Nearly two decades later, the match still fascinatesThis week Time Magazine on the famous series of matches between IBM's supercomputer and Garry Kasparov. The subject was a few of the moves that stood out for a variety of reasons, such as a bug in game one of the 1997 match, and a move in game two that Kasparov found so unbelievable that he accused the Deep Blue team of cheating. The allegation was that a grandmaster, presumably a top rival, had been behind the move.In fact, grandmaster Yasser Seirawan told, “It was an incredibly refined move,of defending while ahead to cut out any hint of countermoves, and it sent Garry into a tizzy.”The topic of analyzing some key moves by Deep Blue with a top engine was recently covered at ChessBase News in a series of three articles. 1/9/2015 – Nearly eighteen years later, the matches between Garry Kasparov and Deep Blue continue to stir the imagination and fascination of people around the world. It has inspired books, documentaries, and theatrical productions.

1. Deep Blue Chess Computer

Looking over the games with a top engine such as Komodo 8, and comparing with the computer logs, sheds new light, and even revealsHowever, the purpose had been to highlight refinements and revelations uncovered with modern hardware and chess engines, and since there had been no disagreement with the so-called cheating move, it was not mentioned. So the engines agree with Deep Blue's choice, is that all? Let's take a look at the controversial moment first.This was the position on the board after 35 moves. It is White to play.Before trying to simply guess what was played, if you don't already know, it is important to remember that the year is 1997, and engines, and even supercomputers, played quite a bit differently than today's uber-engines. They were notoriously materialistic, and a tactic used by a player such as Kasparov, who would get deep into the head of his opponent, was to bait the machine with a 'poisoned pawn', allowing him to direct the game in a direction of his choosing.The pawn on b5 is clearly weak, and it should not be hard to bring it crashing down. The problem is that the most direct method is far less than optimal. As noted by grandmaster John Nunn, who annotated the game then and whose notes can be found among the tens of thousands of commented games in MegaDatabase.

5/17/2019 – 22 years ago Garry Kasparov played an ill-fated match against Deep Blue. There were many interesting visitors at the event in New York, amongst them a young Women's Grandmaster who, in an interview, said: 'I don't think it's my place to criticize a World Champion, but.' She went on to give a frank opinion of Kasparov's strategy. Today Anjelina Belakovskaia, who is doing remarkable work for American chess (and finance), turns fifty. FREDERIC FRIEDEL looks back at his first encounter with her, and the early days of ChessBase Magazine. The Slav has become one of the most popular defences against the advance of the d-pawn on the first move, and every ambitious d4-player faces the question how to successfully tackle this opening in tournament practice.

The strongest attempt is considered to be the move 4. Nf3, leading to interesting positions which promise White good chances to get an advantage. Black's main replies are 4. On this DVD Rustam Kasimdzhanov investigates in detail the line 4.

Dxc4, in which he has great experience. Showing selected grandmaster games, the ex-world champion shares his knowledge with the viewer to explain how White has to place his pieces and which plans he has at his disposal.Learn the secrets of the dxc4-line and improve your chances of success with 1.d4. Joel Benjamin 2/23/2015 07:16 'Some chessplayers see 'suspicious' behavior from IBM that is really indifference. There was no rematch because IBM had nothing to gain from another match. The machine was dismantled because they were finished with chess and wanted to use the expensive machine for something else. They didn't think it was a big deal to publish the logs (though they eventually put them on their website, and gave me copies in 1997) because nobody cared other than a bunch of conspiracy theorists. Why should they have to prove a negative?'

For one thing, Kasparov states in the documentary 'Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine' that he repeated asked for the logs, and IBM repeatedly agreed/refused to. So it was certainly a ‘big deal’ to Kasparov. Some may call IBM's behavior 'psychological warfare'. I call that underhanded and manipulative.

Kasparov states he was able to analyze Deep Blues previous games before the 1996 match, but not for the 1997 match. And what of IBM’s strong-armed tactics towards Jeff Kisselhof?IBM had plenty to gain from a rematch. Let's start with respect. Giving Kasparov a rematch would not only be respectful for who most feel is the greatest chess player in history, but it would give IBM an opportunity to be transparent in how it conducted itself, because the unanswered questions surrounding the 1997 will simply not go away without IBM being more open and forward. This is something that should have been done with all matches of this caliber.

Don't lock the machine away in some back room w/o even so much as a camera showing the room it’s in. As for why IBM should have to “prove a negative” as you put it, why would anyone – individual or corporation – not want to respond to negative comments or accusations in regard to their character? We’re not talking about criticism in regards to some product sold by IBM but rather one that could be viewed by some as borderline stock manipulation.How exactly was the Deep Blue computer “used for something else” when it was dismantled immediately after the match (with half of it donated to a museum)?It wasn't just a scientific exercise as IBM claimed it was, otherwise they would have been transparent from the beginning. IBM would like everyone to believe they simply improved on their 1996 Deep Blue computer and hoped it was good enough. But in fact what they did in a year's time was formulate a PLAN to beat Kasparov.

Kasparov wasn't just playing a computer, he was playing a computer plus a team of grandmasters. Whether or not this 'dream team' of chess players had any influence on Deep Blue DURING the game (particularly game #2), the public may never know. Perhaps years from now, someone involved with IBM's team may come forward and offer a story that conflicts with the accepted history. Did IBM use similar 'tactics' in its matches with Watson and the Jeopardy champions?

Again, who knows. All I know is, as long as one side remains guarded and hidden behind a 'curtain', and as long as one side can achieve a financial advantage from winning, the possibility of an unfair advantage will always remain. 'They didn't think it was a big deal to publish the logs'What was their reasoning for thinking that? When you have the WCC accuse you of cheating, then you should everything to refute or address such an accusation. And they clearly failed to do that. Which explains why the questions still linger even today.What they should have done was show convincingly that the machine did not receive human assistance.

Instead, what you have are a bunch of unconvincing arguments or articles appearing that suggest that Deep Blue won because of a computer bug, or that GK was simply producing sour grapes, neither of which does anything to refute the cheating allegations.It's also worth mentioning that the 'unfairness' in the Deep Blue match (or what made the Deep Blue match unlike other top-level play Chess), is that Deep Blue had a deep understanding/knowledge of Kasparov's moves/games, but Kasparov had no information about Deep Blue's moves or games. And to make matters worse, any information he had built up in the previous games were erased once they tweaked the code. If IBM wanted to do this fairly they'd have given Kasparov at least as much data on Deep Blue as they had on Kasparov.

@BenjaminThere's no need to invoke conspiracy to explain IBM's behavior. Consider this: The day that Deep Blue beat Kasparov, IBM's stock rose by 15%.

Some chessplayers see 'suspicious' behavior from IBM that is really indifference. There was no rematch because IBM had nothing to gain from another match.

The machine was dismantled because they were finished with chess and wanted to use the expensive machine for something else. They didn't think it was a big deal to publish the logs (though they eventually put them on their website, and gave me copies in 1997) because nobody cared other than a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

Why should they have to prove a negative? @MvanVeen'In essence there is no difference between chess programming then and chess programming now'There are HUGE differences between the quality of the algorithms today compared to the 90's. More sophisticated techniques have been discovered and implemented, resulting in more refined evaluation function.

Deep Blue Chess Computer

In fact, most of the improvements in computer chess performance can be directly attributed to better software, not hardware, as some believe. Even Fritz 5.32 had better eval than Deep Blue. You give Fritz 5.32 the capacity to analyze 200million positions per second and it would easily have had Deep Blue for lunch.' Though programmers can program more easily because of languages such as C, and though chess knowledge is easily available these days, in essence the programmer must do the same as back in the 90s.'

There are big differences today. For instance, a programmer is not required to do the same as what programmers did back in the 90's, because back in the 90's, techniques were far less refined than they are today. Nowadays a programmer does not have to start from scratch to make a good chess program (i.e., 3000+ elo).Here is an excerpt from an interview with Robert Houdart, author of Houdini: (excerpt from AlgorithmicProgress.pdf)'I started with this idea to build the best chess engine that I could—and I was helped a lot by the open culture that has come with the Internet. You know, two decades ago you had to invent every part of a chess engine from zero (and I’ve done my fair share of that), but today we’re in a situation where techniques, ideas and examples are readily available on the Internet.

You can call it a coming of age of the computer chess scene—as an engine author you’re no longer obliged to sit in your corner reinventing the wheel. The computer chess Wikipedia, some strong open source engines, and discussions on Internet forums about chess programming techniques and ideas make the design and development of a strong engine a lot easier than, say, twenty years ago. 'See also.http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topicshow.pl?tid=26026http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topicshow.pl?tid=4059http://ulysse.io/ComputerChess.pdfhttp://intelligence.org/files/AlgorithmicProgress.pdf. @JBejamin'but they do show the computer had every move played as it's principal variation just before it played the move'That doesn't prove anything. They could easily have added it before printing if they thought the stakes warranted it (share prices, public perception, etc). The only real way to prove conclusively that Deep Blue could find those moves on its own (using the exact same settings play against GK), was to have a legit demonstration.

But they eliminated that possibility from occurring by immediately dismantling Deep Blue after that match. Presumably because the 'science and research' was suddenly all completed at once. Lol.And why dismantle such an amazing machine? And why so hastily? IBM could easily have afforded to keep Deep Blue in storage, hold matches with it in future, and make it available for research, assuming research and science was what they were really interested in. In essence there is no difference between chess programming then and chess programming now.

Though programmers can program more easily because of languages as C, and though chess knowledge is easily available these days, in essence the programmer must do the same as back in the 90s.And that is that the programmer must transform knowledge into code. The computer then mimics the idea behind it.

Simply put: if I want to make the computer behave like Mr. Bean, I can study Mr. Bean and put all the ideas into code. And if all goes well, I can make a computer program that acts like Mr. Bean.This has to be done in recent programs, and it had to be done back in 1996.

And that a move seems human can well be. It has to be a human in the first place who translates ideas and knowledge into code. Was Karpov involved in the development of Deep Blue? Did Bobby Fischer secretly give tips to the IBM team? It seems a fact to me that Deep Blue had some subroutines that reflected sophisticated knowledge, which would then emerge under certain conditions in the game.

The good old 'if-then' construction or the equivalent thereof. So, Kasparov's suspicions regarding a possible human rival in the IBM camp were not so strange. After all, humans are behind every computer program.

'Even when they didn't cheat (in my opinion, quite likely they didn't)', that's what I wrote myself. Why wasn't it likely, according to me? Not because anyone within IBM would consider that morally wrong. It's just about cost effectiveness and weighing risks against profits. They were already there, playing the world champion. Publicity guaranteed anyway.

If they wouldn't succeed this year, they would succeed a following year; Kasparov would be more than happy to do his circus act again. Maybe IBM would even have preferred that.Why should they run the risk of ruining that? Anybody involved could earn a little side money by revealing a scam. Moreover, chess players are an independent lot, and prone to put themselves in the spotlights - not very dependable when needed to cover up indecent behaviour.Kasparov of course shouldn't have given in to easy money in the first place. Although they were slow in doing so, IBM released the logs years ago. None of you would understand them (there's only so much information there that's even useful to the programmers), but they do show the computer had every move played as it's principal variation just before it played the move.

More importantly, KASPAROV saw the logs immediately after the match. He never claimed he didn't, but coyly remarked that 'IBM must show the logs to the world.' It's a total non-issue, and a truly embarrassing episode for Kasparov. I'm still waiting for an apology. @PaulPenaI think you hit the nail on the head with that comment.Personally, I find it hard to understand why IBM did not simply give a public demo with DB to show that the machine was actually capable of finding the controversial moves. In addition, they didn't even give the Kasparov the courtesy of a rematch.

Paula Cole Harbinger Rar File. 5/14/2017 0 Comments Download Songsterr Tabs & Chords and enjoy it on. The AXS Cookie Policy. This website, like most others. Album: Year: 2007 Artist: Paula Cole Quality: High Rating: Paula Cole - Courage album Track listing: No. Title Size 1. Oct 27, 2016  Paula Cole Harbinger Rar Extractor. Paula Cole Discography at Discogs. Paula Cole – Raven 2013 Album Deluxe Edition 320kbs!rar 92.5 MB; Samples/04 sorrow-on-the-hudson.mp3 9.1 MB. Paula Cole - Harbinger. Jazz.rar Paula Cole - Courage. Here you can find return ithaca shared files. Paula cole amen review.

Instead, they had the machine disassembled before anyone could learn anything about its play or its controversial moves. And that's interesting.@KevinC & Karbuncle'Modern computers show that Deep Blue's team was just ahead of its time programming-wise.' 'even engines 10 years later picked the same moves, and the accusation is completely baseless.' While modern computers with far more sophisticated algorithms than DB find the moves easily, whether or not DB was capable of finding those controversial or 'sophisticated' moves in 1997, using obsolete algorithms, is a whole other question entirely. Fact is, it was never validated because IBM had the machine dismantled and never gave a demonstration to prove that DB could in fact find and play the moves it supposedly found on its own. Hence there's still a big question mark that remains unanswered.(Kasparov vs Deep Blue doco).

I very much doubt this comment will be posted in its entirety let alone posted at all, but I feel that this article is severely misleading, as it ommits crucial details.First of all IBM themselves revealed that they can change DEEP BLUE piece values on the fly while the game is going on. During that time IBM called this a feature. We now call it cheating.It is strongly suspected that a human grandmaster on the IBM team (like Joel Benjamin), substituted a couple of human consolidating moves in a messy position where Deep Blue had shown in similar positions (in previous games) it would rather just grab more material. Only the logs would tell for sure but IBM felt that their paper shredder had an urgent need for Deep Blue's logs immediately after the conclusion of the match.Please keep in mind that Kasparov had already beaten Deep Blue in a previous match and their reputation and stock price was riding on their firmly stated convictions that the next match would be different. We’re talking a lot of money folks.Here is the circumstantial evidence:When Kasparov became suspicious he asked to see the logs.

They told him to please finish the match and they would then provide the logs. After Kasparov finished the match they immediately disassembled the machine and destroyed the logs.

Now remember that they said that this was all for AI research. Does that sound like research to you or just trying to get a bump in a stock price? Paulpena.Don't push things to far. 'the combination of neural net technology and other AI artifices has given the appearance of 'human like' moves to modern software.' Phew, you seem to know a lot more about hidden things in chess software than me. Maybe the NSA even is reading this forum!There is a very good reason for IBM to not hand over the log files (ah, that was the word I was looking for).

Why should they care about what that small chess community thinks? For the general audience, they have beaten chess itself. Even when they didn't cheat (in my opinion, quite likely they didn't), there is no reason to feed a discussion that won't do them any good. Sorry Karbuncle's argument is completely invalid. 10 YEARS LATER you're going to ask what modern software would do? That's like asking what modern man would do 10,000 years after the caveman.

Yes computer science has developed by leaps and bounds and the combination of neural net technology and other AI artifices has given the appearance of 'human like' moves to modern software. But it does not explain how a computer driven by only brute force calculation would come up with the same move a human would. If IBM really wasn't cheating why not just release the logs like they said they would? All that does is serve to raise suspicions and cast a negative light on the company. Why would any company with a great PR department (as IBM does have) allow something like that.unless the alternative was worse. Bertman,I don't think much of Kasparov's allegation either; I was just saying that this article doesn't constitute any proof of the opposite. By the way, it is still possible to improve on computer evaluations as a human player.

For instance, so called 'fortress draws' still can be a problem for engines: humans see it at once, engines sometimes don't have a clue. So yes, a computer can aid a player to beat a much stronger player, and the other way around: a strong player can aid an engine to beat a legend. Certainly back in 1997. GM Benjamin didn't have to handpick a move, as an operator he could see what the engine was thinking. When I use an engine to analyse something, I do the same: I use it for blunder check, but I also sometimes push it in a certain direction.

Kasparov played a match against Topalov once where both could use a computer! They certainly didn't let the computer take all the decisions.As far as I remember, Kasparov's main problem with the Deep Blue team was that they didn't want to hand over the records on what and how the engine evaluated (don't know the official English term for it). Does anyone know whether this issue has ever been resolved? @FritsIf you stop to think about it for even a second, the allegations are obviously ridiculous.

Cheating with a grandmaster? Kasparov was the best player in the world. Why would a grandmaster handpicking a move, know which move, and somehow be able to defeat Garry Kasparov in his prime? Frankly, the cheating allegations are absurd, but the fact he highlights that move as revolutionary for a chess playing machine is certainly worth looking at.He certainly knew better than anyone what engines of his day could do, and clearly this move by Deep Blue was something special to his eyes. I don't remember the back and forth on this, so it would be nice if they told us what Kasparov's specific cheating alegation was. Did the Deep Blue team force a move in, or otherwise alter the computer during the game?

If not, it was not cheating.I suspect that Kasparov just could not believe that a computer could make such a good set of moves, and ignore the prooffered material. Absent that proof that Deep Blue altered the machine, Kasparov, who I consider the greatest ever, comes off as whiney. Modern computers show that Deep Blue's team was just ahead of its time programming-wise. The strange thing is that for probably most reasonably strong human players, the move Be4 is completely natural, as counterplay with e4 and Qe5 looks threatening. For engines the concept 'threatening' has far less value, as far as I know. Engines try to win as efficiently as possible, humans try to win as safely as possible. In fact, the first move I looked at was the immediate 36 Be4, but in a game, for the same safety-first reasons (the black counterplay with a5) I might well have opted for 36 axb5.In the variation 36 Qb6 Rd8 37 axb5 Rab8 38 Qc6, you will have a hard time convincing me this position is winning for white (although he clearly is better); especially the black moves after 46 Kf3 are puzzling.

I assume that GM Nunn did a bit more than just let the engine run for a while, but for me in a game, the unclarity might be enough to choose for 36 axb5.As this 'forced win' by Komodo (in the variation 36 Qb6) was far beyond the scope of Deep Blue, this article of course doesn't constitute any proof that the Deep Blue team didn't cheat.By the way, Karbuncle, the link you're providing isn't working.

Computer History Museum Debuts New Exhibit,Mastering The Game: A History of Computer ChessMOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIF.—The Computer History Museum, the world’slargest history museum dedicated to the preservation and presentation of theartifacts and stories of the information age, will debut a new physical andonline exhibit, Mastering The Game: A History of Computer Chess, at a publicopen house, 1-5 p.m., Saturday, September 10.According to John Toole, the Museum’s executive director and CEO, thismarks the first new exhibit since the institution relocated to its home at1401 N. Shoreline Boulevard in Mountain View, Calif., three years ago.“The topic of chess is a fascinating way for visitors of diverse backgroundsto learn about computing history. Chess resonates with the general public asa difficult problem to solve for people and machines alike. From this launchingpoint, visitors can explore some important software concepts-abstract andtraditionally challenging topics to explain,” said Toole. “Forthe Museum, this exhibit is our ‘opening move’ since it servesas a prototype of others that we will develop throughout the next phases ofour evolution.”This 1,000 square foot exhibit will follow a chronological plan, from thetheoretical foundations developed by such computing pioneers as Alan Turingand Claude Shannon, to the development of PC chess software and the drama ofIBM’s chess-playing supercomputer, Deep Blue.In addition, the institution has supplemented the physical exhibit with anonline version of Mastering the Game: A History of Computer Chess. “Notonly will this online counterpart provide access to information made availablein the physical exhibit, it will contain additional content and include accessto original source materials, links to complementary organizations and allowvisitors to share their computer chess stories,” Toole said.The story starts in the earliest days of computing and reflects general advancesin computer hardware and software over this period.

It also describes how thework on computer chess led to important software techniques still in use today. The Computer History Museum in Mountain View, CaliforniaVisitors will explore the multi-layered history of computer chess, listento chess software pioneers, learn the basics of chess algorithms and experiencethe sights and sounds of the era through vintage footage.

They will also learnabout the development of chess-playing supercomputers including a special displayfeaturing part of IBM’s Deep Blue supercomputer alongside a multimediapresentation capturing the dramatic match between World Chess Champion GarryKasparov and Deep Blue. In addition, a freestanding computer learning stationwill allow visitors to explore software concepts, such as the basic ideas thatlie beneath all chess software programs.In addition to the public open house on 1-5 p.m., September 10, the ComputerHistory Museum will host a special presentation in conjunction with the openingof Mastering The Game: A History of Computer Chess. Entitled Computer HistoryMuseum Presents: The History of Computer Chess: An AI Perspective, the 7 p.m.,September 8 event will feature Murray Campbell, Deep Blue project member, InternationalBusiness Machines (IBM); Edward Feigenbaum, a Stanford artificial intelligenceresearcher; David Levy, International Master and President of the ICGA, andJohn McCarthy, professor, Stanford University. The evening presentation willbe moderated by Monty Newborn, professor, McGill University and organizer,ACM Computer Chess Championships (1970-1991). This panel, comprising of seminalcontributors to the solution of this challenge—including two of AI’sleading pioneers—will discuss the origin and development of computerchess and what it tells us about ourselves and the machines we build. About the Computer History MuseumThe Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California, a public benefitorganization, preserves and presents for posterity the artifacts and storiesof the information age.

The IBM 1403 printer was noisy, but it could also be musical! Clever engineersfigured out what line of characters to print to make a noise at a given pitch,and how many times to print that line repeatedly to sustain that pitch fora given duration.

In other words, the printer could play musical notes. Allthat was needed was a program for the IBM 1401 computer system that read ina deck of punched cards, each card containing a single note of melody, andthen played the melody on the printer. The tempo could be adjusted using thesense switches on the computer console.The songs here are from a performance recorded in about 1970 in the computerroom of the Richmond (California) Unified School District. The computer operators(whose voices can be heard on the original tape recording) made the recordingby holding the microphone in front of the printer.All images courtesy of Computer History Museum. The Slav has become one of the most popular defences against the advance of the d-pawn on the first move, and every ambitious d4-player faces the question how to successfully tackle this opening in tournament practice. The strongest attempt is considered to be the move 4.

Nf3, leading to interesting positions which promise White good chances to get an advantage. Black's main replies are 4. On this DVD Rustam Kasimdzhanov investigates in detail the line 4. Dxc4, in which he has great experience. Showing selected grandmaster games, the ex-world champion shares his knowledge with the viewer to explain how White has to place his pieces and which plans he has at his disposal.Learn the secrets of the dxc4-line and improve your chances of success with 1.d4.