I'm only repeating was Danny King said.

"Garry shook his head in disbelief." and later on "...he was distraught".

I'm pretty sure he was not trying to out-psyche a computer by gestures.

In a review of the 'Deep Thinking' by Garry Kasparov:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...

We read.

"Because the company was sponsoring the rematch (and putting up the $1.1m prize money), its staff were able to structure the venue in subtle ways, some of which had the effect of discomfiting Kasparov.

(In contrast to standard tournament practice, for example, IBM did not provide a private “team room” where he could consult with his seconds.)"

I've no idea what that bit in brackets relates too. Maybe the reviewer thinks players are allowed to consult with their seconds during a game or he has misread what Kasparov was saying...

...and anyway according again to Danny King ' Kasparov v Deeper Blue' on page 53 he says:

<MissScarlett>

Let's take a look in retrospective; the surrounding facts.

First, it's 1997. PC is all the rage. I bought a PC in 1994. A 486dx2. The whole package. Which contained an encyclopaedia, another cd which I don't remember and last but not least: Alone in the Dark.. a very creepy game. Which consisted of the same polygon stuff as it basically still is the same as it is today.

This package costed me 3150 Dutch florins. About $1250 in 1994. Which was a two month's salary for me.

Needless to say it's a SYMBOLIC event: man loses to ehm.. you get the point.

Needless to say it was about as good as it gets: no better ad needed to promote *bubble fx* THE FUTURE. The illusion we had to live in an illusion. Unevitable. To seperate our focus from our environment. Being controlled by a fantom. A meaningless reflection of what you once thought you were. So to speak.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What is this future? As it was seen back then in 1997?

This *projected* future from then is now.

And what do you know? Kasparov was selling Kasparov chess computers all over the place. In other words: computers are the bomb. If he had won no one would have been interested. As most people are not interested in chess in the first place.

Although their strength was -and is- pretty average.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is it deception? Or another conspiracy theory..

Well, de facto it is the symbolic submission to machinery...

However, Kaspy played so lousy it hardly was meant as a smokescreen, a masquerade. It was meant as a message to mankind: the gamer was born in submission!

Born to lose ha ha ha it's complete lunacy. If you think about it. The possession of the soul. Defeatism. As defined as the *new* intellectual norm. A standard. Something set to live up to. Buy more and more Pink Floyd records lol

It was an exposure as well, a declaration: the sacrifice of human intelligence was fulfilled. A symbolic event to clarify we -the human existence as we know it- are no longer the masters of our own destiny. Instead we have become nothing more ore less than matter to serve other more important matters. The purpose of this concept remains unquestioned, however. You are free to follow the orders to which you have to obey.

Let there be no doubt about; I address things exactly as I see they are. And I am convinced you cannot find a way around them.

Otherwise I would not even write this; I am sick of your sentimental crap. Your pettiness.

It was -so called- the sacrifice of the soul. Hahaha genius. Gotta love those concepts.

So let's work this out. yOur souls are kept at teh net. Strictly spoken it's categorical; the mind is separated from the body. It's literally buried in a book. A shrine. Cell phones and tabs are your new bibles AKA altars whateverness.

You carry them with you most of the time by now. You MUST obey to them. Given fact in particular. And download eh you know by now..

Again: a symbolic ritual. You are no longer the master of our own destiny. Now you must believe the machines control you. And they do. Ironically enough. And buy Pink Floyd records, obviously.

Let there be no doubt about; I address things exactly as I see they are. And I am convinced you cannot find a way around them. Unless you buy me a new swimming oool. We can freely negotiate here 😊

Otherwise I would not even write this; I am sick of your sentimental crap. Your pettiness. You must obey.

It was -so called- the sacrifice of the soul. Hahaha genius. Gotta love those concepts.

So let's work this out. yOur souls are kept at teh net. Strictly spoken it's categorical; the mind is separated from the body. Again: a symbolic ritual.

Here she talks about it an interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yec...

And here is an excerpt from the chapter. https://www.sciencefriday.com/artic...

Deep Blue had already the sacrifice line programmed into it's opening book. The programmers later revealed that Deep Blue did not actually spot the sacrifice when they turned off the book. So it would not have played it had the opening book been off.

I don't know where she got that from. Feng-Hsiung Hsu in his book "Behind Deep Blue" makes no mention of this, and he seems pretty forthright about other things that he and his team wanted to do but didn't have time. He did, however, allude to "chinks in Kasparov's armor" although he did not elaborate. And I will be buying her book to see if she references where she got that from.

Doing something like that would seem to me as a deep gamble given the limited search depths achievable by Deep Blue, it would not be able to search as deeply if it was "twiddling its thumbs" in an attempt to psych out Kasparov. Nor do I know how a chess engine could determine that it's calculations were "complete" and which move to make. Normally a chess engine continues to analyze until its time management function decides that it's time to make a move, then it makes the best move found to date. Unless, of course, the game is played at a time control that specifies a maximum time to take for each move, then the time management function is trivial, when the time expires just make the best move found. Deep Blue's development team included at least one GM, Joel Benjamin, and I'm sure that he was familiar with Lasker's maxim: "When you see a good move, look for a better one."

Oh, I suppose that the engine could be programmed that if it was evaluating more than one principal variation (a misnomer since there can be only one "Principal Variation" but the term has unfortunately become common practice) that you could check the evaluation of the best and second best moves and, if it exceeds a certain evaluation difference threshold for several ply <and> the evaluations are increasing, then the engine could "conclude" that the best move had been found. But I fail to see the purpose of taking additional time and effort in doing that, Deep Blue's development team already had their hands full trying to get it to work as good as they could, fixing many of the bugs they knew existed in both the software and the hardware.

From all I have read about the match it seems that Kasparov was psyched before the match started without any help from Deep Blue and its developers. He had a paranoid personality and he simply didn't understand how Deep Blue worked (which is understandable in 1997 but inexcusable given that Deep Blue worked along the same lines described in Shannon's classic paper , "Programming a Computer for Playing Chess, published in 1949)so he was suspicious of everything that he didn't understand. Besides, his intimidation tactics would have had no effect against Deep Blue, and he knew that. I suspect that if Deep Blue had been available 30 years earlier, Fischer would have been in a similar situation and probably would have behaved similarly.

Something like that would never worked today, where all the top-level GMs have extensive experience using chess engines and probably have a good working knowledge of how they work.

Kasparov says he played 7...h6 knowing that it could "provoke white to sacrifice a piece, which is very strong...

"But machines don't sacrifice a piece for a pawn without having a concrete outcome in sight, so I expected that the computer would go back on e4 because this move was not in the special database prepared by a grandmaster team that worked with Deep Blue. And to my horror Deep Blue immediately took on e6, which means that the move was already put in." - Gary Kasparov

Hi Leeness, (welcome to Chessgames )

I was quoting Danny King (I gave a source) - he said it was a 'finger slip.' page 109, 'Kasparov v Deep Blue' by Danny King who was there, saw it happening, saw Kasparov's reaction...and talking nonsense. (or as I think, was genuinely mistaken.)

We have gone over this before:

Deep Blue vs Kasparov, 1997 (kibitz #386)

Kasparov may have been tricked into going this way, apparently; some top commercial computers had this line removed from their opening D.B. so he did not expect the sac.

" Kasparov reasoned that an engine wouldn't play the move without a concrete gain. The only reason Deep Blue played in that way, as was later revealed, was because that very same day of the game the creators of Deep Blue had inputted the variation into the opening database." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_...

It is a pity when the games where Kasparov was White prior to the Deep Blue game Black did not play 7...h6 then I'm sure Kasparov would have sacced on e6 and not played it as Black v Deep Blue as he knew they would have his games.

Kasparov vs Kamsky, 1994

Kasparov vs Epishin, 1995

At least your post makes a lot more sense than the that being discussed at start of this thread suggesting that Kasparov threw this game as a bribe. (Again I am quoting a source it is not my opinion.) Deep Blue vs Kasparov, 1997 (kibitz #2)

Fritz vs G Timoshchenko, 1996

Also seems a real possibility that Deep Blue versus Kasparov was more hype than anything else. Though IBM had the name and likely plenty of computing power and tricks, Fritz was probably the better engine at the time. By this match, per the cg database, appears Fritz already had wins against Kasparov, Anand, Gelfand and Kramnik. Draws against Karpov and two wins versus an earlier Deep Blue.

The "old" Kasparov wouldn't have felt the need to resort to this gamble anyway. (Let alone playing the Caro-Kann and using a variation named after his arch-enemy :) Kasparov really wasn't quite himself during this match, it feels like he really didn't have the confidence that he could be winning it by himself, without resorting to cheap tricks.

Did he "let down the entire human race"? I think that's a bit of an overstatement. That a machine beats the human world champion in a match would have happened sooner or later. Kasparov was just the world champion at the point in time that computers overtook humans in chess, and that he loses it in this way is of course humiliating -- but it's rather humiliating Kasparov, not me or the "human race", whatever that is.