What I've always found so interesting about this story is how singular a moment this was, where humans and machines could play a meaningful game of chess. For millennia before, a chess-playing machine was nonsense. Today, chess computers so completely outclass human players that mobile phones can win high-level tournaments. There was a period of no more than five or ten years where the best computer could play the best human, and have the result be in doubt, and it happened right around the turn of the millennium.
It was really fun at the time. Computer chess enthusiasts were discussing the match on rec.games.chess and analyzing real-time on ICC. PC chess programs could not check as deep as Deep Blue so there was lots of speculation on how good the AI actually was. CrazyBird's (Feng-hsiung Hsu) book is a recommended read.
I've always been of the opinion that the computers should have to play through qualifying tournaments to get to a "title" match like this.
IBM had thousands of matches to prep their player and Kasparov had none. This disparity is crazy for top level chess.
I've also never heard about this match being discussed in terms of the FIDE-PCA rift, which may have given the challenger more leverage as IBM could shop between two champions. With a unified chess world, Kasparov might have been able to put the screws to IBM for a more "fair" match.
I doubt the FIDE-PCA rift really mattered. The FIDE champ at the time was Karpov, who 1) had nowhere near the brand name recognition that Kasparov did, and 2) was not even close to Kasparov's strength. It's not even clear Karpov would agree to such a match even if it had been proposed. He would have most likely lost miserably against Deep Blue, and he probably knew it too.
> With a unified chess world, Kasparov might have been able to put the screws to IBM for a more "fair" match
I'm not up on the details of FIDE vs PCA. However, Wikipedia [1] claims that Kasparov created PCA. So he was actually responsible for the rift. But you're claiming this rift hurt his leverage?
He was the PCA champ, FIDE had their own champ (or might threaten to, I can't remember). IBM is about to throw a boatload of cash in hyping the event.
From my perspective it would seem anyone claiming to be champion would be under pressure to play or risk having the other league's champion be hyped as the best player in the world by IBM.
I think without the split that Kasparov may have been able to dictate more firm terms. Examples such as requiring previous play by the computer, 3rd party auditing, release of logs afterward, etc...
"After the loss Kasparov questioned whether Deep Blue's team had cheated in order to beat him, but in a fascinating new short documentary by FiveThirtyEight and ESPN, it's shown that the momentous victory — and the notorious 44th move that led to it — was actually the result of a computer error."
But the video actually says the error occurred in the first game, which Kasparov won, rather than in the second, which he lost and after which he suggested he had been cheated.
For a different spin on films about chess-playing computers, check out Computer Chess, a mumblecore mockumentary about a 1980s computer chess tournament:
why wrong?
1.)correlation does NOT imply causation
2.)psychology of FEAR mode can strike ANY chess player
3.)the computer at that time will lose because it does NOT
understand the art of deception and 'feints.'
4.)IBM Deep Blue is moving to poker, which is a MUCH better test.
5.)observations are NOT double blind.
6.)highly useful IMHO (at least for me as a child) is to IMAGINE
the opponent is 'genius' and then 'stupid.' Simple thought experiment.
Even the dog with low IQ is able to predict the owner's moves.
7.)It's obvious that even basic 'stupidity' is mentioned on HN, the
verge and even the Nate Silver book. Why?
8.)time or tempo is important and more so with high level champions.
So, 'losing tempo' by 'computer error' or 'harmless rook move' is
BAD.
9.)Obviously, it is far worse for a HUMAN PLAYER, since it means
that the opponent has lost its train of thought. For Deep Blue it
means BAD CODING.
note: based on similarities to my experience as child chess champion.
PS. the definitie book still NEEDS TO BE WRITTEN, including
some open sourcing of code.
PPS. generally the only suggestion I can make to improving chess
ability is YOGA or relaxation techniques. Why?
the key problem IMHO is stress cause by 'context switching'
between frames depending upon 'models.' i.e. model of attack
or 'strategic attack' or 'feint attack', etc.
the key question is: the computer does NOT switch between modes
but has one global mode, IMHO. as a comparison to human player.
addendum
martial arts >> kung fu >> styles >> drunken style or erratic movements.
information theory >> low Signal to Noise >> SNR or
lesson learn - don't make your goal and intention too obvious to the
enemy.
philosophy >> Art of War Strategy by Sun-Tze >> insert quote here
math >> sequential game >> algorithms >> meta and hyper heuristics
