Garry Kasparov’s historic defeat by Deep Blue in 1996
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- Featured is the historic game between IBM's Supercomputer Deep Blue and Garry Kasparov. This was their very first game from their first match, held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The game set a record as it was the first time a computer program defeated a world champion in a classical game under tournament regulations, i.e., with classical time controls. However, Kasparov would go on to win the match (4-2) without losing another game.
Image of Garry Kasparov in thumbnail by Lennart Ootes
lennartootes.com
I'm a self-taught National Master in chess out of Pennsylvania, USA who was introduced to the game by my father in 1988 at the age of 8. The purpose of this channel is to share my knowledge of chess to help others improve their game. I enjoy continuing to improve my understanding of this great game, albeit slowly. Consider subscribing here on RUclips for frequent content, and/or connecting via any or all of the below social medias. Your support is greatly appreciated. Take care, bye. :)
★ LICHESS.ORG lichess.org/@/...
★ CHESS.COM www.chess.com/... (affiliate link)
★ TWITCH / chessnetwork
★ TWITTER / chessnetwork
★ FACEBOOK / chessnetwork
★ PATREON / chessnetwork
★ DONATE www.paypal.com...
Jerry's been single handedly keeping me interested in Chess for over a decade
It's a great day whenever Jerry uploads a new video!
Thank you for the content! :)
This video is gonna be popular
This comment too ☝️
Hopefully, Jerry deserves the world!
Why
When Ai takes over 😂
Your analysis are second to none! Thank you, Jerry :)
Very interesting. After this game didn't Garry say something like, 'I made a few mistakes but by far the biggest was getting into the sort of open tactical position that computers play very strongly'. He learnt his lesson though and went on to win this match as we all know.
This is my favorite RUclips channel by far
This and your Fischer-Spassky Game 6 analyses are my favorite. Top level work!
Oh my god one upload after another is it Christmas or what :D
Honestly some of the best entertainment there is these high level game analyses by you Jerry :3
Glad to see such a classic. Thanks Jerry!
Commenting for the algorithm. Thanks a lot as always, Jerry!
my first game watched on TV. thank you jerry~!
Awesome…I made the big screen 😎
@@ChessNetwork👑
This is great. Thanks for digging into this Deep Blue game! Thanks for your time.
I wrote a research paper on A.I., and cited this game as when A.I. "intellectually" took over humans. (Honestly I just wanted an excuse to mention chess haha) always feels good to rewatch the game and see just how Garry got outplayed by the machine.
@gregfisher978 Yeah, the idea that AI surpassed humans intellectually is nonsense. A $5 calculator from 1950 is better than any human at math, that means humans were surpassed by machines well before this based on the OP's logic.
Hi everyone, it’s not Jerry
Hi not Jerry.
Tks for the game ❤
I've always been fascinated by this match. I'd love it if you covered the other games as well. Maybe touch on some of the drama too.
Great video, Jerry! I would love to have seen the "tale of the tape" on this one
The graph is included. 😎
Amazing game and analysis! Thanks Jerry!
Jerry is so back
I just wanted to point out that deepblue's victory over Kasparov is highly controversial, even though everyone today accepts it as fact. Kasparov was highly suspicious that there was human assistance to deep blue, and refused to play the games after the second game unless IBM showed the LOGs of the IBM computer after the match. IBM did not fulfill its part of the agreement and had its shares absurdly valued during this process. It is important to note that for AIs to consolidate themselves as superior to elite players, it took another 10 years. I say this because it is something given as a historical fact and historiography shows several problems with this consensus.
And being honest, since IBM did not fulfill its part of the agreement, this fact should be automatically ignored and revised, as there is no justice in a multibillion-dollar company facing a human being and not honoring the terms placed.
That's very interesting. Too bad details like this tend to remain obscure.
I vaguely remember this... I was only 14 at the time :(
anand has no trouble beating the crap out of deep blue only kasparov falls into computer preparation maybe too principled to play obscure openings
His suspicion was premised on the assumption that computers had to play greedy as a rule, and couldn't pass up a "free" piece even if it was a losing move, which was a ridiculous assumption for a brand new technology. He had no legitimate grounds to be suspicious and therefore IBM had no obligation to comply with any new rules that Kasparov made up on the spot. Kasparov acted like a childish sore loser who let his ego get the better of him.
Also your claim about it taking 10 more years before computers started beating elite players is incorrect. They were regularly beating grand masters by the early 00s. Kasparov himself couldn't defeat Fritz in a 2003 match where they drew a four game match.
I remember seeing Kasparov storm off after the final move of the game. So funny how back then, "human assistance" was deemed cheating. lol
I was too young to remember the Deep Blue match, but I do remember Kasparov vs X3D Fritz. Maybe one day you could do a video on that match and its place in chess history?
Very insightful analysis
Great analysis. Pawn Power is important. Thanks for your insight.
The best part of this World Chess Championship was having multiple Jerry uploads.
I love your chess analysis
Took me 3 seconds to spot Rc8. Thanks Jerry your instructional videos are improving my game. I will become a GM soon :)
Best chess channel on RUclips, keep it up :)
My first ChessNetwork video. Subscribed.
Thanks 👍
a suggestion from a beyond-casual chess person: it's not made clear enough when the author stops or even begins his own suggested alternate moves.
then when it's back in the actual historic game, I'm left sort of puzzled and unsure or what actually happened and what you thought _could_ or even should have happened.
that's all. Chess is an amazing thing.
Notation be given thats very good sir❤
I was hoping you’d do this video Jerry
You point out that white can't take the pawn on d4(move 29/30, 11:40 mins in) because of a "discovered check"-- which is true, but even without the discovered check, the pawn is pinned and it would just be a straight up fork on the king and queen :b
I give a like then I wach, enjoy and learn something new.
Honestly this game was quite frustrating to watch because it actually felt like white was using an engine. And I don't mean that as a joke. All the tiny tactics just perfectly working out for white in every variation in order to accomplish the small positional gains the entire game... I've faced that when I spar an opening against Stockfish and it gets disheartening. Truly engine-perfect calculation out of Deep Blue this whole game. I'm impressed Garry ended up winning this match!
I believe memory serves inasmuch as the match Gary won was against Deep Thought, Deep Blue’s 1996 predecessor: Kasparov lost against actual Deep Blue the next year. Wasn’t Game 2 of the Deep Blue match very controversial, with Kasparov, rightly or wrongly, suspicious that Blue had had help from GM Joel Benjamin? (I’m just a circa 1750-odd patser; but I’ve studied that game a bit and, tbh, finding the decisive move in that game did not seem so very difficult to me. Maybe Kasparov’s nerves were frayed early on.)
what? he lost in this game.
Excellent and informative stuff!
AFAIK, Deep Blue was implemented with brute-force algorithms, with enough CPU cycles available to stay within normal Classical Chess time limits. IBM were RISC-based in the mid-90's, and had very excellent programmers that could spent their highly-productive days building the most impressive algorithms.
Current generative AI-based strategies can be calculated a lot faster, because GPUs are so heavily parallel and computationally efficient with convolutional networks.
In a digital world, Alpha Zero (and its derivatives) are the pinnacle of invention in strategy. Self-trainable closed systems...
As Lex Fridman might say, "where it gets messy", is when computer code is acting á-la biological systems.
There's a chaotic nuance to responses from animals, e.g. humans. For now, for me, this is irreplaceable stuff.
We all knew the person who knew more than we did, in school. GPT is like that person. It can regale us with clever anecdotes, it it won't feel like out friend. Not really....
And to create that chaos, it's not just 'randomness' injected into the system.
I always can recognise a tree's variety, from it habit, even in winter when deciduous tress have lost their leaves. An oak tree is so recognisable, a beech tree's habit is unique... These have responded to their environment, yet each have their own habit, and each have their own way of working around their environmental problems...
And so it is with humans. Each with a unique suite of nature genetics, and emergent environmental nurture-based expression of those genes...
In my day (here we go again 🦕), “classic time controls” were 2-1/2 hours for 40 moves. What were they in 97? What are they now and why did they change? I know Fisher added the increment concept.
"Let's pin the pinning piece."
Pinception.
My instincts tell me that that was probably a very interesting vid.
You could never predict it,
That it could see through you,
Kasparov - Deep Blue 1996.
Your minds playing tricks now,
Show is over so take a bow,
Were living in the shadows of...
Why didn't White play b3 at move 23 - and only then initiate the pawn sacrifice with d5? What would Black have done then?
I have ADHD so I can think of so many moves ahead before I get tripped up. It's insane how many moves ahead people can think. Matter of fact it's impossible. Geez
Jerry what is the chess intelligence of Deep Blue at this time compared to a state of the art machine like Stockfish, or an ai program?
Jerry, addendum: Never mind, I think a Commenter has already thoroughly answered my question. Thanx for adding this game though: I’d forgotten that Blue-Kasparov had had such a cliffhanger!
Ty
Where can I see just the representation of the original game not "explained" or whatever this is
Brilliant - nothing more to say.
Min 8:33 why kasparov didnt take pawn with pawn??
Enjoyed
LOVE Jerry 😊
It's good to revisit this game. Even before this Bobby Fischer said chess was dead because of computers. I think that's an overstatement but it carries a lot of truth. I think it's still a great endeavor for humans to play chess, but there's no question that we're in a different world now with the game post the machine beating the man.
Im only at the midgame and its too confusing for me 😄
Hi Jerry man
Interesting
Fun fact: The loss against Deep Blue was the first match Kasparov EVER lost.
anand has no trouble beating the crap out of deep blue maybe too principled preparation on kasparov and not open to playing obscure opening strategy.
Garry who ?
The era of chess engines and machine learning shows us how we might interact with upcoming technology like chatGPT.
I agree. Language models are about even with people now in a lot of tasks. If it follows chess engine development, in a few years (or less?) all their responses and research will be superhumanly accurate. Questioning what they say will be a great way to make yourself look dumb when you find out why they were right.
people freaking out about Chat GPT: 😨😨😨
me, a knowledgeable person who knows no one can beat a computer in chess since at least 2010: 🍷
chess has been ahead of the curve in some ways because it is a) low bandwidth, and so was playable in early days of internet b) has notation which allows precise reconstruction of the game c) because it's a closed system comprehensible by the machine. @Augusto Oliveira it's interesting to see how this is starting to happen in poker now. I also have that same feeling, of yeah we've had that since 2010 or so in chess.
Chat GPT is very impressive. It's a fascinating glimpse of what it might be like, for a machine to be intelligent. even though it's not yet, it can approximate well enough to be believable to some depth. Jerry playing chess against it highlights both the really remarkable distance it can get, with pattern recognition, but also it's current limitations.
P.S I think in chess we've largely recovered from the shock of machines being better than us at it, and what remains is that they are remarkable tools which increase our understanding.
@@richardfredlund8846 do you have more information about AI in Poker? I'd like to read some more about that
My computer beat me in chess. But then I beat it in chess boxing.
To be honest, the fact that Kasparov beat the computer in one game shows the human brain was still better than the computer regardless of how games were lost. If Kasparov lost all games then fair enough. But he still beat the computer. Which I think is significant and not discussed enough.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day
:)
gk sux
I once won a match against Deep Blue, but then I lost a subsequent match against AlphaZero. I challenged AlphaZero to a rematch (chess boxing this time). The AI declined my offer 😞
MORTAL KOMBAT!!!!
1
Kasparov is way over rated too . Just sayin
your commentary is too laboured and gotta say pretty boring.