Kasparov vs Deep Blue

Pretty cool moment in history. I remember when it happened it was a big deal. Now we have mobile phone grandmasters...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93computer_chess_matches#Pocket_Fritz_4_.282009.29

... which confirms that our cell phones have enough computing power to send a man to the moon while simultaneously playing chess .

But will a cell phone work without glitches out in space, unprotected from cosmic rays?

Who are we kidding, they can't work glitch-free down here on earth!

(This is why we still use the 8085 processor for manned space vehicles: that processor HAS been tested and HAS been proved to be highly resistant to interference from random particles and fields encountered above the Van Allen Belt.)

I remember well the first game of the second series of six games. Garry won that initial game in the series despite the "fateful" glitch. I was a member of the audience in New York. In the discussions Garry had with the audience members that remained after the game it was clear that Garry obsessed with why move 44 by Deep Blue happened. What many don't know is that Garry consulted with the initial programming prior to the games in Philadelphia. He was purposely not consulted prior to the games in New York. That glitch bugged him. In the following games he did not purposely test the software "over the board" to figure out why the reprogrammed algorithm made an illogical move but he later wondered if a subconscious desire to understand the change effected his game.

WOW, Redfred, you were there! I didn't realize -- although it makes perfect sense -- that Kasparov had consulted on Deep Blue development and programming. No matter how brilliant the developers were, they weren't world chess champions.

What was it like to be in the audience? Were people hoping Kasparov would win?

When I started working at IBM Research, a few years after the historic match, I asked if Deep Blue was still around. No, it had been dismantled and turned into various other machines by then. Probably the technology was outdated a couple of months after the match.

In the direct audience that contained Kasparov, game board and clock the silence was deafening. In the analysis room silence descended only when a new move from either player was posted on the main board. As for who was rooting for whom, many of the low ranked chess lovers were gloating that Kasparov was again picking apart the machine. (This was May 3 1997, Garry had a two point lead before the game I witnessed from the previous set the year before.) Most of the masters and grand masters were warning that Garry may win both sessions but there will come a day...

I remember having a wonderful discussion about the game (and my work) with Lev Alburt. In that discussion we came to mutual agreement why computers would eventually surpass people in playing over the board chess. Computers do not play over the board, they play a very fast form of correspondence chess. Depending on the rules for the tournament, in correspondence chess a player can make their own analysis notes on how to proceed if the opponent does X, or Y, or Z, etc and a recorded weighted score for each variation. Naturally if your opponent does something completely different then those analyses maybe wasted efforts.

It must have been awesome to be there. That's great!

I know that Deep Blue was dismantled. I have wondered how well Deep Blue would've faired against today's spectacular chess engines (Shredder, Stockfish, Komodo, etc.) on a "basic" PC.

It's too bad he wasn't able to approach the match the same way he approached matches against humans.

I don't know how he could really truly do that unless he was playing against an unknown opponent (behind a curtain so to speak).

It's rather impressive that our today's smartphones have more processing power than the most powerful computers (like Deep Blue) of the 90's.