PLOT TWIST: the guy moving the pieces for the computer is actually in charge of moving the pieces

@pepperidgefarm8793

6 жыл бұрын

and the plot thickens

@akshayram13

6 жыл бұрын

Twist in plot twist : Kasparov lost on purpose

@MrStifleras

5 жыл бұрын

what if the asian guy moving the pieces is actually kasparov in disguise

@windexoriginal1003

5 жыл бұрын

That is actually a nice premise for a movie

@spartanchess7859

5 жыл бұрын

Plot plot twist: I'm not saying it was aliens... but... it was aliens 💥😂

Kasparov is probably the most iconic chess player of all time. Especially his games against the machine were historic.

@patriceaqa288

2 жыл бұрын

chess tictacs I haven't pondered this for a decade, having played chess my whole life, I know that Kasparov vehemently claimed that Deep Blue's programmers were cheating by analyzing how Kasparov was playing, but never come across any relevant evidence to suggest such cheating took place. I really wish to know more about this. Did Kasparov 'choke' when he realized he wasn't going to 'win' the rematch easily? This has also fascinated me. Was the rematch 'rigged?' between intervals so to speak, which Kasparov will go to his grave believing?? Or did the computer genuinely out wit any human's ability to read the game against a computer??? He never stopped talking about the relentless interventions with 'deep blue' between the rounds from multiple chess masters, thus making the match 'fixed' so to speak. There never was a trilogy. So what's the truth? Any big chess fan please illuminate me

@patriceaqa288

Жыл бұрын

@@hungrycrab3297 Do you know why they never payed again? Despite Kasparov wanting to? Thankyou for the insight

@patriceaqa288

Жыл бұрын

@@hungrycrab3297 Do you know why they changed the rules for computer systems like Divine not having intermissions during breaks when playing chessmasters?????

@whatever_it_takes6691

Жыл бұрын

Fischer

@scottwarren4998

Жыл бұрын

i just don't understand why kasparov had to play as black 4 times. it should be 3-3 if the match goes all the way, (best of 6 games).

Reported for botting.

@shreya3799

8 жыл бұрын

+Kåpla Kvëhla What are you doing here, Kappa Senpai?

@Dcook85

7 жыл бұрын

Chess equivalent of an aimbot

@PaladinswordSaurfang

6 жыл бұрын

*Reported for humaning* -Kasparov

@nicbentulan

3 жыл бұрын

@@PaladinswordSaurfang EXACTLY

@nicbentulan

6 ай бұрын

​@@PaladinswordSaurfang Back here 2 years later : Garry cheated Judit Polgar in 1994 & Vishy in 1995 yet baselessly accused IBM in 1997. What a hypocrite.

a computer can beat a chess master however it cannot experience the joy of winning the match

@Mafon2

8 жыл бұрын

we can program it to.

@HumanBeingSpawn

7 жыл бұрын

Mafon2 PlaySound(Assets.Sounds.Celebrate, PlayMode.Async); UiManager.Load(Assets.Ui.GameOverPanel).Show();

@Chris_FMS_Redfield

6 жыл бұрын

How are you going to program emotion? You can program a computer to display certain emotions based on outcomes, but that's just displaying a message conveying emotion, not actually having an emotion. Computers aren't sentient.

@GijsvanGaalen

6 жыл бұрын

You can do this by a reward-mechanism. Whenever the AI achieves something they will get that "reward" that's programmed. Maybe some extra processing power or something else that's usefull for the AI. There are multiple theories about this.

@anonymousreviewer169

5 жыл бұрын

@@GijsvanGaalen At best, that simulates emotion, and not emulate it.

The fact that he managed to beat the computer more than once is an amazing feat in itself. I would have thought that a computer that can process millions of moves every second would be unbeatable.

@nathanschubert3048

7 жыл бұрын

It is incredible. And, in fact. No longer even possible. AlphaGo can still potentially be beaten at Go, but even that is starting to look impossible. Luckily, we will have Mao and Calvinball for a long time yet.

@saxonchess3293

6 жыл бұрын

Well theoretically it is possible, just unlikely

@K4inan

6 жыл бұрын

Nathan Schubert and now alphazero beats stockfish8 (which wouldve stomped deep blue) 100 - 0

@MagnumSkyWolf

6 жыл бұрын

I personally think they handed him the first game so the computer can learn his moves

@fairfeatherfiend

4 жыл бұрын

@@MagnumSkyWolf There was a bug in the program in the first game, they fixed it from game 2 on.

The first documented RNG ragequit in history?

@busTedOaS

8 жыл бұрын

+Bob Shanely rng... in chess? if it's a joke, i don't get it.

@BobShanely

8 жыл бұрын

+busTedOaS "For his book, Silver interviewed Murray Campbell, one of the three IBM computer scientists who designed Deep Blue, and Murray told him that the machine was unable to select a move and simply picked one at random. " www.wired.com/2012/09/deep-blue-computer-bug/

@busTedOaS

8 жыл бұрын

+Bob Shanely Thanks. That is actually very interesting. The best move was random... it makes me think whether it is necessary to have intent in order to qualify as intelligent. Or maybe it was even the best move to confuse Kasparov with that random ass move... just to get into his head. although I doubt that was Deep Blue's strategy.

@kittechno8401

3 жыл бұрын

@@BobShanely No, there is a system which determines the advantage and disadvantages of a move with a rating. It would simply take the one with the highest rating. Also it wasn't just brute force like they said in the video. The programmers were smarter than that.

And now there is AlphaGo.

@renaldyazhari2709

6 жыл бұрын

And AlphaZero

@undeadnightorc

6 жыл бұрын

Leela Zero, another self-teaching AI, has recently showed up!

@thybiscuit

6 жыл бұрын

AlphaGo vs AphaZero??

@HizkiFWOfficial

6 жыл бұрын

AlphaGo plays Go, AlphaZero plays chess. They're different games.

@thybiscuit

6 жыл бұрын

AlphaZero plays GO and SHOGI besides CHESS. but I think AlphaZero will win against AlphaGo(the one who beat lee sedol) but not against the latest version of AlphaGo.

No one could play better than Kasparov, and his natural reaction after losing is just priceless.

@scottwarren4998

Жыл бұрын

i just don't understand why kasparov had to play as black 4 times. it should be 3-3 if the match goes all the way, (best of 6 games).

If I remember correctly: one of Kasparov's complaints was that humans interacted with the computer during the game, so in a way Kasparov was playing against more than just the machine. IBM said that that was simply the way the machine worked - it required the intervention of programmers - but I sympathize with Kasparov's point of view here.

@alejrandom6592

Жыл бұрын

Well now computers can beat humans on their own

@Aashish.XD.

Жыл бұрын

Damn bruh the fact that its been 14 years since you commented and you were using yt at that time this gives me a nostalgia of something i never experienced

260 processors versus one man... That sounds fair.

@boitahaki

9 жыл бұрын

Funny, a few years ago it would sound unfair to beat a machine using our "great" human brain.

@Djorgal

9 жыл бұрын

How is that comparable? I could also say 260 processors against 86 billions neurons. That just means nothing.

@Stockfish1511

9 жыл бұрын

Djorgal lol it has all combinations isntalled. It can analyze milions of moves in seconds and one man cant handle that much info. Yes one brain can have alot of memory, but analyzing all moves fast or think of combinations as a computer is not even comparable lol. One computer would even beat all gms at same time. If you are so smart try to challenge not computer, challenge something easier like calculator. Multiple 25687x26741 and start thinking when you click on equal button. I bet you will not calculate it fast to beat the calculator right? Same here, even standing a chance against this super computer is a huge deal!

@Djorgal

9 жыл бұрын

And take the same calculator, show it a picture, and ask it if that is a picture of a bird. It won't be able to answer. Humans are good at doing some things when computers are better at doing others. To compare the number of processors of a computer to the number of brains of a human just means nothing, nor does it mean anything to compare numbers of transistors to numbers of neurons. Those are not the same thing and that doesn't make for a sensible comparison. A human chess player can realize what a fork is. If a knight attack two of his pieces at once, the computer needs to see at least one move ahead to conclude that it loses one. The grandmaster doesn't need to make the calculation at all because he knows what the position means. Yes the computer can analyse millions of moves per second but the chess player can actually devise a strategy.

@Stockfish1511

9 жыл бұрын

Djorgal Your first sentence answered your question. "It wont say it is bird" but it will beat any human or at least draw but never lose in calculation, because it is programmed to calculate. If it was programmed to identify picture, trust me it would beat your ass anytime. Deep blue is programmed to beat ppl in chess and it is doing its job. If it was programmed to do everything human can do it will do, but never go beyond the limit of that. It can defintly not do better than that, neither can kasparov, because it is the limit be able to analaze all the moves possible. What you talk about is artificial intelligence, which is an intelligence that has the ability to think, manipulate, make choices independatly and creating some type of logic to understand things. There are no or wont be any machines that are artificial intelligence, but there will tons of machines that wil be prgrammed to do a particular job, far beyond the posibilites of human brain abilities.

Kasparov could have won or even tied the Match if he hadnt be intimidated by enourmous procesing power of IBM machine. For example in game 2 he resigned wrongly cause he didnt notice could draw the game. Another mistake was to try use anti computer strategy, by playing bad moves in openings to confuse the machine. Although calculate milions of moves per second, Deep Blue was not perfect and had several bugs in its positional play, wich scientists tried to fix during the match. If Kasparov had played normaly as would do against a human oponent, he could have won. Deep blue defeated him psychologicaly.

@ThePascalalter

8 жыл бұрын

+Miguel Eduardo RESPEKT! "Deep blue defeated him psychologicaly." :)

@cheilith1031

6 жыл бұрын

another person who is better at chess than a world-professional chess player?

@tjcola7703

5 жыл бұрын

still a win nevertheless

@felixgonzales9786

5 жыл бұрын

and thats why cpu's are better, no emotion, only strategies.

@arthurheuer

5 жыл бұрын

​@Justin Y. Considering that Miguel Eduardo's point's validity hinges on him being better at chess than Gary Kasparov was...

As amazing as it was in 1997, to think that a program in 2017 like AlphaZero could totally crush Deep Blue (using AI instead of brute force) is absolutely mind boggling.

@scottwarren4998

Жыл бұрын

i just don't understand why kasparov had to play as black 4 times. it should be 3-3 if the match goes all the way, (best of 6 games).

@idisplaypace2411

Жыл бұрын

Stockfish uses brute force and is brilliant

@charankoppineni4498

7 ай бұрын

AI is brute force.

@polytomy

3 ай бұрын

2024 and Stockfish could crush 2017 AlphaZero

"Scientists finally built the first artificially intelligent machine. The first question they asked it was 'is there a god?' It's response? 'There is now.'"

@cicadafun

9 жыл бұрын

:)

@Banzay27

9 жыл бұрын

Heh. More sensational than witty, really. True AI doesn't immediately mean a Skynet. Nor would any self-respecting scientist ask it such a ludicrous question.

@rhys8457

9 жыл бұрын

Banzay27 According to Steve Hawking, it does.

@JohnDoe-mv6go

9 жыл бұрын

Banzay27 You don't get the reference.

@danta7777

9 жыл бұрын

logandh2 It's response? "I'm not sure, but I'm really good at chess."

basically a group of intellectuals beat 1 genius

@MEILNIETCERAFT

8 жыл бұрын

+Dan0101010101010 Group of genius beat 1 genius.

@meeblings6

8 жыл бұрын

A trained genius beaten by 1 box of silicon

@johnvonhorn2942

8 жыл бұрын

+Dan0101010101010 Imagine what a group of geniuses could do to an intellectual? That would be like upgrading you to +Dan1111111111111 = Dan Powers

@plumeater1

8 жыл бұрын

Yes and no. After they taught the computer (Programmed), the computer does all the work (Brute Force technique).

@fredrikprantare9663

7 жыл бұрын

Basically a box beat 1 genius.

I feel sorry for Kasparov. The chess programms were weak until 1997. But after 2005 that's impossible to beat a chess computer.

one of the best short documentaries ever

Honestly love to see Ken freaking Thompson in the crowd. One of the forefathers of computer automated chess.

@DVRC

4 жыл бұрын

And father of UNIX, the operating system that changed the world, and many other awesome things he contributed to (UTF-8, GoLang, Plan 9, and many other).

Remember when Kubrick took IBM, and translated its letters back in the alphabet to make HAL? And then HAL beat a man at chess in the movie in 1968? I was always glad to see that IBM took it upon themselves to make sure things came full circle.

This video is almost as old as KZread itself :0! I still remember watching it in 2007.

Nice video ,actually epic

Still I like Gary Kaspaov''s playing style, and it is a matter of sacrifice

Gary Kasparov thought that he could out smart the computer, Deep Blue prevailed because it had multiple ways to solve the same problem. Kasparov was surprised by its mathematical ability to play and not reveal its strategy.

The ending is profound- it looks to me a late 90s documentary, mentioning that a computer that could think itself is far away- well, the age of AI is here!

This gives whole new level to saying " I'm not a Robot "

I taught myself how to play chess at 9 years old. And I’ve sucked ever since.

This match was played when i was 9 years old but i remember like yesterday i think garry kasporov real legend of all time in the world 👍

Thanks for the video. Do you have any video links about games between grandchesmaster and chess machines? Thanks.

The computer could study many, if not all, of Kasparov's games. The matches Deep Blue had played with other GM's were private, so Kasparov knew nothing about his opponent, while his opponent, if human, could write an essay on his play styles and how they evolved over the years. Totally fair.

Cuando un día que no veremos nos gobierne una máquina como Deep Blue, será un héroe como Kasparov el que nos libere, alguien que no sea perfecto, pero tenga pasión.

@alejrandom6592

Жыл бұрын

.

In the future they will roll this video on schools to show us the beginning of the fall of human civilization way before the War agains AI.

@VejmR

3 жыл бұрын

Sip

@pulproman6892

2 жыл бұрын

And how other humans like these programmers were so eager for the obsolescence of humanity.

@Eustake whats the background song called ? pls any1 answer

This is one of those moments in history that warrent a whole blockbuster movie budget

@soccom8341576 Yea i know :) it was a wide variety of people too, from engineers to other chess grand masters and full gameplays from a bunch of chess books written by other chess grand masters. That fact just makes me even more amazed at what Kasparov was able to do. Not to mention Deep Blue was constantly getting tweeked and upgraded to better counter Kasparov's playing style. To me it is truely amazing

Wanna see Magnus Carlsen vs deep blue?

@SimsHacks

7 жыл бұрын

its not possible since after Kasparovs loss they destroyed the Deep Blue

@MrWizardjr9

7 жыл бұрын

port the code over to a computer today

@Proclifo

5 жыл бұрын

At this point, Stockfish beats Magnus easily.

@hiroyafujimiya3290

5 жыл бұрын

@@SimsHacks why can you tell us?

In 2022, this is a video which I can call a classic epic 🤩

hello, where i can dowload the deep blue software?...troll-a-bit LOL

its weird how this is the only video with archived footage of the event actually happening

@idisplaypace2411

Жыл бұрын

Hi Kow Im Cobra

@BlitzWizard94

Жыл бұрын

@@idisplaypace2411 hi i am gonna go play blitz

@idisplaypace2411

Жыл бұрын

@@BlitzWizard94 why bro

@BlitzWizard94

Жыл бұрын

@@idisplaypace2411 cause i am the BlitzWizard

@Ram-yn3b

11 ай бұрын

Yeah I wish there were surviving live footage of the match. I still don’t have any idea about how much time deep blue takes to make a critical move, reactions of Kasparov in tense postions etc. Wish I could spectate the match 26 years after it was conducted

whos here after alphago

@akajiblubb2401

8 жыл бұрын

+Vlad Novetschi i am. and i am a go player

@vladnovetschi

8 жыл бұрын

me 2 m8

I was reading about this match in a book, it is astonishing to think that what once in 1997 was shockingly state of the art technology nowadays is considered a milestone in the path to the future of AI, thus the future of the entire human race

I like the hint at watson in the end

@Sztanyi you are completly right, I have been playing chess for more than 12 years and I beat some chess programs like "rival chess" "master chess" and another ones, but I try to beat at least the "Arasan" and I think it´s so hard, so in my opinion Kasparov is a hero, he is the best of all.

20 years ago today.

He's an amazing brain ! To beat a specially made computer with all the possible moves in its memory is quite something,

In 1997, Skynet goes online

•1996 Deep Blue Vs G, Kasparov 2775 4 2 Human Wins •1997 Deep Blue Vs G, Kasparov 2795 2.5 3.5 Computer Wins ••2007 Krempov vs Rybka 3150. 6 game. Krempov draws 2.5 2.5=Unafisual Worlds Record. •2007 Krempov Vs Deep Junior 10. Rated 2900. 1 Game Match. Score a draw. •2014 Krempov Vs Stockfish. Rated 3250 In a 6 game match krempov wins 4 to 2 •2015 Krempov vs Stockfish5 rated 3280. In a 3 game match. Krempov wins. Krempov's now chess rated is 3285

I'm programming a chess engine myself right now, have a bet with a friend of mine who's a tournament player and No. 5 on our state's leaderboard, wish me luck!

@Wolfboy950

2 жыл бұрын

What happened?

@gayusschwulius8490

2 жыл бұрын

@@Wolfboy950 I won! The engine beat him in 4 out of 6 matches.

what is the musical piece during the ending credits?

What is the name of the song playing in the background?

If you watch the documentary Game Over (it's on youtube), you'll see the kinds of secrecy surrounding their computer, plus the controversy over the one move Kasparov complained about which tipped the scales for the whole match.

The Famous Equation : kasparov + deep blue = me

Chess has seen much more suspense before and since this match.

@CamButler True. Though Deep Blue was still considered a supercomputer. The algorithms will have improved too.

200.000.000 million possible moves on every second.

@dexterholland2879

22 күн бұрын

200.000.000 or 200 million ;)

"Nevertheless, the machine they had built did not play chess by thinking in the same way a human does. A machine that can think remains the dream, and it's still many years, and quite a few startling breakthroughs away." And so the creation of AlphaGo began.

what are some of the songs used for this video, anyone know ?

where can I find the complete documentary

The documentary implies that Deep Blue uses "brute force" to win. Indeed, it looks at millions of moves, but it intelligently decides which parts of the future move trees to explore.

@wopmf4345FxFDxdGaa20

3 жыл бұрын

Well, "intelligently". There's just well thought algorithms and logic, which one can say are designed by intelligent people. It could be said to be intelligence in the machine if the machine figured that out itself on the fly, but it did not. People focused on this very problem developed and tuned the machine and its software to solve this very specific problem. For any other type of problem, the intelligence of the machine is 0, until someone again "teaches" it.

Kasparov was asked in an interview after beating Deep Thought in 1989... "How do you feel that someday, you do lose to a computer?"... Kasparov replied "Single game of the match"... And that loss happened in a single game of the match with Deep Blue in 1997....

@ace942 They are trying some interesting stuff such as: giving the human a two-move advantage in the beginning, taking away a pawn from the computer, giving the human the first move in each game of the match etc.

@JOTTABYTE Surrendering in a game in which you overlook a draw opportunity is still a loss. It was in game two that Deep Blue 2.0 made an unpredictable move that completely frazzled Kasparov. In game six, Kasparov saw that he could no longer out-think Deep Blue, so he gave up. Kasparov proved himself human: giving up out of exhaustion, acknowledging a loss before it becomes apparent.

This is a mile stone in the series of events that lead to an ai becoming self aware. skynet = game over

@ChristianVBlue3

9 жыл бұрын

. . . . . . And John Connor is riding his dirk bike around

@ZER0--

8 жыл бұрын

+ForTheHonor So many paradoxes.

@AlexTuduran

5 жыл бұрын

No, not at all. Deep Blue is just running an endless loop of probing moves and chooses the best one. No different than running a brute force password breaker.

Soon computers will be better than us at everything.

@asas14444

7 жыл бұрын

not at everything at the same time tho :).. Our brain is still x100 times better than any computer this size

@JuanMorales-qm9pr

7 жыл бұрын

if that happen we have created them so we are better xd

@asas14444

7 жыл бұрын

Alexis Vásquez honestty i dont believe that we can create something better than us considering that we are improving day by day

@GBart

7 жыл бұрын

WhoAreYou Technology is improving exponentially faster.

@GBart

7 жыл бұрын

Alexis Vásquez In what sense and why?

@Sztanyi He also managed to win games against Junior or X3D Fritz, years later. However those computers seem inferior to Deep Blue, considering the number of positions calculated per second.

@ollecarlsson That's still pretty far away. The `problem` is that there are billions and billions and billions of possible outcomes of the game, so the programmers have succeeded till present day to simply enlarge the computer's opening database (which shows which moves are the best at the start of a game). After 15-20 moves, the computer must simply use `brute force` to calculate outcomes and choose which moves give it the advantage. This happens due to the enormous number of possible positions

But the human brain just doesn't use stored patterns. We take risks, contextual risks which computers can't make. Like it's stated in the video the machine basically tried all possible combinations and picked the best one. A human can do the same but we just don't have enough time to assess every possible outcome.

@MrWizardjr9

7 жыл бұрын

it cant do that. there are more possible moves in chess than there are atoms in the universe. it needed a opening database and an end game table but in the mid game it will use its processing power to calculate many moves ahead

@HumanBeingSpawn

7 жыл бұрын

john li Huh? More chess moves than there are atoms in this universe? LOL. How many atoms do you know? What about those we don't know about? How far around the universe have you travelled, away from our tiny little speck of dust we call home? I believe the number of chess moves is a lot but finite, therefore calculable. Since we know the maximum number of chess pieces that can be on the board at once, we can calculate all the possible moves... using simulation of course. Also, the fact that the A.I is domain specific (i.e. its sole purpose is to play chess only), it will only get better in that dimension while still being bound by the rules of that domain, which is chess rules. It will never think outside of it.

@MrWizardjr9

7 жыл бұрын

Human Being there are 10^120 possible different chess games the computer cant calculate them all and it doesnt have to.

It's kind of scary... It's turning into this man vs machine thing... Machines are becoming more complex and one day might take over.

@pierre2439

9 жыл бұрын

The succession of which? We destroy the earth...

@maliksumit1

9 жыл бұрын

Yaa i am afraid too. My vacuum Cleaner tried to kill me today LOL

@Djorgal

9 жыл бұрын

Take over what, and what for?

@aregnav

9 жыл бұрын

Djorgal They can do almost everything better than humans... it's insane.

@Djorgal

9 жыл бұрын

***** No it didn't knew the moves in advance, its memory would never have been enough. It was calculating its next move using an evaluation fonction. It does evaluate each move.

@Ecrilon you are right on all except for the last one which is the possible moves. Look up Scientific American magazine in the october issue 2009 and you will see an article that states explicitly chess has 10^20 moves and go has 10^80 moves, which has as many moves as there are atoms in the entire universe in the game of go.

Wonder how did i end up here ? Strange... I was searching for an album

they used a brute force algorithm... is that right? it seems like IBM would have smarter programmers.if they won using brute force and super fast calculations, imagine what they could do using a better algorithm than brute force.

@HumanBeingSpawn

7 жыл бұрын

Sergio Fernandez I read an interesting article about a theory relating to that sentiment. It goes like this, once we achieve a certain goal in creating an A.I(although the article was about Neural networks), the idea ceases to become magical. That's when we say "Well, nothing revolutionary here, it's just good old brute force", therefore demeaning the A.I. It's funny because ultimately if you look at every form of A.I out there, that's always the case. The only way I think to create an A.I on par with a human is by way of a collective hive mind. Something like SkyNet, where each unit has a very specific task of collecting information (visual, auditory, olfactory, etc), then that can be linked and associated with everything else. The information would then be used by other/same units for decision making.

No... Kasparov was not defeated. I mean come on a teraflop super computer vs a human brain, I mean seriously. Is like saying a ferrari run faster than the worst faster runner. Fail.

@AhmedKMoustafa2

7 жыл бұрын

ikr

@RhythmNationPrincess

6 жыл бұрын

Current chess apps AI are leagues beyond Deep Blue and *any* human player.

@biggiedickson

6 жыл бұрын

Yes I fully agree. However you're a total fool if you think analyzing millions of gamestates per second is consciously obtainable. +Super Dude

So true! It will go on to end in Stale Mates.

Whats the name of the first background song?

The thing is that personal computers use general-purpose processors, which are designed and programmed to perform fairly well in any aspect of usage (playing video games,handling multimedia,exchanging all kind of files over a network, etc). You could call them Jack-of-All-Master-of-None processors. On the other hand, the special-purpose processors are designed to perform at maximum possible level, but only in a very small area (often limited to just a single application/program).

Music name at the end ,please???

Gary Kasparov is THE man who incite me to play chess

What about the pawn sacrifice issue during Game 2? Why wasn't that addressed?

What Is crazy Is that Kasparov pulled draws and stood a chance that has million options every second, if you really let that sink in you can imagine how crazy smart his brain is..

@rustcohle9267

Жыл бұрын

So impressive at the time but now he or Magnus stood 0% chance of winning.

why is it so much better

So iconic and historic, I wonder what museum Deep Blue is preserved in?

fascinating

Nice IBM promo film.

Now we want a same video on AlphaZero

What a true lee great way to work your mind out .

i feel so nerdy watching this. :P

So this is where it all began

nice one......

I don't think any human have a chance against a thing that can think about 2 000 000 moves in a second.

@hotelmario510 A "day in the life of a turret" reference?

Whats the music called?

where is this doc from?

@mtb2004uk How do you know this?

what is the kind of this chess clock?

Back then you could accuse a computer of sing a human brain today you could accuse a human of using a computer brain

I remember that match. They tweeked the program during the tounament. He beat the program as it was when he was challenged.

Hi. Can someone explain to me why Deep Blue had to be "retired", that is, dismantled? lol. Does it really take that much maintenance if they just leave the computer off... ?

shivers

@Eustake That seems again unfair to the computer. The human does not begin processing from the beginning. The human draws on his/her own experiences to shape the opening. Also, in modern computer chess, you have access to the computer's opening book, which is restricted and does not run as deep as any master's opening repertoire.

@Gihipoxu Technology improves rapidly. 256 processors don't mean anything. It would take only a moderately powerful computer to beat Deep Blue's search rate (though more than the average desktop). Using improved algorithms however modern chess software searches farther ahead and is definitely capable of being better.

hey IBM, show the logs of deep blue (Karpov?) acts!!

@punchthedog "I would like to know what the state-of-the-art is today" The state of the art is this: In a 10 match tournament where the computer plays the world champion and leads the black pieces minus a center pawn handicap every time, the result would be 10-0 for the computer.