An overview of the history of computer chess, focusing on the matches between IBM’s chess-playing supercomputer Deep Blue and World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov.
In 1989, IBM hired Deep Thought team members Feng-Hsiung Hsu, Murray Campbell and Thomas Anantharaman to develop a computer that would beat reigning World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov. Although Deep Thought lost to Kasparov in 1989, the match led the team to refine its software and add more custom processors. By 1996, it could examine 100 million chess positions per second, or about nine to eleven moves ahead.
That same year, Deep Thought was renamed Deep Blue and met Kasparov for a best-of-six games match. In the first game, Deep Blue made history by defeating Kasparov–marking the first time a current World Chess Champion had ever lost a game to a computer in a tournament setting–but Kasparov bounced back to win the match with a score of 4-2.
After defeating Deep Blue in 1996, Garry Kasparov issued a rematch challenge for the following year. To prepare, the team tested the machine against several Grandmasters, and doubled the performance of the hardware.
A six-game rematch took place in New York in May 1997. Kasparov won the first game but missed an opportunity in the second game and lost. Kasparov never recovered his composure and played defensively for the remainder of the match. In the last game, he made a simple mistake and lost, marking May 11, 1997, as the date on which a World Chess Champion lost a match to a computer.
There have since been two other matches between a computer and a World Chess Champion. Both have ended in a tie.
Created for the Computer History Museum exhibit “Mastering the Game: A History of Computer Chess”. Be sure to check out the online exhibit on computer chess at:
Catalog number: 102651039
Kasparov is one of the best chess players ever but IBM hired a team of 6 very good grandmasters to help design and modify Deep Blue to beat him. Currently, computers are ridiculously strong at chess and they are only getting better. Unfortunately I think it's only a matter of time before chess is mathematically solved.
sorry but ive to correct onde thing: in the biggining of the movie it says "… Kasparov is fighting not a computer but people inteligente like him that made the computer…"
wrong because Kasparov is more inteligent because is fighting against a computer in the first place, a computer made by many inteligent people, so at the end Kasparov is the most inteligent on hearth!! because is brain is = to many inteligents engeniers and a powerfull computer!!
🙂 Agree??
Not agree at all: tell me then why? give your arguments?? or you dont have them??
As i see you dont know, the big blue was learning from him, his moves, his tactic, the big blue and all the engeniers from IBM they all learn from Kasparov, off course they dont learn engeniering they learn tactical mind, and intelectual inteligence transfered to a chess game!!
They all learn how to beat him, and they lost and you know why? because was not them that beat Kasparov, was the machine (with Kasparov skills inputed by the engeniers) that beat him!
And thats is a fact!!
sorry..but you are an ignorant you know why?
did u know Napolion? Ok is inteligence was massive, and did you know is favorite game? YES chess!! Im not saying that Kasparov was the smartest guy on hearth im sayng that Kasparov is smarter in tactic skills and intelectual then the engeniers that built the "blue".
The question is:
Engeniers = read a lot of books and learn from sources like Kasparov to win obstacles
Kasparov = is inteligent by is own, not created reading books or something like that!
agree????
Just the idea of Kasparov surviving 19 moves of a super computer is amazing in itself. 200Million+ moves per second? The difference between how the two are able to recall this information is what should really be looked at. Only then can Kasparov's abilities really be appreciated after seeing this.
What's the music fro 1:21-3:02?
Not only that, he played to a draw through the first five games.
Dayum
the problem is just the "human factor". Computers dont get tired. Kasparov did very well.
I am currently working on a project for my University where we are trying to figure that out. Remember, Kasparov did not love all the games in 19 moves. In Game 1 he wept the machine off the board. Game 2 he lost due to a brilliant long-term strategic plan of the computer. Game 3 4 and 5 were draws and In game 6 he simply patzered up completely due to the tremendous amount of pressure. In fact, deep blue did not calculate a single move in game 6. It had them all stored in its opening book.
no, he won game 1 one convincingly.
bobby would have won
I know every time I play chess it dose not let me move
I honestly think that Kasparov's match (albeit loss) vs. Deep Blue is just as much a testament to Kasparov's unbelievable human thinking ability as it is to the coming of "super" computers.
Kasparov wasn't just playing a machine that could calculate as deep as it wanted to, and one that would never show any sign of fatigue or nervousness; he was also pitting himself against the knowledge of countless other grandmasters. The machine got a LOT of help. Losing 2.5-3.5 is hardly a disappointment.
Deep Blue won because Kasparov collapsed not because the computer was so sophisticated. Kasparov missed perpetual check.