :-)
   
>    The future may be that we have a special form of chess developing,
>    namely computer assisted chess, just as we have simultaneous
>    exhibitions and 5 minute games.
    
Sour Kasparov grapes.  Computers have ALWAYS had some form of strategic
rules programmed into them by expert chess players.  This one was
just much better programmed. 

Personally, I rooted hard for Kasparov, and always will.
I don't think DB is at a point where it could win a regulation
tournament yet.  But I think eventually it will, and probably eventually
be "world champion".  And I find that sad.

But I also find all this "it wasn't really a computer" stuff to
be nonsense.

Regards,
Mike

Personally I will never consider a computer to be "world champion". That
title should to go the best human player.  (Of course chess politics being
what they are these days, you could argue that either Kasparov or Karpov
or even Fischer is the true world champion.)

Six games isn't a very definitive test of skill.  I'd like to see Kasparov
play a 24 game match against Deep Blue, although it would be harder to
maintain the public's interest in a match that long.

				-- Bob

    Well, the point is, what is the it, in it has finally happened ?
    
    The first computer to play chess beat Napoleon 3 times. It was a dwarf
    inside a box. 
    
    According to the IBM site, adjustments were made to the computer after
    the first game. 
    
    Now I think we would agree that there would be no difference between
    the dwarf who beat Napoleon and a GM in the next building sending the
    moves down the net to Deeper Blue.  But if Deeper Blue is essentially a
    set of contingencies and prerecorded instructions from a gm done in
    advance, then the difference between Deeper Blue and the dwarf is
    getting a little obscure. Deep Blue is just a tool of the gm playing
    Kasparov. Deeper Blue did not provide the creative thought, the gm did.
    
    Secondly, yes Spassky, Kasparov, anyone, can play badly. But that means
    it is fair to conclude that the winner did not prove he was up to
    standard. In this case, the one genuine defeat of Kasparov was caused
    by a low level blunder, not by world class chess by Deeper Blue. Like
    if I 'won' a marathon race in 3 days because the other runners were all
    sick in hospital, you would agree that I am not a quality marathon
    runner, wouldn't you ?
    
    Does that make my point clear? It is not sour grapes on my part, I
    loathe Kasparov. But that IBM try to put over what has happened as a
    computer thinking creatively is even worse to me.
    
    ..Kevin.. 

I don't see how a computer program can ever be considered "creative".
It's the programming team, which includes the grandmaster consultants,
that is creative, not the program.  Did IBM ever claim that their computer
was creative?

I think it's legitimate for the programmers to make adjustments to the
program between games as long as nothing was changed during each
individual game.

				-- Bob

> I don't see how a computer program can ever be considered "creative".

I don't have any problems considering the computer to be "creative!"

A lot of computer chess programing is self-adaptive.
The computer plays games and learns what works and what doesn't,
just as each of us does in our learning of the game.
It's not all programmed from the outside!

Fifteen or twenty years ago a computer was programmed to derive
the rules of Euclid's geometry.  The seven(?) basic axioms were fed in,
and the computer was instructed to derive the same kinds of subsequent
proofs that most of us did sophomore year in high school.
The computer generated some successful "non-traditional" approaches to some 
of the problems.  Is this "creative?"

I have no doubt that Deeper Blue has the ability to derive novel
approaches to positions that have not been given to it ahead of time,
and I am confident that it has the ability to modify its position evaluation 
functions based on experience.

But I also agree that "it" is no big deal.
It's just an application of technology to an area that biology
has already covered.

- tom]

Hi Tom,

>The computer generated some successful "non-traditional" approaches to some 
>of the problems.  Is this "creative?"

This is really just a question of terminology, but no, I don't think the
computer was creative.  It was just a tool used by its programmers and was
no more creative than a slide rule or calculator would have been.

				-- Bob

    >The computer generated some successful "non-traditional" approaches to
    >some of the problems.  Is this "creative?"
    
    It is a question of definition but my answer would be that: 
    
    If computers can be creative then this is an example.
    
    
    >I have no doubt that Deeper Blue has the ability to derive novel
    >approaches to positions that have not been given to it ahead of time,
    >and I am confident that it has the ability to modify its position
    >evaluation functions based on experience.
    
    Yes Deeper Blue  would (in my book) be creative if it did that AND on
    the basis of that it extended the state of the art, as happened in the
    geometry example above.
    
    But that is just what did not happen here.  Had Deeper Blue beaten
    Kasparov by finding new openings or  lines of play which stumped
    Kasparov (excuse the cricket metaphor :-)), I would say, that was
    creative and that is what IBM are marketing. But that is not what
    happened. Kasparov resigned a drawn position and fell for a known, and
    not very sophisticated trap. Therefore we got no 'creative' results.
    
    In the meantime another computer co has challenged Deeper Blue to a
    game, so the debate is not over yet.
    
    ..Kevin..
    

>    But that is just what did not happen here.  Had Deeper Blue beaten
>    Kasparov by finding new openings or  lines of play which stumped
>    Kasparov (excuse the cricket metaphor :-)), I would say, that was
>    creative and that is what IBM are marketing. But that is not what
>    happened. 

I think it is what happened, at least in game 2.

>Kasparov resigned a drawn position and fell for a known, and

He may have resigned a position that was drawn in game 2.
But to me, that doesn't diminish the fact that DB played
strategically, creatively, and artfully, establishing
a positional advantage.

Yasser Sierawan wouldn't say "I'd be proud to have played this game
against the world champion" if it wasn't a creative achievement of
some worth.

I guess it's in how you define "creative"...

Mike    

>                    <<< Note 265.30 by 41027::MANNERINGS >>>
>                 -< what you create must be new and progress >-
>
>    Kasparov resigned a drawn position and fell for a known, and
>    not very sophisticated trap. Therefore we got no 'creative' results.

This is an interesting aspect.  We are talking about creativity, 
but this raises another aspect of human vs. machine play.
People talk about the "emotionless" aspect of computer play, but here
Kasparov got psyched by the computer.  It is reported that he gave up
because the computer had been playing so well that he couldn't believe
it didn't have a refutation for that known escape to the obvious trap.
Well, did the computer "know" it was bluffing, or was it just playing
for the draw?

- tom]

    >>Yasser Sierawan wouldn't say "I'd be proud to have played this game
    against the world champion"
    
    Wasn't Yasser Sierawan on a payroll? This quote is hype. The fact is, 
    Kasparov missed a stalemate in Game 2.  Just think what would have
    happened if say, Karpov had missed a stalemate against Kasparov. Garri
    would have marched out to the press and pointed out the blunder. My
    point is that gm's should not miss simple stalemates and if they do,
    they are not playing up to scratch (please excuse the golfing metaphor
    :-)). So if Kasparov had payed up to scratch, the game would have ended
    3-3. Like if Tiger Woods played me when he was drunk and shot 95, and I
    got my usual 92, no no, I am not about to win next year's masters ;-)
    
    ..Kevin..

        Re game 2:  It wasn't a stalemate, it was a perpetual check.
        If Kasparov instead of resigning had played the obvious try at
        perpetual check (...Qe3), he then might have seen the follow
        up moves (if QxB then ...Re8, and if h4 then ...h5) that would
        have resulted in a perpetual check if Deeper Blue had pursued
        that line.  One commentator called ...Qe3 "as least as good as
        resigning".
        
        Dan

Does anyone have a pointer to or text of a post-mortem
analysis of game 2?  

Thanks,
Mike

>.35
>Does anyone have a pointer to or text of a post-mortem
>analysis of game 2?
        
        You might start with:
        
        	http://www.tcc.net/chess/kasparov2.html
        
        If you like browsing, check out:
        
        	http://www.club-kasparov.com/
        	http://www.yourmove.com/
        	http://www.chess.ibm/com/
        	http://www.chessbase.com/
        	http://www.chesscenter.com/
        	http://www.tcc.net/twic/twic.html	(The Week in Chess)
        
        More directly, the pages with pointers for all six games are:
        
        	http://www.club-kasparov.com/	(go to Garry's Lair)
        	http://www.yourmove.com/db.htm
        	http://www.chess.ibm.com/watch/html/c.html
        	http://www.chessbase.com/events/kaspdb/flash.htm
        	http://www.chesscenter.com/
        	http://www.tcc.net/twic/kd1.html
        
        Dan
        

>                    <<< Note 265.33 by 41027::MANNERINGS >>>
>                -< game 2 should have been a draw, full stop. >-

>    >>Yasser Sierawan wouldn't say "I'd be proud to have played this game
>    against the world champion"
    
>    Wasn't Yasser Sierawan on a payroll? This quote is hype. The fact is, 
>    Kasparov missed a stalemate in Game 2.  Just think what would have
>    happened if say, Karpov had missed a stalemate against Kasparov. Garri
>    would have marched out to the press and pointed out the blunder. My
>    point is that gm's should not miss simple stalemates and if they do,
>    they are not playing up to scratch (please excuse the golfing metaphor
>    :-)).

As mentioned elsewhere, it was far from obvious that there was a perpetual
check several moves later, forcing a draw.  Kasparov's analysts didn't
even find it until about an hour after the game.

> So if Kasparov had payed up to scratch, the game would have ended
>    3-3. Like if Tiger Woods played me when he was drunk and shot 95, and I
>    got my usual 92, no no, I am not about to win next year's masters ;-)
    
>    ..Kevin..

In keeping with the golfing metaphor, I would equate Deeper Blue's play in
game 2 to shooting 70 at the Masters, with a double bogey on 16 :-) (Kf1).

The top 10 or 20 players in the world might beat you that day, if they are 
playing their absolute best.

Mike

I got the following "letter from Gary Kasparov" as part of a distribution
to my chess club's email list.
Gary presents his observations on the Deep Blue match.

- tom]
********************************************************************************
I would like to thank you very much for coming by the Club Kasparov 
website, and taking the time to register with us. By the way, if you have 
not downloaded the screensaver yet, you may do so by going to 
ftp://ftp.club-kasparov.com and choosing the right file for your operating 
system (pcsaver.exe is the name of the Win95 file, and macsaver.hqx the 
Macintosh one).

As you might have read in our "About the site" segment, we intend to make 
this the best chess website in the world, to provide a "total chess 
solution" for every chess lover out there.  We will take all your input 
into account as we grow the site, and I promise to keep you informed 
whenever a new major feature becomes functional.  Please continue to visit 
our feedback section to let us know what you think of the site, and what we 
can do to make it better. Also, please stay tuned for the introduction in 
just a few days of our special news section.

Now allow me to move on to what you have been probably waiting for this 
past week:  my special post-match report.

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.

What threw me off were some of the moves made by Deep Blue, which a normal 
computer would never make - machines usually don't play some of the moves 
that were made in the match. For instance, take move number 11 in Game 5, 
h7-h5.

The logic of the move is that Black wishes to gain squares for the knights. 
The threat is to play ...h4, provoking White into playing g4 so that the f4 
square
can be used after moving the knight back to g6, the bishop to d6, and so 
on. But such positional maneuvering is normally alien to computers. Unless 
there are forcing moves or captures, then lines like this are too deep for 
them.  You can take any regular computer and run it for three days and you 
will see that not one comes up with h5. Such positional moves normally have 
no meaning for a computer!


Game 2 was another crucial game.  As a matter of fact, I don't think I ever 
recovered after that game, and there are a few questions that I still have 
not found the answers to yet. The ones offered by the Deep Blue team were 
not exactly clarifying either...

The crucial question is, why did Deep Blue decide to take on d6 on move 35? 
 It spent fifteen minutes for this move, I replied automatically, and then 
in six minutes it changed its mind, and decided not to play Qb6, the move 
it intended to play. Why did it reject it? Also, how can a machine which is 
able to see 20 ply [half moves] ahead, miss a perpetual such as the one it 
allowed with its last move?

These were the kind of questions that tortured me during the match, and not 
finding answers meant not figuring what I was up against.  All this was 
especially intriguing, since it followed Game 1, which as any computer 
specialist will tell you, was a typical computer game, judging from the 
moves Qa5, Bc7, h6, and g5.  Deep Blue had some clear priorities: it had to 
preserve the bishop. But these priorities didn't stay constant during the 
match... In game 1 Deep Blue clearly wanted to preserve its bishop, and it 
didn't take on f3 even when it had the chance to spoil my pawn structure, 
and then it played 10...h6 and 13...g5 with the sole purpose of saving the 
bishop. But then in game 5 the same machine exchanged its bishop on f3, 
without a second thought.



As you know, the Grandmaster commentaries of the six games, including some 
of my own analysis, are posted in the Garry's Lair section of Club 
Kasparov.  Nevertheless, here a few more thoughts on the individual games:

Game 1

Deep Blue's position wasn't so bad in this game. 13...g5 was okay for Black 
- it played under its own logic, which motivated it. But then 22...g4 
wasn't so good - it opened up the kingside to my advantage.

Had it not done that, then Deep Blue would have had some well centralized 
pieces. For instance, it could have made moves like Bd4, which keep the 
position under control.

Later in the game, we saw another typical computer weakness: taking the 
exchange. The computer doesn't understand positions with a material 
disadvantage. I'm sure
it was very pleased with the position, but the consequences were too deep 
for it to judge the position correctly. I think White's position was 
excellent and I am positive this was a correct sacrifice.

Interestingly enough, the machine didn't spend more than three minutes per 
move in this game.  It only took longer right at the very end of the game - 
six minutes on a move - when it saw the drop in evaluation. This game was a 
pure machine performance, which is what I had been expecting before the 
match. In order to win the game I had to show some good qualities. I played 
well: I sacrificed an exchange, I maneuvered on the first rank, then 
eventually at the end I played 37. Bh3 and 39 g4 to break through; it was 
very nice. I used the machine, I exploited its weaknesses.

Unfortunately, after game 1 Deep Blue never played in the same style again. 
No positional mistakes of that magnitude, and no fixed time per move. 
Sometimes it thought for four or five minutes per move. In two very 
important games - games two and four - it spent 8 minutes and then 15 
minutes for two of its moves. Deep Blue probably sees more lines in 15 
minutes than all chess-players in the world for the rest of their lives.  I 
would really like to know how the Deep Blue team was able to so radically 
alter the machine after the first game.



Game 2

I didn't play the opening very well - I was passive, because I thought the 
computer would not be able to understand and handle well the resulting 
position.
I wish I would have played otherwise, however, in order to play 'normal' 
openings you have to spend a couple of months checking your openings with 
your computer. Every line. Because one mistake in the Najdorf Sicilian 
could be fatal. The level of preparation would be different. Obviously Deep 
Blue had a large team behind it studying the openings.

The rest of the game is history.  Including my resignation in a drawn 
position.  The truth is that I was very tired and couldn't believe the way 
the machine had just played.  I trusted its calculations.  I assumed that 
if the machine allowed a move such as Qe3 at the end, it had calculated 
everything that could follow and found wins, so I didn't even bother 
checking it.  Costly error, as I soon found out.


Game 3

I think I tricked the machine very nicely in the opening, thanks to 1.d3. 
Unfortunately, I played 9 Ng5, instead of the better 9.b4.  After 9 b4 I 
thought Deep Blue would play 9...e4, and then I saw a line, but I didn't 
evaluate the consequences correctly: 10 dxe4 Bxc4 11 Nd2 Be6 12 Nd5 a5 
13.b5 Ne5 14 a4, and here I thought maybe 14...Bd8 and just c6 would be ok 
for black, but the good news is that I can play f4 first: 15 f4 Ng4 16 Nc4 
and my position is clearly better.
If I had played 9 b4 I think I would have won the game.

I thought 9 Ng5 was strong, but I only realized later that I couldn't get 
my
kingside play going with g4. When I played 13 Nf2 I finally understood that 
Black had a fairly good position.



Game 4

This was a very good game.  I don't think there is another human who would 
have saved the game. If I were playing with a human being, I would not have 
played 30...Qxe3. Instead, 30...Rf7 is a better move and my position would 
have been extremely powerful.  But I wanted to exchange queens, because 
everyone was saying that this is the right way to play against a 
computer...  Then Deep Blue defended like a 2800 player.


Game 5

This was another game of very high quality. It could have easily been from
a world championship match, and my opponent would have been really proud to 
save the game against me, or vice versa. I was exhausted and upset after 
game 2, but still, I am pleased to have managed to play some outstanding 
chess afterwards.


Game 6

I came to the board that day, but I didn't really want to play. I am sorry 
about my decision to play 7...h6. I simply didn't realize what I was doing 
when I played the move. It was a big mistake, and it shows the mood I was 
in. Maybe if I had gotten a nice tactical position in this game, then 
perhaps I could have fired up the gas.  But it didn't happen that way...

Clearly, I hadn't really prepared the opening. I thought it would play 
something else.  It is really hard for me to explain the whole thing... 
This was not a real game. It was something that was beyond my 
understanding. All I can say is that perhaps if I had one more day of rest 
between games 5 and 6, things might have gone differently.




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!


I hope you enjoyed the match, despite my loss.  I also hope you enjoyed the 
coverage that Club Kasparov provided during the days of the challenge.  The 
earliest you will be able to see me in action again is June 10th, when the 
Novgorod super-tournament starts in Russia.  Club Kasparov will cover the 
event, so don't forget to come by!  Meanwhile, I am heading to Tel Aviv, 
where I will officially inaugurate the Kasparov International Chess 
Academy, which I will try to develop into a global center for the creation 
of special school chess courses.  It is my hope that these courses will 
soon be used by schools all over the world to teach chess to millions of 
children.

Thank you for your support, and keep playing chess!


Garry Kasparov