And I think IBM changed the name to _Blue_ because _Deep Thought_ sounded a lot like _Deep Thr..._ which at the time was an R-rated movie that became very popular in the counter-culture for some reason (also something something Watergate)
Deep Thought is also a name for another supercomputer, which was tasked with answering the ultimate question, that of life, the universe, and everything.
The joke is some story about how Emory Tate (well, Andrew Tate dads bc they technically have the same name) was talking to himself and basically lecturing himself and people started listening, then he said something like “unleashing it’s latent potential” and some phd listening said what’s latent potential, and Emory said “if you had an education higher than an 8th grader you would know the difference between latent and actualizar potential” 😂
I remember the first match, it was covered quite extensively in our family. I was 11 back then and I could actually beat some weak early chess engines so based on my personal experience I didn’t take Deep Blue (or any other computer for any other purpose) seriously. My father though, he was an IM and had a degree in cybernetics. So he had an understanding of the event on a whole different level.
Ben's mentioning of Ken Thompson reminded me of a story I saw years ago where a team of people cracked Ken's password in an old version of BSD. It was revealed to be "p/q2-q4!" an old chess notation for the move d4.
Great analysis Ben. I remember this match from when I was little kid, I had just entered my first tournament. I actually have an old book that talks about the whole story surrounding the match, and an analysis of all the games as well, but I learned so many new things here, just so much more in general about the games now after listening to Ben analyze and discuss the games. So many interesting lines and interesting situations in these games. I still believe Garry was the better player at the time despite having lost. IBM had a big psychological advantage in this match though. Great video Ben.
Ben thanks for the content! Hope you and the wife are well! Todays been a great day, passed my car emissions finally and got my second jiu jitsu stripe. Time to work on my chess elo!
Gary's match with Deep Thought was a 2 game match that Gary won 2-0. As I recall the time control was game in sixty and was held in New York in 1990 or 1992. One of the games was an Exchange French.
I actually didn't know that deep blue had specific lines of theory programmed, or maybe I used to know and forgot. Between trying to remember chess theory and all of Ben's rules, there isn't much space left in my brain.
In fact, a great way to improve at chess, is to play against an engine where the engine is down a piece at various engine strenths and time controls. Since you can't rely on theory, only raw calculation, these games are very good for training. And even more so, because you can actually win the engine, so knowing that you can win is a great motivation.
According to Kasparov, he met Charles Bronson shortly after the match. Bronson knew about the match and commiserated. Kasparov said something about a rematch and Bronson straight away said "they won't give you a rematch". He was right.
Deep Blue was just a name change to Deep thought because news anchors kept misreading it and saying Deep Throat. Otherwise it was the same project and team developing the program for IBM. Since they were constantly improving and refining the system Deep Blue was technically "better"... but in a way more akin to saying you're now better than you were as a teenager. Otherwise it was a PR decision to avoid bad press and IBM decided on Blue to reflect their logo color. Source: Deep Blue "Down the rabbit hole". A free documentary on RU-vid
Actually Deep Blue was running an engine plus it had some specialized hardware designed to help the computer as a whole to process chess positions faster.
Yes, Deep Thought played a hardware, that was commercially available and IBM had lost reputation. Therefore they enhanced the hardware in the processor level to play chess. And they just wanted to win back their reputation.
@@renatomercurio4774 When the project was known as Deep Thought IBM was not a part of it. When IBM decided to officially take the project under it's wing the project was renamed Deep Blue.
5:33 No confusion. At that time, computers were not yet uniformly stronger than all humans. So a gang of GM humans discussing a position could likely come up with better moves than those computers (at that time). As for Deep Thought, yes that was the precursor to Deep Blue, and Kasparov beat Deep Thought in 1989, before the Deep Blue stuff.
I remember this game. It is silly that Kasparov thought Deep Blue wouldn't play Nxe6 when the opening book Encyclopedia of Chess openings they had written h6 bad because of Nxe6, of course Deep Blue would have programmed in the openings lines of that book. Kasparov had similar hubris to Carlsen today, I lost of course my opponent is cheating, like when Carlsen lost to Niemann.
Deep Blue was originally called "Chip Test" in the mid 1987. In 1988 what was "Chip Test" became "Deep Thought". In 1989 Kasparov had his first match against "Deep Thought". Kasparov won convincingly. After Kasparov won in 1989 the Deep Thought team had problems with the name. People kept calling it "Deep Throat". Which was too... NSFW. So they held a contest to vote on what to rename the machine. The thing is the 1989 Deep Blue was nowhere near as good as the 1997 Deep Blue.
It does seem like Deep Blue was slightly worse than Kasparov at the time of this match, but in a way it's good that Deep Blue won anyway. Another year of development would have been enough to make it clearly superior, but I don't think Kasparov would have agreed to a third match after this one. The way things went down, we ended up with an iconic event that was rightly considered a turning point in chess and human history.
Wow, I didn't know Ken Thompson was the arbiter of that match, and I knew even less that he said IBM held back the analysis logs for psychological reasons.
Deep Thought was the original program and when IBM bought it they renamed it Deep Blue; however, at the time some people still referred to the program as Deep Thought and the computer built around it as Deep Blue. Hardware/Software differentiation was still big in the 90's by the computer geeks of the day. (yeah, I was one of them:) So Ben you were not entirely incorrect in your memory.
Probably, if only because they know how to play against computers since they are so prevalent today. Also Kasparov himself came very very close to not losing to deep blue and probably wouldn't have lost a rematch.
The giant super computer that computed the answer to life the universe and everything in the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy was named Deep Thought. That doesn't preclude the possibility of a real computer being named the same thing, but that may be an explanation for the naming mix up
37:58 I sometimes get conspiracy theories in the UFC when a champion that is like 20-0 appears, to my untrained eye with mixed martial arts, to throw. I remember when Nunes, for some reason, gassed herself out round 1 by throwing a flurry of punches. If you don't know UFC, championship matches are 5 5-minute rounds, and I've literally never seen any champion, nor her previously, gas themselves round 1. She ended up encumbered to a point where she had bad defense, no longer being agile, and she ended up getting KOed. I thought to myself, "Hmm, did Nunes just make a ton of money with a bet? The odds were like +500 for the opponent." A more recent example was Adesanya against Strickland just a week ago. Long story short, Adesanya played his game for 3 or 4 rounds, but he was clearly losing. The opponent just dodged well and landed more hits, so he was up on the scoreboard. In such a situation, I feel the only play is to go crazy mode round 5, looking for a KO, because if you've lost 3 out of 4 rounds, the opponent wins even if you win the 5th round. KO or submission is the only route. But Adesanya, not gassed out of anything, just kept to his typical strategy of pecking at the opponent, trying to win by a technicality -- the points judges give. It made so little sense, and Strickland had something like +600 betting odds. I swear this 20-1 fighter threw the match to make a nice sum. (20-1 because he's only had one real loss. His actual record was 20-2 when he was paid enough by the UFC to schedule a championship match with a guy in the weight class above him. That's not a fair match -- he loses that 99/100 times, because the dude simply weighs 50 points more in pure muscle. That match, Adesanya just got controlled on the ground for 25 minutes straight, the guy leveraging his massive weight advantage to tackle him then sit on him, beating him up slowly on the ground.) In Adesanya's case, I actually wonder if he was trying to do damage control for his career. Perhaps, he knows he'll make more money in the future and retain more fans losing by a decision than if he went crazy mode and got knocked out, which Strickland certainly can do. So he knew he had lost and was just trying to end the match without a finish by his opponent.
Great lecture! I watched both those matches live on the internet, and I remember everyone criticizing Kasparov's behavior in the 2nd match. I recommend to everyone who is interested, read Kasparov's side of the story in his 2017 book _Deep Thinking_.
It was called Deep Thought when it was at CMU, got the Blue when IBM took it. It played in a US Open in Boston when it was still pretty bad. The VLSI guy sent to baby sit it didn’t seem to know any chess. In an Alekhine’s after c4, DT said to play Nb6, but its babysitter played Nb4 on the board. In another game it had a N vs B endgame adjourned with the N down two pawns but a plausible blockade, unclear whether it could be broken. DT milled around, then shed one of the pawns, then milled around again and amazingly shed the other extra pawn, and went on to lose. Terrible. In those days computers could play but they had a list for players who didn’t want to be paired against computers. After that game, players were joking about wanting to be on a list to get to play the computers.
While we're on the subject, why are there no decent videos of either this match or the Kasparov - Kramnik match anywhere? The 2000 match in particular was even recorded by several cameras, if I remember correctly.
This lecture was milk toast, at best. Kasparov wasn’t playing “just a computer.” He was playing against multiple servers all working to calculate how to beat him. The engine DB used was comparing not only theory of the time, but every recorded game of high level chess. IBM was caught referencing multiple GMs during the match, and IBM still hasn’t released the source code of their engine or any of the programming, resources, or anything about DB. During their second match, IBM took a break and when they came back, DB played significantly different and significantly better. This is also when IBM started playing their cards very close to the vest and wouldn’t give any info on DB
I remember at the time people said Deep Blue was specifically programmed to beat Kasparov and would not have been as effective against grand masters more generally. Today's Stockfishes etc are the kind of general chess engine that Deep Blue was falsely presented as in the 90s.
I had that thought in the back of my mind that they might have programmed this engine to be just like Kasporav. Sacking pieces like him and playing like him.
In 1989, Kasparov crushed Deep Thought in a 2 Game match in New York. Kasparov played Deep Blue in Feb 1996 and Deeper Blue in 1997. This is sourced from the Book by Daniel King Kasparov v Deeper Blue.
Joel Benjamin’s book “American Grandmaster” has his view from the IBM side. A good payday for Kasparov, but kudos for willingness to take on the machine.
I don t mean to misslead audience (ben's video are the best !!) but there is a really cool video that seems to have all the controvertial element of this match, it s from "down the rabbit hole" if i remenber right !! Go ben ♡
Deep Thought was before Deep Blue. It was much weaker than Deep Thought and Gary Kasparov beat Deep Thought with black playing the Sicilian Defense. Then when DeepBlue came, that was the first time a computer ever beat a world champion. Gary tried Sicilian again and lost terribly to alot of tactics. Gary came back and beat Deeper Bllue. He won the first game and lost the second game(suspiciously). He then made a tactical blunder in game 6 playing the Caro Khan and lost. I believe they cheated and used human help. If Ben Finegold head was so tough he would know that computers were not very good at positional Chess in 1997. So a human giving the computer positional tips would really help the computer. In game 1, 1997, Gary Kasparov won by sacrificing his rook for two pass pawns; and the computer allowed it. So for the computer to find a blockading move that completing zaps black's counter play is very suspicious. Even when the computer had a tactical line to forcefully win a pawn. And even worse; very interestingly; Gary Kasparov still had a draw after the computer played the blockading move.
Gary asked Deep Thought the answer to the ultimate question of chess the universe and everything and seven and a half million years later it said fries.
An excellent chess lecture Ben Thanks ! I got really dodgy vibes after watching the doco. The possibility remains did the program somehow get assistance with or without the programmers knowledge ? I wonder if Deep blue was tilted after game 1 or the people behind it were !? I guess we'll never know. What do you think about the authenticity of the deep blue chess match chatgpt3 ? lol
I never could take the Karpov argument seriously. Kasparov had won all of their matches, and suddenly Karpov is behind all this. Fischer would have been more believable nemesis, and not believable at all.
Dude the best humans are 2800. Like 2 people? Everyone else is 27xx The best computers are like 3400 and improving all the time The match would be 5-1 or 5.5- .5 or 6-0? No. It would be 6-0 Hikaru played several games with at least 1 and I believe even 2 pawn odds against Komodo years ago and struggled to draw There is no way a human is drawing 2 games of a 6 game match . Drawing 1 would be a miracle
Perhaps Kasparov was thinking of how quickly NASA scrapped the program and somehow lost the blueprints after the last’ alleged landings the Moon, and applied the same thinking on this match. Lol As for this game I’d say that if anything, he had his hands deep in IBM’s pockets digging for money. He chose an opening he never played and lost badly. Instead as the story goes he accused the Deep Blue team for cheating. Silly.
To this day you'll still find people claiming that the Deep Blue team cheated, Kasparov was robbed, etc etc (there may even be some of them in the comments!), but to me it seems really weird to say that his bad play *should* have tricked the dumb computer into not playing good moves, and since it didn't there must have been foul play.
Guys checkout Down the Rabbit Hole. It's a fucking masterpiece. Music is amazing 2 hours of eupohria. Going back to the 1940s to explain the history of computer chess. wow
