Talk:Deep Blue (chess computer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

IBM accused of cheating source[edit]

Page 265 of Behind Deep Blue by Feng-Hsiung Hsu dosen't mention any cheating accusation. It is totally unrelated, it explains how the parts of Deep Blue were sold after the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

IBM cheats![edit]

The mere fact that IBM would not allow anyone to inspect the logic or the code, then dismantling the machine constitutes a cover up. In short, this is fraudulent gameplay, or cheating. This is akin to the old chess machines where a player would hide in the machine and make the moves. Deep Blue is a load of deep crap. Ask yourself: as a shareholder, would I support a company that spends millions of dollars to create a game that will not be sold, and a system that has absolutely no return on investment? If so, I have some “cloud computing” applications that I would like to sign you up for . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Deep Blue Controversy?[edit]

I am some what surprised that the page doesn't address some of the controversial issues that went with the Deep Blue VS Kasparov match. Perhaps it is out of place to mention it on this page. Is there a more appropriate page? I know that it is pure circumstantial, but I don't think it should go completely unnoticed. What do you guys think? Gagueci

Maybe you want to elaborate on what you mean after re-reading the section of the Deep Blue article that discusses the accusations made by Kasparov. I think the issues are addressed in the article even though I think it could be phrased a bit more clearly. In particular, it should be made clear that IBM was not cheating by modifying the program in between (not during) games. This was an accepted part of the match terms. Perhaps Kasparov was silly to have agreed to those terms - but that's the way it is. But what Kasparov was accusing IBM of doing was having some human grand master aiding the computer during the games. He made these accusations because he didn't think it possible for a computer to have come up with some of the more positional moves. IBM was understandably upset by being accused of cheating and I think this made it much less likely that they would be interested in a rematch. And the moves in question are now often suggested by modern chess programs running on much lesser hardware. - Hayne 04:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Kasparov was not beaten[edit]

He won the first match and Blue won the second, 1 - 1. The representatives of Blue declined/withdrew from a another game which would have determined the winner and end the tie. Kasparov would undoubtedly have won the third match considering the second math, "Blue didn't beat Kasparov, Kasparov beat Kasparov". The weight on his shoulders and the propaganda stirring around this machine resulted in a self jinx. Nevertheless, Kasparov was unbeaten.


He neither won nor lost, but it can be said that he did technically succeed over Blue.

Wasn't the machine used in the 1997 match called "Deeper blue" ? --Imran 03:44, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Deeper Blue" sounds familiar, and Daniel King's book on the match was called Kasparov vs Deeper Blue, but the IBM site calls it Deep Blue throughout, and I guess that can be taken as authoritative. --Camembert

When was Kasparov first beaten ?[edit]

Deep Blue - Kasparov, 1996, Game 1 shows Feb.2, 1996 as the date, but it says February 10 on Deep Blue. Can someone confirm this, please ? -- PFHLai 09:28, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

According to the Chessbase Megabase 2004 it was the 10th. I'll change the article accordingly. --Camembert
Thanks. I also found the same February 10th date on and . The event will be featured on the MainPage as a selected anniversary on this date. Thanks, again. -- PFHLai 17:53, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Where are the Deep Blue racks?[edit]

The movie Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine notes that one Deep Blue rack is still standing in an IBM computer farm room, doing non-chess work. Today's edit indicates it sits in a museum, not at IBM.

Is the editor wrong, or have events changed since the release of the movie? Spamguy 22:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Dunno. I was also wondering if the IBM rack is still there and the other one is on loan; although I did an online search in the catalogue for where the rack was supposed to be now, and they don't claim to have it at all. They do apparently have one of the chips though.WolfKeeper

The IBM rack is on loan to the Computer History Musuem. See

On the British TV program QI it said that part of Deep Blue was being used by United Airlines handling check in and reservations. Is this just incorrect information being used for comic effect or can anyone back this up? FlamingGoldFish 15:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How could everyone miss this[edit]

right|thumb|300px|Kasparov vs. Deep Blue

Somehow I doubt Deep Blue actually had a Swastika at his table. This look like photoshop to me. If the original author could re-upload the image, that would be great. UnHoly 06:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Aww but it was waaaay funnier this way. Besides, the computer definitely expressed National Socialist tendencies. nsandwich 10:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, questions of funny or not aside, there's still the issue of tampering with a copyrighted image. How do you change an image thumbnail anyway without changing the original image? Bernhard Bauer 20:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't change the thumbnail only. I uploaded a new copy of the image. I think it might have just been a problem with reloading the page that made it look like the thumb and the image were different. nsandwich 00:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

game 2? could somebody please write up an article on game 2? --Nerd42 19:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How many flops (tflops) does deep blue run at[edit]

the deep blue that beat "gary kas.."

i would like to know how many flops it runs at

so i can compare it with blue gene


Blue Gene is undoubtedly many times more powerful than Deeper Blue. Deeper Blue was not even that impressive of a super computer in 1997, it was merely calculated by IBM to be powerful enough to be more than a worthy challenge to the living chess legend Garry Kasparov, and they were right. Had the most powerful super computer of 1997 had been used, I doubt even Garry Kasparov would have been able to draw a single game. I believe the scientists already knew this, and thus instead of choosing a much more powerful computer they settled with something that would at least give Kasparov a chance, most people prefer to watch close matches rather than complete blowouts, plus close matches give the additional side-benefit of return matches, whereas no one would demand a return match if there were a complete shut-out. Dionyseus 02:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The notion in the post above, that IBM was "holding back" a more powerful computer from playing Kasparov is nonsense. The integrated circuit processors in Deep Blue were specifically designed to process chess board evaluations as fast as possible, to optimally augment the Deep Blue software. It was a designed and highly optimized piece of computing hardware for this single purpose. Sorry, but any other computer at that time would have been blown off the board by Kasparov.

To answer the original question: how many flops? Well flops are floating-point operations per second, and that only matters for scientific and engineering type calculations with what mathematicians call "real numbers" and is utterly irrelevant to evaluate a chess position. Technically there is no reason Deep Blue would even require a floating-point processor, it could do all calculation with integer math! What you really want to know to answer your question is how fast can it evaluate chess positions versus another machine running the same exact software for position evaluation. Other comparisons are meaningless.

Merge Proposal[edit]

There are a lot of stubs for the Deep computers of IBM that were produced before Deep Blue. Since there's not so much to say about any of them, I think it might be better just to assemble a single page of Deep computers. Frobite 01:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all Deep Fritz and Deep Junior have nothing to do with IBM, furthermore Deep Fritz is as related to Deep Junior as the Spanish language is related to Chinese. Second, while it is true that Deep Blue is Deep Thought's successor, they are much too different in my opinion to be merged. So in conclusion my vote is nay on the merge. Dionyseus 04:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I second the nay on the same grounds. Hardwick 14:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it would be a bad idea to merge the "Deep" pages since these are unrelated programs. The "Deep" is just a marketing term used by the other programs to benefit from the fame of Deep Blue. - Hayne 18:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As per the replies here, I removed the merge proposal. If anyone has any sound arguments for it, post them here. Rbarreira 09:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It's reasonable to merge the Deep Blue family (Chiptest, Deep Thought, DB1 and DB2). "Deep Fritz" etc. are just marketing terms for unrelated software programs. The strongest chess computer these days is probably Hydra, a software/hardware hybrid. Phr (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
addendum There was also a "junior" version of Deep Blue which may have been called "Deep Blue Junior" (unrelated to "Deep Junior"). Phr (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support merge of all the Deep Blue family of computers, basically all the ones built by Hsu et al. This does not include unrelated computers some of which had "deep" in their name. Includes existing articles and we should expand the article to include any we missed. There were actually two versions of Deep Thought that were quite different from each other. Hsu's book Behind Deep Blue is the best single reference. Phr (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Deep Blue Controversy[edit]

Although IBM's Deep Blue officially defeated Garry Kasparov in their 1997 confrontation, there is much controversy surrounding that match. Primarily, Kasparov and all of the Chess Community felt that IBM was cheating during their match by having humans intervene in Deep Blue's thought process. It is universally accepted that a human and a computer together is much more powerful a force than a human and a computer individually.

These suspicions were made particularly clear in Game 2 of Deep Blue’s 1997 match with Kasparov. Kasparov forced Deep Blue in to a closed game, during which computers are tend to have the most trouble in. He also offered Deep Blue two pawn sacrifices, which would have given Deep Blue a short-term advantage, with possible consequences in the future. Computers tend to snatch at the free material while paying less attention to king safety. However, alarms went off when Deep Blue did not take the pawns. Instead, it performed a move that was far more representative of former World Champion Karpov. Eventually, Kasparov resigned the game, saying that it was hopeless at the end. He was genuinely suspicious that there was human intervention in that game, due to the fact that Deep Blue made too many "human" moves, and did not play like a computer.

The suspicious raised in Game 2 are not merely the work of conspiracy theorists: when Kasparov resigned the game, he had missed a simple perpetual check, which would have easily drawn the match. Kasparov was horrified when he realized this, and the Chess Community was deeply concerned: how could a computer play so well, but miss something as basic as a perpetual check? This is unfathomable to think about.

Kasparov and the rest of the Chess Community were seriously suspecting human intervention in Game 2 due to this fact. It is very possible that there was a relatively strong human (not necessarily a grandmaster) watching the screen, and Deep Blue needed permission from this person to make a move. If the human noted that Deep Blue's contemplated move would place its king in danger, the human would drop the main log, and revert to the second-best, safer move. It is effectively impossible for a computer, especially one like Deep Blue, to miss a perpetual check, like Deep Blue did in Game 2. However, it is rather plausible that a human might, especially when playing under pressure (as was Kasparov).

In fact, there is much evidence of unethical behaviour and human intervention during the match. During one of the games, Deep Blue crashed, and IBM mechanics were sent over to repair it. In all fairness, this should have resulted in a resignation by Deep Blue and a victory by Kasparov. However, being the good sport that he is, Kasparov merely chuckled and started chatting merrily with his mother, when the referee of the game shot him down and stated that he was not to communicate with anyone. "Why not?", replied Kasparov, "they're talking to their guy all the time!". He was referring to the IBM mechanics, who were, indeed, constantly modifying Deep Blue, during and in between matches.

There is much more evidence of unethical behaviour on the behalf of IBM: they had promised to release Deep Blue's main logs for all the games after the match had been completed, but they backed out on that deal. When Kasparov defeated Deep Blue by a considerable margin in 1996, he agreed to a re-match. However, when Deep Blue defeated him in the 1997 rematch, IBM refused another showdown, so Kasparov could never redeem himself. Finally, IBM was indeed modifying Deep Blue in between the matches, and playing with Kasparov’s mind in the process: Deep Blue effectively gave Game 1 to Kasparov, furthering the mental implications that Kasparov’s Game 2 defeat had on him.

Kasparov's loss in Game 2 was effectively a loss of the entire match. Chess is famous for psychological warfare between players, but one can obviously not conduct such warfare against a computer. Kasparov collapsed psychologically: Games 3, 4 and 5 were drawn partially due to the fact that Kasparov could not recover after Game 2: he was constantly thinking "something is up here", and he could not quite place his finger on it. IBM furthered Kasparov's suspicious and deliberately fed his paranoia: they were playing with his mind. In the end, Kasparov simply wanted to end the match: he gave Deep Blue the 6th and final game, without even putting up a fight.

Furthermore, chess matches are seldom executed without both players conducting extensive research on their opponent, including their strongest / weakest openings, play style, etc. Deep Blue had a myriad of information on Kasparov (of course: it was built for the sole purpose of defeating him), but Kasparov was not given any information whatsoever about Deep Blue before the match. This would be incredible barrier facing players at the Grandmaster Level: one can not expect a fair match when one player knows everything about his opponent, while the other knows nothing at all.

However, any Chess player could tell that Kasparov was a stronger player than Deep Blue: Kasparov played an emotional game against something with no emotions, and the vast controversy surrounding the matches, as well as IBM's unethical toying with Kasparov's mind, had detrimental effects on Kasparov's game. Perhaps this is why IBM refused another rematch to serve as a tiebreaker: now that Kasparov knew what he was up against, a greedy corporation playing a death-match against him rather than the friendly experiment they had originally claimed that it was, he may have been able to sufficiently prepare himself once he was prepared for all the psychological tricks and had reviewed its past games. In the end, it was not Deep Blue that defeated Kasparov: Kasparov was defeated by his own emotions in the face of unethical play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uchiha sasha (talkcontribs)

The perpetual check in game 2 is quite hard to spot and plenty of grandmasters kibitzing the game missed it too. Kasparov himself never figured it out, even after the game--he didn't realize it until someone told him, and then he was shock. (Of course he must not have been thinking about it much, once the game was over).
Computers don't spot the perpetual so easily either (try feeding the position into Fritz or something like that). Humans did not intervene in Deep Blue's thought process while any game was being played. They did intervene between games, improving the software based on what had happened in the previous games, but they were allowed to do that as agreed upon in the match conditions. Have you read Hsu's book? It discusses what they did in great detail. Phr (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The above comments by user Sasha seem to be identical to those posted on Talk:Game_Over:_Kasparov_and_the_Machine where I have responded to a few of the more egregious accusations. - Hayne 01:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How many positions per second?[edit]

The text currently says: "It was capable of evaluating 200,000,000 positions per second". Does this include positions that were alpha-beta pruned or hits off a transposition table? Or is it just plain raw position evaluation? Warthog32 18:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


While there are some sources listed on the bottom of the page there are no citations within the text. I'll try to find and tag sources for the information but in the meantime I added the unreferenced tag. Martin 01:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Title[edit]

Since the computer was called "Deep Blue" not "IBM Deep Blue",[1] shouldn't the article title be something like "Deep Blue (chess computer)"? Peter Ballard (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I found a clearly labelled path to the article that made it clear what it was. So it all stops? Beat the Russian and then stop. Like the Moon Race again-why not push on to greater and greater complexity and speeds and we might get a machine that really thinks for itself. Bravo Gary K for putting your reputation on the line, well intact I say... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the name change. Bubba73 (talk), 19:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just like Deep Thought (chess computer), but in slight contrast to Hydra (chess). Bubba73 (talk), 21:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that's 2 in favour (me and Bubba73, who offered a good precedent) and no one against after 12 days. So I've done the rename. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. There are quite a few articles that link to the old title. Is there an easy way to update those, with AWB? Bubba73 (talk), 14:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

copy-paste from "ply"[edit]

There is some identical text here and on Ply_(game_theory), regarding the ELO increase per additional ply. I think this goes a bit too far into details which really better belong there than here. If someone else can confirm this feeling, I encourage him to cut it down a little, providing a link to Ply_(game_theory). — MFH:Talk 14:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think something about increasing plies and strength should go in this article. Of course the best places for it are in Ply and computer chess. I think it should at least be mentioned in this article, but perhaps it can be trimmed a little in this article. At a minimum I think that this article should say that increasing the number of plies searched significantly increases the playing strength. Bubba73 (talk), 19:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Deep blue dismantled a tragedy[edit]

I added 3 points to the deep blue article.

1) It was a tragic loss for the chess community that ibm did not allow deep blue to continue playing chess.

2) Deep blue played 6 games. To get an accurate rating it should play at least 20 games with more then one player. We can not say with certainty how strong deep blue was. The claim that Deep Blue was the best can not be substantiated.

3) Many people have speculated why ibm dismantled deep blue. Some have said to hide the reality that deep blue was not playing at the world champion level. Did Hsu or ibm give a reason why deep blue was dismantled? Mschribr (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) is opinion that needs to be removed. (2) is correct. (3) is disputed - the story is different depending on whether you ask Kasparov or the IBM team, so both sides should be presented. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
(1) Can be broken into 2 parts.
(1A) Deep blue was dismantled. The article says deep blue was retired. Retired sounds like someone is old, put in many years of service and now wants to relax. Deep blue was 1 year old and played 6 games and then stops playing. Deep blue has an on and off switch, its doesn’t get tired. It could have easily played more matches. I will state that it was dismantled and never again played against a strong player.
(1B) Instead of saying a tragic loss I will explain with 2 reasons. First Deep blue beat the world chess champion so deep blue is the strongest chess player. Deep blue could have helped grandmasters prepare for world champion chess tournaments. Today strong grandmasters routinely use strong chess programs to analyze chess games in preparation for world champion tournaments.
Second Deep blue achieved the 30 year goal of computer scientists, create a computer to beat the world chess champion. The goal is finally researched. Then Ibm destroys deep blue. Computer scientists were disappointed. There is a New York Times article, January 21, 2003, which says this. See
To (3) I can add ibm’s and hsu’s reasons why deep blue was dismantled. Ibm gave the reason deep blue stopped playing because the deep blue team moved on to other projects.
Hsu explains in his book what happened to deep blue. He says “Its death however was exaggerated.” Hsu continues with what deep blue is doing. “Deep blue is alive and kicking in ibm research.” The 1997 deep blue has half of its original chess cards. The deep blue rs/6000 is used as a web site to play 1000 players simultaneously. It uses a single deep blue chess chip and plays at uscf rating of 2000.
Hsu says deep blue is still with us today. It is obvious the deep blue that played the world champion does not exist. Mschribr (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This question refers to (2). The article says

Due to an insufficient sample of games between Deep Blue and FIDE-rated chess players, a chess rating for Deep Blue was not established.

Why does it say FIDE-rated chess players? If deep blue played a sufficient number of games in any rating system, such as the USCF, then deep blue would get a rating. Mschribr (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern chess programs play more like a human than deep blue[edit]

Clarified that the current top programs play smarter and more like a human than deep blue by looking at fewer moves and more moves ahead. They are able to discard more moves than deep blue and therefore play more like a human. Mschribr (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, but it needs a citation or it will need to be removed. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not really adding anything new. I am just emphasizing what Wikipedia said. The article says Deep blue looks at 200 million positions per second and 12 plies ahead. Fritz looks at only 8 million positions per second and 18 plies. While a human world champion looks at much less than 1 million position per second and 25 moves ahead. So fritz plays closer to a human world champion than deep blue. Maybe I did not explain it well. It is obvious to me. I could add the part about what a world chess champion looks at. Mschribr (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
According to Feng-Hsiung Hsu's book Behind Deep Blue, Deep Blue performed about a 21-ply deep search on main lines, and over 30-ply deep searches on interesting lines. So while Deep Blue did indeed search many more positions per second, it reportedly looked ahead more plies than what you have listed for Deep Fritz and humans, and did so selectively.
Also according to the book, prior to the 1997 rematch with Kasparov, a single chess chip version of Deep Blue that ran at a slower clock speed, nicknamed "Pico" Deep Blue Jr., was tested against two top PC chess programs that were commercially available. The search speeds of "Pico" Deep Blue Jr. and the PC programs were approximately the same. "Pico" Deep Blue Jr. won all of its games, indicating that the evaluation function of Deep Blue did perform better than other commercial programs at the time. Isaac Lin (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I don’t where you’re getting the 21 ply and 30 ply deep searches? Is it from page 229 in the 1997 match in game 2 on move 36? Hsu says “The main line was really at least 21-ply deep and maybe well over 30-ply deep, since there were additional search extensions on the workstations and the chips.” This statement may be for this particular move and not the average depth of deep blue. These numbers “at least 21-ply deep and maybe well over 30-ply deep” are not clear what they refer to. Words like “really at least” and “maybe well over” sound like guesses, not observations of deep blue's actual performance. Are they full width or singular extension? Are they a range or averages? We cannot say from this sentence what the average look ahead is for deep blue.
I referred to 12 plies that already existed in the wikipedia article. I looked through Hsu’s book and the ibm website. I did not find any mention of the average depth of deep blue.
These pico tournaments were discussed at length on the computer chess forums. These are fantastic claims made in Hsu’s book. All he says is pico deep blue jr. played the top commercial programs and won 10-0. We have no more information. There were no independent witnesses. Which top programs? Were they were blitz or standard time? What opening book was used? What computer hardware was used? What were the program parameters? All of these things if not properly set can affect the outcome. These tournaments results 10-0 cannot be repeated since we don’t have access to pico. We don’t even have the games. What happened to the games? What programs did he play? Why doesn’t he say which programs? There is nothing to substantiate the claims except Hsu’s word. The claims cannot be used as an indication for anything about deep blue. Mschribr (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for misreading the statement regarding the 21-ply deep search; it did refer to the specific move under analysis. The key misgiving I have with your changes is that they imply that previous generations of computer chess programs relied solely on brute search and did not attempt to, as you wrote, "play more like a human" by determining which lines of play to investigate more fully. From what I have read, identifying and investigating further into fruitful lines of play has been done for a long time, and was indeed part of Deep Blue's program. I prefer the previous version which discussed the greater efficiency of newer programs (something necessary to achieve comparable results with a slower search speed). I suggest changing the last two paragraphs in the "Future" section to the following (and renaming the section to "After the 1997 match"):
IBM's decision to stop pursuing advanced chess computer research unfortunately prevented a full assessment of Deep Blue's chess rating, as Deep Blue did not participate in any sanctioned chess tournaments.
Deep Blue, with its capability of evaluating 200 million positions per second, was the fastest chess computer to face a world chess champion up to 1997. As of 2008, the latest computer chess research is typically performed with entirely software-based programs, rather than using dedicated hardware. Chess programs such as Rybka, Deep Fritz, and Deep Junior compensate for their slower search speed by improving further on the logic used by previous programs, allowing them to be more efficient at finding the most fruitful lines of play and investigating them at greater length. In a match between Deep Fritz and Vladimir Kramnik in November, 2006, the program ran on a personal computer containing two Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs, capable of evaluating 8 million positions per second, yet searching to an average depth of 17 to 18 plies in the middlegame.
Isaac Lin (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The claim that modern programs "play more like a human" is incorrect. No strong computer programs play anything like a human at all. No human examines 8 million positions a second or searches 17 plies deep. I fixed the section a little bit but it needs cites and possibly should just be taken out. That computer programs are stronger today than they were 10 years ago is not a surprise. (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
It did not say a human looks at 8 million positions. And humans do look at 17 plies deep and even more deeply. The claim was that the current top programs play more like a human than compared to deep blue is correct. The claim was not that the current top programs play like a human. The proof is when you compare the numbers of moves looked ahead and the number of positions looked at for the top programs, deep blue and the world champion. The numbers for the top programs are closer to the world champion then for deep blue. Both humans and computers evaluate positions and look moves ahead. How they evaluate positions is different. Do you see the difference? Mschribr (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
To Isaac Lin: Your sentence “IBM's decision … chess tournaments” doesn’t have all the details of the second paragraph. You can add your sentence to the 2nd paragraph. I rewrote the 3rd paragraph below. I do not use deep blue as a representative of chess computers from its time. I do not say that deep blue did not prune. But others did pruning better. I say that deep blue’s success was from it executing its program fast. I do not like the word efficiency here. It suggests deep blue and programs like Rybka do the same thing or achieve the same results. They are different. Brute force programs are simpler. Rybka is more selective search more like a human and therefore smarter. You can change the title to after 1997. If there are 2 ways to do sometime, 1 way with brute force and a 2nd way with selective search and everything else is equal such as the results. Then the selective search is smarter than the brute force way because that is how a human would do it.
Deep Blue was the fastest computer to play a world chess champion by evaluating 200 million positions per second. The great speed allowed Deep Blue to look further ahead faster and therefore play better. Software chess programs have traditionally tried to look further ahead faster by pruning away moves from each position. Discarding more moves is similar to why a world chess champion plays better than a master. Strong chess programs like Rybka, Deep Fritz or Deep Junior have refined this process even further. They look at fewer moves per second but more moves ahead than Deep Blue. In this respect they play smarter and closer to a human world champion than Deep Blue. In a recent match, Deep Fritz vs. Vladimir Kramnik in November 2006, the program ran on a personal computer containing two Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs, capable of evaluating only 8 million positions per second, but searching to an average depth of 17 to 18 plies in the middlegame. Mschribr (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, my proposal for the second paragraph omits the parts that, as Peter said, lack references. As several commenters in this thread are not in agreement with your proposed wording that compares the play of chess programs to humans, I believe that the text should not be modified to include this comparison. Without any references that compare Deep Blue with other programs, I believe that no direct comparisons should be made and only a general description be included of the current state-of-the-art with respect to chess programs. Here is another proposal for changes to the third paragraph (my proposal for the second paragraph remains the same):
Deep Blue, with its capability of evaluating 200 million positions per second, was the fastest chess computer to face a world chess champion up to 1997. Software-based programs that do not use dedicated hardware, such as Rybka, Deep Fritz, and Deep Junior, compensate for their slower search speed with improvements in their logic that makes them more effective in finding the most fruitful lines of play and investigating these options at greater length. In a match between Deep Fritz and Vladimir Kramnik in November, 2006, the program ran on a personal computer containing two Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs, capable of evaluating 8 million positions per second, yet searching to an average depth of 17 to 18 plies in the middlegame.
I would appreciate the comments of other editors on this proposal in order to arrive at a consensus position. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I still don't like it, for two reasons. First, the claim "compensate for their slower search speed with improvements in their logic..." is uncited. Second, even if and when we can find the claim properly cited, detail on later chess engines is unrelated to the Deep Blue (chess computer) article - it more properly belongs in the general article Computer chess. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, then if I understand correctly, you would agree with dropping the third paragraph entirely? Regarding my proposed second paragraph, perhaps instead the paragraph can also be dropped, and the proposed sentence be placed in the previous section, immediately after "...IBM declined and retired Deep Blue." (This would fit better with the new section title, "After the 1997 match".) Isaac Lin (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
On further reflection, I would drop the section heading, and move the one remaining paragraph before the one starting with "In 2003...". I also suggest changing this sentence to be "In 2003 a documentary film was made about the match, titled Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine." (I've never seen the film so I'm not sure if the next sentence is an accurate portrayal, but of course any company's funding of a project for publicity purposes is motivated by a desire to ultimately improve the company's finances, including its stock price — there's nothing particularly devious or notable about that.) Isaac Lin (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It is useful to compare deep blue to other chess computers. We can understand where deep blue fits in history of chess computers. When we compare deep blue to others chess computers we understand why it was successful in beating other chess programs. Then we can understand why deep blue was able to beat the world champion while other chess computers were 2 ranks lower.
The sentence by Isaac Lin “Software-based programs that do not use dedicated hardware, such as Rybka, Deep Fritz, and Deep Junior, compensate for their slower search speed with improvements in their logic that makes them more effective in finding the most fruitful lines of play and investigating these options at greater length” is proven by how far they look ahead. Deep blue looks at 200 million positions per second and looks ahead 12 moves deep while deep fritz looks 8 million positions per second and looks ahead 17 moves deep. The computer that looks more moves ahead plays better. I was saying something similar except I was explaining what “improvements in their logic” meant. It means pruning away inferior moves faster.
I think 2 points from the second paragraph should be kept. The dismantling of deep blue means the chess community could not use it for game analysis and tournament preparation. We don’t know if deep blue played at the world champion level because it played to few games to get a rating. I guess speculation does not belong. We can change tragic loss to loss.
The deep blue project was not then and is not today considered by IBM as a publicity project. It was research project to show that computers can solve very hard problems. Problems like building a computer that plays chess better than the world chess champion. Mschribr (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Though of course pure research can always add to our knowledge, according to Behind Deep Blue, IBM hired the Deep Thought team to allow it to pursue its goal of playing and defeating the world chess champion. The company was obviously fully aware of the large amount of publicity it would receive through matches against Kasparov. Hsu wrote about needing to be successful at tournaments in order for the project to continue, and how IBM's communication department influenced the name under which their program competed, for marketing purposes. Once the goal of defeating the world chess champion had been completed, IBM stopped further computer chess research. The San Francisco Chronicle article referenced in the section "QI" is one example of how sponsoring Deep Blue gave IBM greater exposure for its RS/6000 SP supercomputer line.
Although numbers alone do not necessarily indicate a consensus, there are three editors who appear to be amenable to having the third paragraph in the section deleted. I believe this is probably the most prudent action. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Give us a source ibm created deep blue for publicity. The reason Hsu needed to be successful at tournaments was to verify his method was moving in the right direction. If he was unsuccessful at tournaments then maybe his assumptions were wrong and he would have to backtrack. IBM's communication department ran a contest to pick a name that would not infringe on someone else’s trademark. Hsu does not say anything about marketing purposes. Ibm stopped chess research because the goal was reached and the team moved on to other projects.
I found a source that show deep blue was more brute force while current top programs are more selective search and closer to how a human plays. See wikipedia article computer chess. In section 2 Brute force versus selective search, the last 3 paragraphs. Mschribr (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(restarting discussion without indents) From what I can see, the most prudent approach to accommodate the concerns regarding the appropriateness of the text under discussion is to merge the content of the first two paragraphs of the section titled "Future" with the previous section, and to delete the third paragraph, perhaps adding a cross-reference to the article on computer chess for further information:

If the most interested parties are amenable to this approach, I can make the corresponding changes, in accordance with the outline I gave previously. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We should keep the history and future sections, as they are useful to show 2 distinct aspects of deep blue. The history section contains information leading up to deep blue’s success, the 97 match. The future section contains information subsequent to deep blue’s success. Therefore the documentary and the rack disposition should be moved to the future section. The 3rd paragraph should remain because it contains information specific to deep blue. Such as how deep blue compares to subsequent successful chess computers?
I will remove the word tragic. I will change retired deep blue to the more accurate wording dismantled deep blue. I will add the other members of the deep blue team. I will remove the naming of Deep Thought, as it is 1) unrelated to deep blue and 2) not 100% accurate. Hsu did not say the Deep Thought was named after the computer in hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy. Deep Thought was named after the method singular extensions used by Deep Thought. Singular extensions allowed Deep Thought to analyze more deeply a position. After using the name Deep Thought Hsu realized a computer that could defeat the world champion is worthy of the name Deep Thought used in hitchhiker’s guide. Mschribr (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Since we are discussing appropriate changes to make to the article, please refrain from making edits. It is harder for us to discuss the article if it is continually changing.
There are two issues with comparing Deep Blue to other computers, as raised by Peter. I agree with Peter that comparisons to later computers can be handled in Computer chess and, to avoid duplication, this article can refer to it.
I believe you may be misunderstanding the rhetorical technique used by Hsu in Behind Deep Blue to describe the origin of the name of Deep Thought. Hsu had listened to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy radio series in Taiwan and read the books when in the United States, so his naming of the Deep Thought chess computer was indeed based on the name which he had heard and read about in Douglas Adams's works. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about making the change before discussing it. Which of my changes do you want to undo? Did peter say that it is not cited? I gave a citation. Did Peter say it belongs in the general article Computer chess? I explained it compares a specific chess computer, deep blue, to subsequent successful chess computers. So it belongs in a specific chess computer, deep blue, article and not in the general article Computer chess. Do you want to put back the reason for naming deep thought in the deep blue article? Yes, hsu did listen to Hitchhiker's Guide before naming deep thought. But he said the name was appropriate for the chess computer. He did not say the chess computer was named for fictional computer. The name deep thought refers to the technique, singular extensions, that made deep thought successful. Mschribr (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hsu did not say in his book that Deep Thought referred to singular extensions. He employed an artistic writing technique to say that he named Deep Thought based on his listening to and reading of Douglas Adams's series. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you want to put back the reason for naming deep thought in the deep blue article? If not then it becomes academic. We can discuss it in the deep thought article and not in the deep blue article. Mschribr (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we do not seem to have quorum to reach a consensus on revisions. In accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability, I plan to revert the changes made on July 31, 2008:

I wish that a compromise could have been reached, but since no progress is being made, it is inappropriate to keep this unsourced information that has been challenged in this discussion thread. I also plan to restore the background on the name, "Deep Thought". Isaac Lin (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of those changes were already removed We do have consensus on the remaining changes. Peter agreed with the following statements. No one else has challenged the following statements.
Deep Blue played 6 games. To get an accurate rating it needed to play at least 20 games with more than one player. The chess playing strength of Deep Blue is uncertain. The claim that Deep Blue was the best cannot be substantiated.
The wikipedia rules also say, “In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community.”
Your point about naming deep thought is wrong because there is no source and it is inappropriate in the deep blue article. Mschribr (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Following the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, it is appropriate to revert changes that do not have a reliable source and are challenged. If you wish to restore any part of your edits, please discuss them on this talk page and obtain consensus. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Even if deep blue played in tournaments then it might not have a rating. For example if it played in 3 tournaments and each tournament had 6 rounds then it would have 18 games. It needs 20 games to get a rating. If it had played no tournaments but 20 exhibition games with rated players then it would have a rating. I will change the statement. Mschribr (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


I've just been watching this episode of QI mentioned in the article and I'm not sure Stephen Fry was actually joking, he seemed to be saying UA actually do use a part of Deep Blue in their system. Someone might want to check and see if UA actually do use a bit of Deep Blue and replace this reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackster (talkcontribs) 23:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference on this here... [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that United Airlines purchased an IBM RS/6000 SP supercomputer, not Deep Blue itself. The custom chess chips after all are customized for evaluating chess positions and so would not be of use for anything else, plus according to Behind Deep Blue, as of the writing of the book in 2002, the actual RS/6000 SP frame remains in operation at IBM Research, and IBM continues to own all of the chess cards. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yikes. I know that the reference above is the San Francisco Chronicle, which should be a WP:Reliable Source, but in this case they must have got their facts wrong. I agree with Isaac, Deep Blue would be no good for any other application, it was customised hardware. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This mistake has cropped up again, this time citing the Orlando Sentinel. (And I also concur; Deep Blue itself wouldn't have been much use to UA.) Since it seems to have been a widespread error, I've left an explanatory parenthetical in the article. —Twice Nothing (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


Maybe it's too early in the morning, but I can't understand what this passage means. Is Wchess a person? a program? "In round 5 it had white" What does that mean??

"It played Wchess to a draw while Wchess was running on a personal computer. In round 5 it had white and lost to Fritz in 39 moves while Fritz was running on PC. In the end it was tied for 2nd place with Junior while Junior was running on PC.[9]"

Why didn’t a Wikipedia bot automatically add a date and time? Next time sign and date your comments and questions.
Here is a hint. Wchess was running on a personal computer. You asked “In round 5 it had white" What does that mean??” Well what could that mean? Maybe it means deep blue played chess in round 5 and moved first. Mschribr (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the tone of this response is too harsh. Wchess is insufficiently introduced and causes that sentence to e confusing on the first read. Also, there could easily be people reading this with interest toward the computer and AI without knowledge of what it means for someone to "have white". (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

size of th machine??????[edit]

Why is he image with no reference to size. This should be a policy on wiki... Every photo should have a scale and some coins (or other larger common objects) so that we can get an idea of the size. Please load another image. (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The 'racks' that made up the machine appear to be standard 19-inch relay racks. These are typically about 6 feet tall. So that should define the size pretty clearly. T-bonham (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How many components, how much parallelism?[edit]

Is it just me, or does this sentence somehow not quite make sense?

"It was a massively parallel, RS/6000 SP Thin P2SC-based system with 30-nodes, with each node containing a 120 MHz P2SC microprocessor for a total of 30, enhanced with 480 special purpose VLSI chess chips." (taken from Section 2, "Deep Blue versus Kasparov").

First of all, the hyphen in "30-nodes" is probably a typo (right?), and second, the logic leading up to "for a total of 30" doesn't seem to work. Or am I missing something here?

Ah, but wait... I think I've found the original source, here: [3]. This contains very different numbers: "The latest iteration of the Deep Blue computer is a 32-node IBM RS/6000 SP high-performance computer, which utilizes the new Power Two Super Chip processors (P2SC). Each node of the SP employs a single microchannel card containing 8 dedicated VLSI chess processors, for a total of 256 processors working in tandem."

So I'd suggest we change the sentence to read something like "It was a 32-node RS/6000 SP Thin P2SC-based system, with each node containing a 120 MHz P2SC microprocessor was enhanced with 8 special purpose VLSI chess chips, for a total of 256 processors working together." --RCMoore (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Arimaa information[edit]

Unbiased information about arimaa was deleted. If you object to the information, please discuss it before changing it. Mschribr (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In accordance with the bold, revert, discuss process, when someone adds new information and it is reverted, the next step is to discuss, not to re-insert the information. The information on Arimaa is most relevant within its article, which a reader can easily reach by following the link. A digression about Arimaa within this article is unnecessary. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The BRD is only for recent changes. My changes were established. The policy says the BRD is a method but not always successful. If you think the information on Arimaa is not relevant here then we can remove it completely. However, we can not leave it with only deceptive information. I was giving a balanced picture. Mschribr (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the changes that were reverted were added on March 12, which I thought was not that long ago. How about removing the additional details on Arimaa and changing the sentence to simply be "Kasparov's loss to Deep Blue inspired the creation of a new game called Arimaa." and leaving it at that? (Personally I don't have much issue with deleting that sentence as well, but I will give the editor who added it the benefit of the doubt in assuming that Arimaa has met notability criteria.) Isaac Lin (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The changes were there for 2 weeks, which is long time for Wikipedia. I agree with your shortened suggestion. I disagree with the implication that arimaa is harder than chess for the computer. Mschribr (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Cwncpiracy theories[edit]

What of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Maintenance[edit]

Note 15 is out of date. 'Game Over' : Did IBM Cheat Kasparov?, by Mark Weeks,, June 2005 at is no longer available. --Trakon (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please Read the book "Behind Deep Blue"[edit]

I have found two things about this article;

1) There are some inaccuracies. 2) There are people with wrong beliefs.

There is a book written from Hsu's point of view (the creator of the original "chess chip" that eventually led to Deep Blue. From his point of view, this was not man vs. machine, but man as a performer vs. man as a toolmaker. The computer is merely a tool man has made. It has no implications on chess, other than the simple fact that man doesn't always perform at his highest ability. And sometimes, just sometimes, tools are more efficient than a human being.

Furthermore, I do not believe IBM cheated after reading the account. Hsu accounts much for time and energy used in the creation of Deep Blue.

Keep in mind too, that Garry was an extremely emotional World Champion and is not without many faults himself.

To clarify what happened after the match, several times IBM attempted to set up a rematch, but Garry would not take his own challenges seriously. Furthermore, after the original creator, Hsu, attempted to gather backers for a rematch, ON HIS OWN, he contacted Garry. Garry refused/declined the offer. Hsu was willing to, out of his own pocket, fund the making of a new machine that could win against a 2800 world champion. It was probably out of embarrassment that the world champion did not want to play.

There is one other fact that is completely neglected. At the time of the 1997 match, there is noone in the world who was a stronger chess player than Garry Kasparov. Is it logical to accuse another person of cheating by supplying "moves" that would beat a person that another person could not beat. The only possible way to beat this unbeatable person was with a device, i.e., a tool, that would not give in so easily to emotion, stress, or pressure.

-- Benjamin Pessin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiddlerben (talkcontribs) 04:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone else could help the computer by telling it which moves to consider and which to ignore. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
To Benjamin Pessin: What does man vs. machine mean? All machines and computers are tools of man. The implications for chess are great. Strong chess computers changed the way we learn, analyze and watch chess. I think computers have reached the point where they can see past the human horizon in chess at a key point during the game. At that point, the game turns decisively in the computer’s favor. Ibm may have cheated because deep blue cannot be independently tested, as deep blue does not exist anymore. Garry lost the match because he was an extremely emotional during the match. How do you know IBM attempted a rematch? Garry challenged ibm to a rematch. Ibm refused to play Garry or anyone else. Garry did not accept Hsu’s challenge because Hsu did not have a computer ready to challenge the world champion. A team of computers and humans could beat the world champion or deep blue. Therefore, it is possible to help the computer cheat. --Mschribr (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


How much did it cost? Or, since IBM built it themselves, what would they sell a comparable machine for? As I recall, it was in the $100 million range. That it took such a machine to beat Kasparov is noteworthy. Don't Be Evil (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Photo captioning: incomplete[edit]

This photo at the CHM is merely a single bank of processors. This is not the complete Deep Blue. (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

2 or 3 racks?[edit]

One of the two racks that made up Deep Blue is on display at the National Museum of American History in their exhibit about the Information Age; the other rack appears at the Computer History Museum in the "Artificial Intelligence and Robotics" gallery of the Revolution exhibit.[citation needed] The other rack was sold to United Airlines to improve yield management.[18]

How many racks where there, and where are they now? (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't confirm the NMAH one: they only list having a mouse from Deep Blue. (An ordinary Logitech mouse, at that.) There is at least one at the CHM; I suspect they actually have both towers, despite only placing one out on display. As discussed above (in the section headed "QI"), the UA one is probably bunk. —Twice Nothing (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Kasparov became visibly upset and even lunged at Deep Blue[edit]

Really? Is there a reference for this part? (Actually, I'd prefer a video! It'd be hilarious!)

At the conclusion of the deciding match, Kasparov became visibly upset and even lunged at Deep Blue in an attempt to physically destroy the computer. After being restrained by his comrades, Kasparov removed his shoe and began banging it on the table in an Khrushchev-esque show of anger. Kasparov later claimed that his loss was deliberate and only a ruse to set the stage for his alleged “fake” hysterics.

-- (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It's entirely fictional. An anonymous troll has been inserting this nonsense into the article at intervals since at least 2011. Quale (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparantly IBM cheated[edit]

This interview with Kasparov strongly suggests that IBM cheated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of content regarding the element of time[edit]

Thank you, Quale, for your interest in this subject. However, if you have any question or dispute about content it is not the best way to simply delete things in a wholesale manner. If you think that content would be improved by a direct quote, you are welcome to say so, and you may even perhaps be right -- it’s something that can be done.

By deleting what you did, you removed the only specific mention in the article of the schedule of the games -- the games were played at a pace that is unique in Kasparov’s history. It is pertinent for the article to include that information. You also deleted the time controls under which the games were played. That also should be a part of this article.

In your note accompanying your deletion you say: “one of the references used said that K thought the time controls would favor him, so we can't editorialize the exact opposite here”. However, K’s comment was made well before the match, it was a prediction on his part, which was disproved by the match itself. It’s not “editorializing the opposite” to note that he turned out to be mistaken in his prediction, as the record shows.

So, I will put the content you deleted back in and consider your suggestions, which I know you made in good faith.DocFido (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

In accordance with Wikipedia's bold, revert, and discuss procedure, it is reasonable to revert a disputed edit, in order to allow for further discussion to proceed before making any changes. Thus I would suggest in future to not simply reinsert any changes that were reverted, but to discuss them further on the talk page.
The section in question did state that regular time controls were in place. The main article for the matches, Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov, does lay out the schedule for the games, though perhaps it could be given more prominence there. Within this article, I think the current text gives the topic undue weight. In its current form, the section is written in an overly hyperbolic manner (for example, "blistering pace") and with some leading sentences that imply a conclusion without any sources. For example, the sentence on "Deep Junior" does not shed any additional information on the nature of the competition between Deep Blue and Kasparov.
I suggest placing a very concise summary of the game scheduling at the beginning of the section, where the use of regular time controls is already mentioned. At the end of the section, some quotes from Kasparov regarding the effects of the pacing on his play would be relevant. However, until additional sources are provided that directly comment on the pace of the encounter compared with other matches, it is original research to include editorializing of this nature. isaacl (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
This so-called "blistering pace" was not at all unique in Kasparov's match history. His previous match with Anand in 1995 consisted of eighteen games over thirty days, and both the first six and the last six games were played over a span of nine days (11—19 September; 2—10 October.) And I'm not sure what the point is of mentioning the 7-hour game length in this particular context—the longer time control favours the human player (less likely to blunder due to time pressure) and is probably less exhausting overall (less time pressure means less stress.) In passing, I should also point out that is a poor source to cite. Cobblet (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I deleted most of your edit in a wholesale manner because it was bad. It violated WP:OR as the sources simply don't say what you claim they say. The time controls are a matter of record, but you are not allowed to draw inferences from these facts that are not found in your sources. Specifically, your interpretation that the time controls put Kasparov at a disadvantage is not a claim found in any of your sources, so you just are not allowed to synthesize that claim yourself. I'm amazed that you would baldly insert that claim, using a cite that claims the exact opposite of what you say. And as Cobblet points out, the scheduling of the games was not at all unusual. The 2012 WC match scheduled the first 6 games in only 8 days, so the contention that this was a "blistering pace" or was in the slightest bit unusual is not true. Of course the 2012 WC featured two humans so you could claim that the schedule favored the machine over the human, but the language you use goes far beyond that and again can't be included in the article without a source. Even with a source it probably belongs at Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov rather than here. Remember also that the extra days would also have given the Deep Blue team more time to adjust the machine between games. This is really a textbook example of what you can't do in Wikipedia. Quale (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That’s a lot for me to respond to, and I will try to respond to everything I can.

First, we all want this to be a good article, and the story of Deep Blue vs Kasparov is a story of a machine versus a human, and I think that the article not mentioning the time controls is leaving out an important aspect. In the post-mortem following the match with Deep Blue, Kasparov made several mentions of the element of time, so it’s important to consider for that reason as well. Time is something that affects both the human and the machine, but it affects each differently, which is part of the interest in this story: How a machine and a human are different and how they’re similar.

First if I may respond to isaacl:

You said: “The section in question did state that regular time controls were in place.” If I may point out a simple error: This article mentions that the match was played under “standard chess tournament time controls.” That is not true. First, there are so many different tournaments, and so many different time controls it’s hard to say that there is a particular standard, but the match between Kasparov and Deep Blue was not even a tournament.

Also the time controls for matches have evolved in the last few years, and it may be that we can’t consider that there is in fact a “standard” for match play. At any rate, there can be confusion (as I mentioned) if the article is not specific and say exactly what the time controls were for this match.

This correction might perhaps affect your suggestion, isaacl, about undue weight.

All three of you, isaacl, Cobblet and Quale, seemed to feel that the pace of the game-schedule of this match was not “in the slightest bit unusual”. Cobblet you compared it to his previous match which was against Anand.

Consider this:

The match against Anand was played, for the first time in the modern history of chess championships, with no time outs and no adjournments. That was also a condition in Kasparov’s match against Deep Blue -- however, the games against Deep Blue were played at an even faster pace:

Against Deep Blue 6 games were played in 9 days, and against Anand 18 games were played in 30 days. That’s a faster ratio, if the math is calculated.

The rate at which consecutive game-days occurred was also greater against Deep Blue than it was against Anand. Against Deep Blue there occurred 3 instances in 6 days -- a ratio of 50 percent, against Anand there were 8 instances in 30 days, which is 26 percent.

Considering those three “time” factors alone, it appears that it can be said that the game against Deep Blue was faster and more challenging than any championship match ever played by any humans. It certainly is enough to counter the suggestion I’m responding to: that the pace of the game-schedule of this match was not “in the slightest bit unusual”.

I happened to attend several of those games that occurred on top of the World Trade center in 1995. And I had the privilege to be a part of a post-mortem conversation with Kasparov (and three or four others) that occurred immediately after one of the games. That was rare.

Quale you said the pace against Deep Blue was nothing unusual considering that “The 2012 WC match scheduled the first 6 games in only 8 days”. However you didn’t mention that the time controls in that match were completely different and much shorter than the the time controls in the games Kasparov played against Deep Blue. So, the comparison on that specific aspect is like “apples and oranges”. Kasparov was facing a possible seven hours of non-stop mental effort at the highest level, and then he had to sleep and eat ... For Gelfend and Anand it was less.

None of you three seem to like my phrase “blistering pace” so I will remove it, though I believe it was so for a championship match.

Quale you say in your at times very strongly worded comment: “Your interpretation that the time controls put Kasparov at a disadvantage is not a claim found in any of your sources”. But I don’t quite say that, the line is simply: “A grueling schedule would tax or impair the abilities of the human, while not affecting the computer.” I think that’s a truism that seems indisputable, and in fact it gets at the heart of what is meaningful about the contest between the human and the machine. However it doesn’t say what you suggest. And, of course, something that isn’t said doesn’t need a source.

Cobblet you say that a game with longer time-control favors the human as it is probably less exhausting?! Um ... excuse me, but if you go up to anyone who has just played a game in one sitting with seven hour time-controls -- they will tell you that in comparison climbing Mount Everest would be a piece of cake. Even if you lose, it is a daunting, mountainous achievement of vast proportions. And at the six hour mark if God answers your prayer and brings it to an end, it seems to be an act of incredible mercy. It’s part of what makes championship matches so astounding. Of course, it looks like you’re just sitting in a chair. Seven hour time controls are rare for most players, but not at the championship level.

Cobblet you say that “ is a poor source”, but the article is written by Ed Scimia, who’s got a lot of tournament experience, and he’s the editor of Chess Review Online. Hard cover books may always seem better, and I am going to try to find some more sources. However, as you know, the world of chess certainly has staked out a vital existence on the internet.

isaacle you said the remark about "Deep Junior does not shed any additional information on the nature of the competition between Deep Blue and Kasparov.”

I think it does in this sense: Kasparov played Deep Blue, immediately afterwards he is quoted saying that next time he will agree to play with a break ever other day, and in fact the next time he plays a computer -- he does exactly what he said he would. So it supports what Kasparov said: he meant what he said. Which means that it wasn’t just an off-hand comment, it says something important about the experience and it comes directly from the person who actually battled the machine -- and I find that the “human” aspect was a bit lacking from the article, which is forgivable in an article about Deep Blue, but I think it should be there.

A couple of suggestions were made that this consideration of “time” in the match belonged elsewhere -- not in a section about the match, but in the article about the match. That may be true. I’d be interested in any thoughts about that.

Whew! That was a ton. But I’m glad to be able to respond, and thanks for any consideration on your part. And I’d welcome any more thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocFido (talkcontribs) 17:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of collegiality, it may be best to wait until there is agreement on this talk page on suggested modifications, before you make any changes. All of your interpretation regarding the effects of the scheduling must be sourced before text that assumes this interpretation can be included in the article, or else it is original research. What you believe to be a truism has been disputed by others, and so reliable sources must be presented to establish verifiability. Whether or not the time controls used in the competition against Deep Junior, for example, are related to the match against Deep Blue has not been established by sources, and so it is an assumption that there is a relationship, which is original research. isaacl (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, isaacl, for responding. I care about the game and Wikipedia and I’m glad you do, too, and all those on this page.

isaacl I want to respond to what you’ve said, so I hope you won’t mind if I quote you back to yourself a few times. You said: “Whether or not the time controls used in the competition against Deep Junior, for example, are related to the match against Deep Blue has not been established by sources.”

I don’t think you meant “time controls”. “Time controls” is a chess term that usually refers specifically to the use of the clock: How many moves can be made in an hour, for example. But what’s discussed in this article is the “scheduling of the games”, which is, I believe, what you meant.

The “time controls” in the two matches, by the way, were not identical.

So, I’ll respond by referring to the more general idea of how the “use of time” or the “game schedule” was applied in both matches, and how the “game schedule” in the match against Deep Junior relates to the match against Deep Blue, and how this can be established by sources. Which is I think what you were after.

The “use of time” or the “game schedule” in the match against Deep Junior is related to the match against Deep Blue in these two ways:

1.) There is a relationship in sequence or chronology -- the “use of time” is an aspect that was controlled in both matches, and Deep Junior was the very next match that Kasparov played against a computer.

Can this be established by sources? (which is your specific concern) Yes, I think this can be amply demonstrated by simply looking at what may be called the public record of Kasparov’s games -- it’s reported in several places online, and can certainly be added as a citation. Here’s one source that establishes that: [1]

2.) There is a relationship in terms of what was learned from one match and then seeing it being applied in the next match.

Can this be established by sources? Yes, here’s one source that’s an example of Kasparov talking about what he learned about “game schedule” from Deep Blue and how he might apply it in the future: Then the newspaper coverage of the later match with Deep Junior ties things together, by showing that the games with Deep Junior were scheduled exactly as described in the earlier comments he made immediately after playing Deep Blue. Here’s a source that establishes that: Weber, Bruce. New York Times. May 12,1997

A reader of the Wikipedia article may wonder if something spoken “in the heat of battle” or soon after a battle might be repeated in a “cooler” moment. But we can now see that Kasparov not only expressed something, but then he acted on it the next chance he got.

This is the story of the greatest chess computer playing the greatest human being under close to ideal conditions. The reader of Wikipedia looking up this story should expect some kind of neutral and encyclopedic consideration of all three things: The two players and the match itself.

Both sides had to deal with problems during the match. Deep Blue had soft-ware problems, and then Kasparov, who is human and so would have particular human susceptibilities, made comments after the match that he felt the game-schedule was not ideal. This isn’t enough to invalidate the match, but in a neutral article, this information should not be kept from the reader of Wikipedia.

Then isaacl you say, “All of your interpretation regarding the effects of the scheduling must be sourced ... “

It would be helpful if you were specific about this. I don’t see that I’m making any interpretation regarding the effects of the scheduling. I point out that humans are susceptible to fatigue. That’s simple and true. Are you disputing that in some way? If so, perhaps you could give me an idea of your thinking? Of course there are certainly sources to show that humans are susceptible to fatigue, if it’s needed.

Then you say: “What you believe to be a truism has been disputed by others.” The “truism” I mentioned a few days ago (in a statement up above) is this statement from the article: “A grueling schedule would tax or impair the abilities of the human, while not affecting the computer.[19]”

Isaacl, it’s not correct to say that someone has disputed that particular statement, or that particular wording. You can check this by looking at the “back and forth” up above. If anyone would like to dispute the idea that you have in mind, they may, and then we can discuss. Or isaacle, if you have another “truism” in mind, please let me know?

Thank you, again.DocFido (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Cobblet has disputed a number of the assertions made in the text you added, and Quale has stated that your edits contain original research. As they've already laid out their points, I shan't repeat them again. The conclusions being drawn regarding the effects of various aspects of the competition must be described in reliable sources, and the citations provided. The inferences you are personally making are not sufficient to warrant inclusion of this information in the article. isaacl (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again, isaacle, for your thoughts on this. It seems a good plan for this section is to check the information regarding the “element of time” that’s been discussed, and make sure it’s all well sourced, and, if needed, do some additional research, and do what we can to improve this article.

Regarding the discussions with others that have occurred in this section on this talk page, I believe questions were well asked and well answered and hopefully dispatched in that way, which is, after all, the idea of these talk pages.DocFido (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The issues others have raised are related to original research and inadequate sources, which you appear to have agreed is an issue with your edits. isaacl (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Isaacle, you say "I appear to have agreed" -- I don't know exactly what you're referring to, so I can't agree, but perhaps it's not necessary, we can all agree to follow Wikipedia's policies. Right? You and I both care about and are interested in some of the same subjects, and about this discussion in particular there seem to be not many of us -- you can count us on one hand. So it's a pleasure to have run into a rare person such as yourself, and for us to be able to discuss these things.DocFido (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You stated that the information regarding the element of time should be well sourced; this implies you agree the current text is lacking sources for the conclusions being drawn. Given that Wikipedia editors are volunteering their time, I counsel patience in awaiting feedback. isaacl (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
First I want to thank everyone, especially DocFido, for discussing this calmly. I know DocFido wants to improve this (and other) Wikipedia articles, so this is a question of my concern over conflict with the WP:OR policy rather than a bad faith situation. I'll devote some more time to this as soon as I can, but a few quick things for you to work on. First, the good: The bits about the match scheduling are better sourced than they were when you originally added them. It's possible, maybe even likely, that we can adequately source a claim along the lines of Kasparov said he needed more rest days during the match. Now, some of the bad: 1) Extensive discussion of the match is likely to be undue weight here. As Isaacl first suggested, it belongs in the article on the match itself. This is easily fixable, but the prohibition against original research will apply no matter where the text is added. 2) The bold initial statement, "The use of the element of time was also a factor. ..." is not supported by the sources, and in fact is almost certain to be impossible to support. At most you could try to make a claim that "Kasparov asserted that time was a factor", which is very different than your bald pronouncement. It is also not worded very well, as "use of the element of time" is a factor in nearly every chess match. That's why chess clocks are used. What you have in mind is more specific, the idea that the time controls and the match schedule favored the machine over the man. 3) There is no source whatsoever to support the claim that the time controls disadvantaged Kasparov. That's your inference, but that isn't allowed without a source. Kasparov himself said the exact opposite, and although you say that the course of the match proved that Kasparov was mistaken, you are not a WP:RS reliable source. All the time control material and claims have to go. 4) The Deep Junior match isn't relevant to this article at all without a source that directly connects and compares the match conditions for the two contests. Again, you drawing conclusions of your own solely on the fact that the match conditions were different is impermissible here. With the original research stricken, I don't think there's much more left than the bit that I left in when heavily trimmed your edit. Kasparov says he was spent of energy and was unable to fight at the end of the match, and Kasparov says humans need time to rest during matches. The rest just isn't supported by the sources you've provided so far. Quale (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I forgot another important part: 5) The claim that the match schedule was unprecedented in Kasparov's match history is not supported by any sources and is impermissible here. Cobblet also pointed out that it is false, as Kasparov's match with Anand had two periods with the same pace. Even if it were true, unless you can produce a source that explicitly says that this was a factor in the match it's original research and not allowed. Quale (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Quale, that is certainly is a lot of food for thought. I think a good way forward is that I will take a couple of suggestions, before I lose track of what's being said, and look at the sourcing and see if I can bolster things. I also need to take a bit more time to consider all you've said and all the nuance etc. (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, to illustrate your goodwill, it would be desirable if you would refrain from making edits related to the topic of discussion until a consensus has been reached on what changes ought to be made. It's tricky to discuss a section while it is changing. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed the impermissible synthesis and WP:OR again. I think the bits I left are supported by sources , but others might not agree. Fidodoc, please do not add any similar material until you have consensus on this talk page. I appreciate that you are now working to better source your claims (your initial long responses seemed more directed toward arguing the obvious truth of your opinions despite lack of support from sources), but we had left the original synthesis in the article too long. I do think that the three sentences I left improve the article compared to before your first edits, so I think your contribution has been beneficial. Quale (talk)

Quale, you can delete material, you do have that button on your computer. I removed the fragment that you left behind, because it makes no sense without the “why”. You said all that you deleted was original research, but you haven’t given an explanation of what makes it original research. And I believe your ideas are not all exactly in accord with Wikipedia policies -- regarding original research and deleting content.

The time controls and the game schedule are an important part of the match. You could have left that in. You’re wrong to claim that anything you deleted is original research. This article is not perfect and could be improved, and it contains a couple of errors. We could improve it.

isaacle, I thought there was consensus that the sources needed to be improved, so I did.DocFido (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Recently added paragraph on the outcome[edit]

I have concerns about the recently added paragraph on the outcome. The good is that this has a source and that adding more about the significance of Deep Blue would improve the article. The bad:

"Regardless of the claims and the reasons for disassembling Deep Blue, the implications for artificial intelligence were interesting."
What does disassembling Deep Blue have to do with the implications for AI? Claiming that that they are "interesting" is troublesome language for an encyclopedia as well (WP:OPED). Probably this sentence should just be omitted since it doesn't actually say anything encyclopedic.
"Computer scientists believed that playing chess was a good measurement for the effectiveness of artificial intelligence, and by beating a world champion chess player, IBM showed that they had made significant progress with the concept."
I'm not sure precisely what "the concept" means here or how it adds to the meaning of the sentence. Wouldn't it be better to simply say "IBM showed that they had made significant progress"?
"Deep Blue was able to analyze data and respond to that data with the best decision available in the computer’s software. While Deep Blue was not really making decisions, the victory over Kasparov was a huge milestone in artificial intelligence. It let the development team know that they were not wasting their time and that their ideas could be successful with more development."<ref>{{Cite news|url=|title=20 Years after Deep Blue: How AI Has Advanced Since Conquering Chess|last=Greenemeier|first=Larry|work=Scientific American|access-date=2018-06-29|language=en}}</ref>
So the first sentence says Deep Blue made the best decision available and then the very next sentence says Deep Blue was not really making decisions. What are we trying to say here? That doesn't make any sense. (Also "analyse data and respond to that data with the best decision possible" is pretty terrible. It would describe nearly any computer program.) I'm also not sure what it means to say that "their ideas could be successful with more development". Weren't their ideas already successful? They set out to build a chess machine that could beat the world champion, and it did. Why would that need more development to be successful? It already succeeded.

I think this reference can be used to improve the article, but I don't like what we have now. Quale (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thought similar. Encyclopedic rewrite warranted. Need coffee first! --IHTS (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ [4]