Did IBM and 'Deep Blue' Cheat Kasparov?

[boooeee]

Stumbled across this conspiracy theory after reading several wikipedia chess articles. The conspiracy is that IBM used a human grandmaster to "assist" Deep Blue during crucial parts of the game.

Link

Basically, the conspiracy theory is based on the following:

- Kasparov was convinced that certain moves Deep Blue made could not possibly made by a computer (see link for one of the moves in question).
- IBM initially refused to publish Deep Blue's logs from the matches (they eventually provided them)
- IBM retired Deep Blue after defeating Kasparov.
- IBM received a lot of favorable publicity after the match, and saw a boost in its stock price.

Is this even plausible? Any chess experts here have any thoughts on Kasparov's claim that certain moves couldn't have been made by a computer?

 

[fkwebinash]

The link states a bunch of fallacies. "Kasparov said that Deep blue couldn't make those moves, so THERE WAS A HUMAN HELPING IT". It's drawing to conclusions based on simple speculation.

 

[grmcdorman]

Indeed. Although I haven't RTFA^*, I don't see how one can definitively say that a given move couldn't have been made by a computer. For that matter, the reverse probably doesn't hold either (computers and humans can make bonehead moves).

* Read The Fine Article: an acronym often seen on Slashdot.

ETA: Refusing to publish the logs: they may have felt they contained proprietary information; and the machine was special purpose and probably expensive to support and run.

 

[Bob Klase]

The link states a bunch of fallacies. "Kasparov said that Deep blue couldn't make those moves, so THERE WAS A HUMAN HELPING IT". It's drawing to conclusions based on simple speculation.

You'd also have to consider the relatively small number of humans who would have a chance of winning against Kasparov.

 

[madurobob]

Doesn't seem very likely to me. Kasparov was smugly overconfident and was demoralized by his first quick defeat in the six game match. He never got a chance to recover.

He never really had much of a chance. DeepBlue had access to a database of games Kasparov had played over several years and could analyze not just expected moves - but expected Kasparov moves. On the other hand, kasparov had access to only the few games he and DeepBlue played together.

Kasparov and DeepBlue also only played a hurried six games. When Spasky and Fisher played their storied match in the 70s they played 21 games - enough for them to get a feel for each other's strengths and weaknesses.

So, in a sense, Kasparov was playing with odds against him. In a more "fair" setting he may have done better.

 

[madurobob]

From the article:

IBM retired Deep Blue without a rematch. Conclusion: IBM had something to hide.

That only makes sense if you have no head for business and no knowledge of IBM.

Once they beat Kasparov the deed was done. There would be little to gain in beating him again, and much to lose in a defeat.

Plus IBM in '97 was run by Lou Gerstner; famous for an intense focus on cutting spending that didn't drive revenue. The research arm of IBM always had a lot of leeway in how they spent money, but DeepBlue was never meant to be a revenue generator. It was a gimmick, a test to see what they could do. IBM got a little mileage out of it only because marketing took the idea and ran with it. Once the DeepBlue team proved what they could do it was time to get back to the real work of generating those billion dollar breakthroughs they're famous for.

The bottom line is that chess-playing computers is simply not IBM's core business and there is really no money to be made there.

 

[epeos76]

There is a movie about this called, I think, Game Over. It includes some clips from the coverage of the matches.

The movie evidence goes something like this:

Kasparov crushed deep blue in the first game.

In the second game, the computer played very similarly with the exception
of one move that turned the game.

The IBM staff included a grandmaster who was very smug about beating
Kasparov - Means, motive, and opportunity

IBM controlled all access to the computer and refused to turn over the
"logs" for game two.

IBM refused a rematch and scuttled DeepBlue.

From the movie, it looked like Kasparov psyched himself out. Apparently, he could even have forced a draw after the critical move in game two. The only part that is at all suspicious to me is that IBM didn't seize the opportunity to dispel any doubt by turning over the logs from the second game after the match.

 

[dudalb]

Look, I have no doubt that IBM consulted Grand Masters to help program Deep Blue. Who the hell else would it make sense to consult when building a chess program?
But as for evidence that there was some Grand Master sitting behind the scenes during the actual game.........that is CT kookiness.
"Pay No Attention To the Grand Master Behind the Curtain......"

 

[moon1969]

Nah it can"t be true because Kasparov is a joo. rothschilds, zionists and the State of Israel would never let deep blue cheat. But Kasparov hates other joos like Roman Abramovich or Boris Berezovsky. Still to anti-semites it doesn"t matter that Vladimir Putins best friends Roman Abramovich is a joo. Maybe the nazi nashi youth thinks that Roman Abramovich is a good joo?

 

[madurobob]

Nah it can"t be true because Kasparov is a joo. rothschilds, zionists and the State of Israel would never let deep blue cheat. But Kasparov hates other joos like Roman Abramovich or Boris Berezovsky. Still to anti-semites it doesn"t matter that Vladimir Putins best friends Roman Abramovich is a joo. Maybe the nazi nashi youth thinks that Roman Abramovich is a good joo?

Um, yeah... and much of the IBM empire was built on profits from doing business with nazi Germany. Somehow that figures into all this as well

 

[CFLarsen]

Whatever a human can do, a computer can do even worse.

 

[SezMe]

Kasparov was smugly overconfident and was demoralized by his first quick defeat in the six game match. He never got a chance to recover.

There is a movie about this called, I think, Game Over. It includes some clips from the coverage of the matches.

The movie evidence goes something like this:

Kasparov crushed deep blue in the first game.

Sounds like that movie is a work of fiction and not to be relied upon as evidence of anything.

 

[CptColumbo]

IIRC from the articles at the time of the last match, Kasparov's major complaint was that the computer was able to have every match Kasparov had ever played entered into it and Kasparov had to go into the match without any history on the comp's strategy. He felt that gave "Big Blue" an unfair advantage.

 

[~enigma~]

Look, I have no doubt that IBM consulted Grand Masters to help program Deep Blue. Who the hell else would it make sense to consult when building a chess program?

You don't need to be an expert at chess in order to write a successful program. Do you think all chess programs can be outplayed by the people who wrote the algorithms for them?

 

[Jimbo07]

Does it matter? Computers were bound to get more powerful and be able to analyze games to deeper levels of moves, so even if Kasparov felt that particular match to be unfair, he would have been smart enough to know that the writing was now on the wall for chess...

 

[madurobob]

Sounds like that movie is a work of fiction and not to be relied upon as evidence of anything.

My bad - poor wording on my part. He won the first game, lost the second. It was the loss in the second game - his first loss - that seemed to shake him.

http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/watch/html/c.shtml

Kasparov was stunned by his defeat and left the playing area at great speed without comment

 

[Cuddles]

The bottom line is that chess-playing computers is simply not IBM's core business and there is really no money to be made there.

Another point is that making a computer beat a human at chess just isn't that impressive. Chess is a relatively simple game, and once computers were invented there was never really any doubt that they would one day be able to beat us, since even without clever programing it would be possible to just use brute force. Deep Blue was an interesting test to see if we had reached that point yet, with the conclusion that we have just about, but it's still in the realm of supercomputers and is by no means certain. There's really nothing to be gained by showing that computers can still beat people at chess.

On the other hand, a computer that could beat a master at something like Go would be a serious achievement, and is something that no-one is sure would be possible no matter how powerful computers get, since the amount of calculations required to brute force it are so many orders of magnitude higher.

As for the conspiracy, how can anyone possibly claim that a computer could not have made a particular move? A computer can make any move a human can. Neither I nor Kasparov have access to Deep Blue's program, so we can't comment on how likely it was to make a particular move, but there would certainly be nothing ruling out any move completely.

 

[dudalb]

You don't need to be an expert at chess in order to write a successful program. Do you think all chess programs can be outplayed by the people who wrote the algorithms for them?

Yes, but if nothing else a Grand master would be good to test the program against.
And if it was a chess program for sale, having a Grand master involved would certainly be a good marketing move.

 

[madurobob]

Yes, but if nothing else a Grand master would be good to test the program against.

A necessity, I suppose.

And if it was a chess program for sale, having a Grand master involved would certainly be a good marketing move.

Perhaps, but thats unrelated to DeepBlue. IBM had no intention of makrting a chess program. They were tinkering with AI to use in business modeling solutions and with linking unimpressive processors to generate impressive processing power. The lessons learned from DeepBlue can be seen applied in the kickazz BlueGene line super computers.

Also, FWIW, DeepBlue was over 10 years ago. With todays computers and AI I'd wager a new computer-human match would end with the computer undefeated.

 

[PixyMisa]

Another point is that making a computer beat a human at chess just isn't that impressive. Chess is a relatively simple game, and once computers were invented there was never really any doubt that they would one day be able to beat us, since even without clever programing it would be possible to just use brute force.

Actually, there was a lot of doubt expressed about this. There were plenty of confident predictions that computers could never beat top-ranking human chess players. All wrong, of course.

On the other hand, a computer that could beat a master at something like Go would be a serious achievement, and is something that no-one is sure would be possible no matter how powerful computers get, since the amount of calculations required to brute force it are so many orders of magnitude higher.

I give it five years.