Errors: At 1:43:26, the wrong board position is shown; the proper board position should have been one move later, after each side had moved their rooks. Also, on 1:54:37, the knight moves from f6 to f4 when it should have moved to g4. To my knowledge, these are the only animation errors The song "Deep Blue" during the credits is available to listen on Ryan's UA-cam channel here: ua-cam.com/video/foDzxHHMRsQ/v-deo.html
Only person in the room with the guts to tell him to quit whining. No matter who you are, even if you're the best in the world, when your mom tells you to shut up, you shut up.
The mom is an A+ human being here. Comes to all her kid’s games, tells Gary to shut up, makes an amazing comment about supercomputers, capitalism and psychological warfare. Fantastic person
@@MajoraWaffle Chess really isn’t that difficult of a game nor is it too difficult to learn. You can learn to play on your phone by just moving the pieces around for a few rounds before you really get a feel for how the game works. Honestly though, that move isn’t particularly noteworthy for people playing chess. I’m guessing it was noteworthy, because they finally got the computer to play like a person?
How odd a moment that was, when Kasparov lost the game to the first machine capable of beating him. "Where did I go wrong?" he asked his opponent, as someone who dedicated his life to his craft, with a deep understanding of the game. And yet Deep Blue couldn't answer him. It could only play chess.
So, Kasparov couldn't tell whether a move was a bug or a feature. Clearly, Deep Blue ran on Bethesda's Creation game engine. And it did, in fact, just work.
I Sat my ass down, and watched this whole thing uninterrupted, and never for a second looked at the clock or away from the computer, I don't know the last time I did that with any media. This is an insane amount of Work and research and the fact that i could sit and watch it FOR FREE baffles me. You continue to outdo yourself with every video. Bravo Fredrik, Bravo!
Well, it's hardly for free. For one, it was paid by his Patreons. Also this video is probably monetized, though I'm not sure. Not to undermine Fredrik's work, but I don't think he would have continued if it wasn't for Patreon. He makes about 2600$ a month from it. This video took him 4 months to make, so the budget was about 10000$, which I guess is not bad for an amateur video maker.
As someone who plays a lot of Chess I must say you did a really good job at explaining the games where it's still interesting for good chess players, but approachable enough for those who don't understand the game.
As someone who plays no chess I must say you did an exceptional job at keeping the play-by-play understandable while still keeping the commentary and visuals active enough to keep the attention on the video.
i think that legitimately might be Fred's greatest talent, even beyond his exceptional research and his voice work- a seemingly intuitive knack to explain, describe even the most esoteric or complex/arcane things to an audience who often have little to no knowledge without dumbing down/oversimplifying
To me the saddest part is that it seems that the two adversaries had a deep mutual respect for one another, but the circumstances of the event so greatly tarnished the experience that a similar test of man vs machine could never be repeated.
This is the exactly what I hate about late capitalism. It both provided the opportunity and then crushed it all in the name of stock prices. I don’t think this is the only way to do business. In fact this stock price first mentality is a relatively new one. Starting in the 80s.
The picture of Kasparov used during the matches has a bit of Kuleshov effect- at first it makes him look confident and intimidating. As the story unfolds, the same picture almost looks nervous and insecure.
@@cibo889 Kuleshov was a Russian filmmaker who came up with that if you put the same two clips of a person before and after different images, the emotion and tone changes. So if you put food, it shows the person expressing hunger, but a girl in a coffin changes to the person reacting sadly. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_effect
@@littlenyancat5754 There isn't really a specific time, just whenever the photo of Kasparov is shown when they are replaying the match on the board. It's supposed to be subjective.
I'm surprised how sad this left me. All that build up, to a final match where the machine was bugged and making mistakes, and the master player was too preoccupied looking for tricks to see the computer as an opponent to beat. Ended not with a bang but with a whimper.
I thought i would go "wow what an interesting end to a game of the greatest chess master and a chess computer made by passionate engineers!" But it was so depressing by the end that i just never wanted any of these people to lose nor win
It would have been cool if it was a fun rivalry of a team dedicated to beating this one very impressive guy, then this guy wanting to beat this unpredictable computer and it just ends with a friendly handshake of each parties still wanting to beat the other but it did not go that way at all, i was naive as hell
"Drag your opponent in a dark forest, where 2 + 2 = 5 and the way out is wide enough for only one man". Never in my life could I have imagined such terrifying words could be said about chess.
@@markkrousos5011 Imagine studying a theorem that can prove that for any given set, a solution can be applied to a condensed continuous non-linear space. Imagine now that you discover another theorem that surpass the first, making the solution appliable on the limits of this space. And now a third one, where, given certain conditions met, it applies to the entire space. And now, you're asked to prove it. Top to bottom.
@@markkrousos5011 I became (in)famous for getting three tests a grade 0.5/10, making it to a last chance test, scoring 5/10 (out of sheer memorizing of the questions another guy SCORED 10/10!!!) and getting approved. To this day, this is one of my most absurd "fisherman" stories as people who hears it say.
I have see peaple in real life throw alot of money down the tubes but spoony has to take the cake what 5 grand a month and he couldn't just keep makeing normal videos....
The part where the computer would sacrifice it's queen because grandmasters who sacked their queen normally won was so funny to me. He had the right idea, just not the right context
Aaaaaaand then the anecdote becomes terrifying when you imagine something similar happening to a military computer. "Oh, so nuking Hiroshoma and Nagasaki won the war? Sweet. I'll just nuke here...and here..and also here...oh, what about here? You know what, let's just nuke everywhere, then I'll DEFINITELY win!" - Skynet, probably.
Learning algorithms are useful to give advice to people... but not so much to make decisions, because you can't predict what they'll decide to do. What the AI learned is often impossible to tell until it's put in action, at which point it'll occasionally do stuff like that. Source: Working at a HR firm that tried to add a learning algo to its product to make some human management decisions and identify early problems with regard to worker retention. It... uh... failed. Fortunately, it failed in QA and not in prod.
@@casbyness Watch Wargames, a movie released in 1983 directed by John Badham. (edit : he cited it at 34:22) Let's say it's about a military A.I controlling nuclear weapons... (37 years later the movie still hold up, also good actors)
I admire Kasparov's attitude towards technology. In the early years he saw himself as a way for computers to improve. Then to have Deep Blue drove him to the brink of a mental breakdown, he is still an advocate for it and all the good it can do. If that were me I probably would have cursed technology for the rest of my life, at the very least be very suspicious of it
The problem with his position on chess/AI is sadly all too common. A good person finds it very hard to see what a bad person can do with that sort of tech. While a bad person knows full well how much good it can do but prefers to make automated armed drones. But neither of them see the possibility of emergent behaviour, the complete potential independence of concepts and "thought" in a suitably advanced AI (or even just a world class bug). Imagine a national AI energy control system, that balances needs and systems across the country - notices that certain facilities have high energy uses and bugs out, providing old peoples homes, or hospitals with *its* assumptions of the power they need, based on similar sized utterly unrelated facilities, in a Canadian grade winter... The last words of the human race will be along the lines of "it shouldn't have done that...". Because the people who design this stuff are always under the control of others who in the relatory functional sense are Baboons with delusions of grandeur and a company car... Witness IBMs behaviour. I don't like our odds as a species..
@@rosiehawtrey the real tragedy is that such computer controlled systems could potentially turn our world into a utopia. But they wont because the only humans with the resources and power to implement them would have to craft them with completely altruistic intent, and willingly surrender their own control. It's a pipe dream.
@@rosiehawtrey As a programmer with 25 years experience, your "It shouldn't have done that" comment made me chuckle to myself as it something I have heard a lot over the years.
@Egg T I personally don't think he because a villain. His goal had always been to create the greatest chess player, and that's what he was trying to do the whole time. You can see that in how he left IBM and asked kasparov to a rematch on a new machine. IBM was the bad guy, doing it exclusively for their own financial gain, only letting the guy reach his goal because they were profiting
@Egg T Literally nothing about Hsu paints him as a villain. Nobody's a villain here. IBM did something really shitty by never allowing another chess match against Deep Blue again but the real meat of the story is Man vs Technology. The measuring of human limits against that of a machine.
like the son of a peasant who didn't want a lifetime working the field and so sets out for adventure with his dad's rusty blade..... and then gets mugged and killed by bandits 15 miles down the road shortly after.
His mother telling Gary to "shut up" made me spit out my drink, lol. One of the greatest minds in the world and he still has to put up with his mother. It makes me smile because we realize he's human just like us.
Feng-Hsiung Hsu: I want to create the ultimate chess machine with the ability to defeat any opponent in it's wake! Garry Kasparov: I want to prove that I am the greatest chess player there ever was, human or otherwise! IBM: stonk
meanwhile in Carnagie Mellon University : Hans Berliner : "Feng-hsiung Hsu was able to build a smaller, stronger version than this super computer in a garage, with a box of scraps" his team : "I'm sorry, I'm not Feng-hsiung Hsu"
Hans Berliner’s story is honestly really tragic. You can’t blame him for being a little pissy when they first started winning, really. Like, this is the type of thing that villain backstories are made of
I mean, fair but also that's the role of a teacher/mentor. To present the problem and let the student figure out the solution. In theoretical studies and development it pays to be open to radical ideas despite the risk they can carry. Hsu pointed out a logical method of reducing cost and producing a better machine that was revolutionary (if not a bit radical given that decentralized processing was initially faster) and when denied decided to take his idea and run with it. Bitterness is understandable but I feel that as much as Hans' bitterness was toward Hsu and his team it was also directed at his own shortsightedness.
I wasn't sure who I was rooting for until that part about IBM not letting Kasparov watch Deep Blues matches but after that I was 100% on Team Kasparov. That was dishonorable and gave their side a significant advantage. Also, you told this story really well. I know nothing about chess but this story held my attention the entire run. Well done and thank you.
i was on kasparov then IBM and stick with kasparov in the end since IBM didnt played it with sportmanship spirit it was like, once they knew the stock increase, they becomes greedy for it for kasparov, just like green goblin said, "what ppl loved more than a hero is a fallen hero"
@@3takoyakis I feel bad for Hsu and his team as well since they seemed to be more than willing to cooperate with Kasparov. The fact that they wanted to, but were unable to, provide logs both through sheer bad luck from the computer as well as IBM's interference is very sad. If Kasparov was able to contact Hsu or another member of his team directly, rather than having to go through IBM, I feel like it would've been significantly different. A legendary man lost a match he likely could've won, and a legendary team won a game because the house made sure deck had been stacked in their favor; I'm sure that nobody aside from corporate big wigs were content with the way things shook out and it must've left a bad taste in their mouths. IBM should've been ashamed.
It makes sense - all programs have bugs; oversights. I'm sure that kasparov could have found a dumb, basic pattern or scenario the programmers had overlooked, and exploited it. I'm sure that's what IBM feared most of all; their million dollar computer going from a world class chess player to a bumbling rookie due to an exploit
I disagree that it was "dishonorable". Knowing what an opponent has done in the past is FAR more predictive of what it will do in the future for a computer player than it is for a human player. It almost makes me wonder if maybe they shouldn't build in some fuzzy logic. Like, evaluate the top N moves and assign them probabilities based on their relative strengths, then roll the dice to see which it uses just to prevent an opponent from knowing with certainty what it will do in any given situation. That's actually almost what happened in the second competition; Blue was making errors due to bugs but since Kasparov wasn't aware of the bug he thought the computer might have found a truly inspired line of play that he just wasn't capable of seeing. Had he had more games to analyze he might have realized "Oh, in this situation it ALWAYS makes this mistake" and then been able to capitalize on that.
For real. Seemed like it was the Deep Blue team trying to build a CPU that could beat the best chess player, but IBM just wanted the publicity of winning, regardless of the means.
Yea, seems really shitty, underhanded and unsportsmanlike. If Deep Blue were a professional chess player then its games would have been publicly available for Kasparov to review and analyse, it can't really be said that IBMs machine was truly better given this unfair advantage. Nevertheless, modern chess programs would absolutely demolish any player, so i guess it was an inevitable victory of machine over man
i think i’d get much better at chess too if i had a russian man telling me “i don’t think you’re on the right track” when i make a wrong move edit: azerbaijani man but u get what i mean
It has to be stressed. Back in the mid nineties, the PC was still a mind blowing revolutionary idea, the internet was this hazy, strange program only accessible on your parent's computer at work and on the school computers. The thought of a computer beating a human being at chess was equal parts crazy and scary. That being said, hearing the whole story for the first time recontextualizes everything to me. IBM played dirty in order to beat Kasparov, tarnishing the work and legacy of Deep Blue's creators in the process.
@Cameron IBM cared more about the economic side of beating the chess grand master than the technological achievement that Deep Blue really is. IBM provided poor conditions to both Kasparov which was not in his best intererst. IBM didn't provide the DB's private chess plays for Gary to analyze while his games were always public for anyone and the reluctance of IBM to publish any data about DB were very suspicious.
@D B the intentions were totally okay, hell it's the reason the team were able to build a machine but they had not reason to play dirty while they could've sacrificed some time to let the match play out for real
@D B YEah, corporations getting filthy rich is more important than anything, it seems. Those boots must be mighty tasty if you lick them with such aplomb.
Hey fredrik, a little more than a year ago I stumbled across this video and fell in love with AI and carnegie mellon university through your fantastic storytelling. I've recently been admitted to CMU's school of computer science to hopefully pursue an AI major. Thank you for your inspiration! An edit 2 years later: thank you all for the well wishes! Loving my time at CMU, can’t believe I’m half way through!
As much as it seems impressive how Deep Blue performs, the fact it only was able to keep up with Kasparov with hardware of that size really puts into perspective how efficient the human mind is at its peak.
@@dashiellgillingham4579 100% the latter. My phone contains personal stuff, yes, but my mind contains the culmination of my entire existence. It's mine and mine alone, even in a world that becomes more and more surveiled and controlled.
This reminds me of the book "The Man Who Sold The Moon" The narrator does everything in his power to get to the moon after he acquires it for 50 cents. He leveraged everything to build a megacorp to fund a rocket. After a successful return trip he is informed by the board of directors that he cannot get on the rocket because he is too valuable for the company to potentially lose.
This sounds like the most possible outcome for Elon Musk's dream of stepping on Mars. He might get other people to do it, but he will mosy likely never be able to step on a rocket due to his importance in the company. Man can you imagine the depression that would hit?
@Mialisus 5 day vacation maybe 100 years from now, but Musk is what? Almost 50? He has about 40 years before kicking it and about 30 years before he's not healthy enough to board a space ship. At the paxe space exploration is going, his chances of even leaving LEO are very low, not to mention since he's CEO, his investors would rather place him in house arrest before letting him board a rocket.
@Mialisus Thats where your wrong. Billions and Billions of people live and die on earth but very few get to ever experience space travel. You may be right in a practical sense. It would be boring barely ever leaving your enclosed environment. But the sense of purpose you would feel would be incredible. You are doing what virtually no other human has in its entire existence. Even being a person to board the ISS or walk on the moon is akin to being a Greek Myth. Thousands of years of technological advancements, man hours spent crafting mathematical formulas, and craftsman endlessly refining tools have lead to the final frontier. And you are now reaping the benefits of mankinds lifetime spent troubleshooting. Billions of people have looked up to the heavens but you have actually been there. The planet named after the Roman empires god of war. Mars.
It really is cool to see how the question "can chess computers beat humans?" went from "It's theoretically possible but practically very unlikely to be competitive" to "It can play about on par with Grandmasters" and nowadays the answer is just "if a computer wasn't artificially impairing itself, no human nor committee of them could beat it"
Technically the computer is given data from committees upon committees of people who are probably grandmasters. So technically it is just humans beating humans, but with an AI twist.
@@HonsHon i guess you could say in a sense a part of their souls for chess are infused and combined into the machine living on and accumulating the knowledge of all chess masters beforehand just like chessmasters today learn from books of the chess masters long past
that's usually me when i bomb at an MTG prerelease. you'd think 20+ years of experience would offer me... well, anything. but nope, i still suck at a competitive level. even for something as casual as a prerelease.
A lot of the opinion you will hear about the match is heavily influenced by the person's opinion of Kasparov himself. Because if you think he's just being a sore loser you're much less likely to hear his points.
Them manipulating him for stock value was pretty sick. If it had been for the sake of scientific process that'd be one thing, but if they'd really wanted that, they'd have him playing at his best.
Nah, Garry was a warrior that died on his feet. When you're the best you can only go on so long before you start looking to be tested, if not outright beaten.
I’ve always heard the story of Deep Blue and how it was a monumental achievement in computing, how it was the first computer to beat a grand master. I never heard any of the shady, psychological side where they refused to give Kasparov certain information, that was fascinating to hear.
IBM truly saw it as a battle when they saw the potential for publicity DB was and they did what anyone on a battle would do, go for the jugular and give them no quarter
What I find so compelling about this particular competition-in particular the first match-is that it’s a totally asymmetrical battle where both sides are heroes. On the one hand you have IBM and Dr. Hsu pushing the boundaries of what was possible in computing, and on the other hand you have Kasparov, who is both an incredible chess player and a generally inspiring person. The Kasparov-Deep Blue match was sold as man versus machine, but it was really a competition between great human minds on both sides. And despite the tension later on, everybody wins-Kasparov made a lot of money and became a household name outside the chess world, Hsu got to know his computer was able to defeat the greatest human chessplayer of his era, and IBM made even more money and improved their public image in dramatic fashion. It’s a shame the rematch ended with the controversy it did, but even still nobody was really hurt.
I can’t fathom the amount of research, effort, and dedication went in to making this. You’ve managed to take a subject in which I have no interest of and drawn me in to watch the entire 2 hours. Your ability to present stories in such a gripping manner is very impressive
Also wondering how I’ve been drawn in as I have never played chess but can respect the intelligence, strategy and planning required. But this is fascinating, kudos to the man
I think it’s super encouraging how Kasparov is able to advocate for the advancement of the technologies that crushed his passion because of its capabilities outside of a chess game.
If a tank could win a tug of war Co petition with rhe world's strongest man, would he feel shame for a machine being better than what he is best at? It's the same thing really
It's sad hearing about how a passionate battle between two enthusiastic parties devolved into a tainted, profit driven, antagonistic rivalry. IBM's treatment of Kasparov and the lack of a common passion for chess itself made the later parts of this story depressing.
Computer parts don't pay for themselves. Hsu had all the opportunity to decline IBM's offer, but he didn't because they had the resources to, as Knudsen put it, "build the ultimate chess machine" (not to mention being able to contact Kasparov and guarantee the matches would take place), something they would have never given him the tools to had they not seen something for themselves in the whole ordeal. Still, the way they conducted the affair was shameful, this was not the way a computer should have defeated the world champion (though one must note such shenanigans are not unheard of in the world of high level chess).
The most impressive thing about Fredrik's docs even beyond the intense production value is how engaging he can make play-by-play even for unfamiliar topics. I first noticed this with how gripping the segment in the Wings piece was, and this is no less gripping. Phenomenal work as always.
Hsu has to be one of the most humble and compassionate people I've ever heard of. He could've dismissed Berliner as being old and out-of-touch, but instead he showed him respect and empathized with his perspective/feelings. I just... wow... we could all learn something from him.
@@koirvne The man is currently an anti-theist and former Christian. This influence even affected his writings which contain Biblical imagery Just because he is Asian doesn't mean he is a "learned Daoist" don't stereotype people, thats racist.
@@kylejenson6607Considering the fact that Daoism is the second most practiced religion in Taiwan, it is fair to assume that because that religion is a part of the culture he is from. It is no different than assuming a Westerner as being possibly Abrahamic (mainly Christian) even tho some of us are Atheist. If the assumption is incorrect, then simply correct the record and move on. Stop watering down the definition of racism just to bolster your own projecting ego.
@@tai_marshal Yea, but you want to know the difference? About 1/3 of Taiwan is Daoist. About 3/4 of America is Christian. It's not really racist, but it's still a little weird. It's like saying "Oh you have such good moral values, you must be atheist." Assuming religion from ones actions is certainly odd.
Yeah but he could have been the doyen of dot-matrix; the prince of pagination; and the legend of line feed. His research into printer controllers could have saved billions of paper jams and with that - countless lives.
I’ll be honest, when Knudsen said on Twitter that the newest DtRH episode would be a rollercoaster of emotions and one of the most upsetting, but fascinating topics, I was initially really confused that it was about chess. (Though it makes the tweet about play-by-plays all the more evident) But... Jesus. This *was* a ride from start to finish. As a student in game design, I’m obligated to be interested in computers and their history, so I loved learning about Hsu’s growth from a fledging student on his way to be commercial engineer to the major proponent behind advancements in strategic AI. Anyone can sympathize with “You only ever get one chance to make history.” And Kasparov being genuinely willing and eager to make advancements to technology with the express purpose to defeat him is very admirable in a kind of existential way. Your way of delivering inner thoughts through deep analysis of interview and autobiographical information really made me think I was an audience member to an intricate battle of two rivals, both with immense respect for each other. But the conclusion, while a victory for Deep Blue/Hsu, proving what was thought to be impossible, felt so empty. IBM’s sabotage of Kasparov, the souring of both competitors’ views on their ambitions, knowing that the world champion was reduced to a fumbling despair ridden husk because of his own loss in confidence, and, most saddening, that Hsu SHOULD be one of the most recognized names in history for his massive achievement for technology, but I didn’t know about him or Deep Blue until today and neither did my chess loving father when he wondered what I was watching. What should have been a momentous feat for Hsu, who abandoned a safe career to change history, and the advancement in AI Kasparov sought to achieve became muddied by, what else, greed. IBM saw Deep Blue as the perfect trend to capitalize on and Kasparov & Team Deep Blue as nothing more than the means by which to do so. Profoundly depressing. But this is a MUST WATCH video, everything was absolutely edited perfectly, scripted perfectly, scored perfectly. The wait was so so so worth it.
He knew that the programmers had their distinct play style, he knew to watch for it. Which speaking how many programmers there were he would play against makes it even more insane.
Actually, that was his mistake I think in the rematch. Modern evaluations of the games showed that there were winning chances for Kasparov in the rematch games. But he played reserved "anti-computer" chess...or against the programming...instead of trusting his gut. I honestly believe if that had not been the case that Kasparov could have defended human dominance in chess a second time around.
Watched all of *The Queen's Gambit*, all I know is the Sicilian is an aggressive strategy, so I pictured my girl going magical girl transformation whenever she decimated all those bois
"It no longer felt like a computer. It felt like playing against a black hole. And now it was sucking him in..." An incidentally fitting quote, for this episode AND the series. Well done, Fredrik!
But what apt way of putting it that makes total sense. You couldn't do anything but play into this strategy that is foreign and uncomfortable. Any ounce of effort you put into playing how to feel comfortable is instantly crushed. I completely see how mentally taxing that would be
That's the sort of feeling you get when either playing against someone vastly superior... or in this case, playing against someone with a team backing them up, and stuck with a handicap.
That was definitely one of the best parts of the video, Fred did a great job at describing the stress and mental anguish Kasparov was under at that moment.
It was honestly really sad seeing the dreams of Feng-Hsiung being undermined by IBM in order to push their own narrative and boost their stocks. You can tell he felt bad for the severe disadvantage that was given to Kasparov, and didn't like how IBM turned it from his biggest goal into their best marketing opportunity. The reason the story seems so poetic is that IBM manufactured it to be that way. edit: what the hell did this thread turn into
It's almost like there was a driving ideology moving IBM at play here... But yeah, it's really sad, what could have actually been a poignant test of human willpower and skill became a circus built solely to raise one company's profits. We will never know if Kasparov could have actually defeated Deep Blue at its full capability, because IBM was never interested in that.
IBM could have been the leader of AI today as well as AI technology. Well, they've missed a ton of other opportunities, too. But IBM still makes a lot of money, I guess.
@Mako Cat the building of the super computer itself only happened because of capitalism, do you think IBM was interested in funding some chinese guy's computer because they were interested in advancing computer chess? What about IBM funding Kasparov projects and his stuff? In the end everyone ended up winning
@Reno Thomas Obviously there are many, many worse things going on, but to give something shitty essentially a free pass because it's not as bad isn't any more productive. You mention working towards breeding innovation, but that's exactly what IBM crushed by stacking the deck in their favor. Had they played in good faith without tormenting Kasparov physically and mentally, they would have been able to pursue more in the name of AI and computing in general. Kasparov was a proponent of the technology and was a willing public figure for them. Short term greed led them to miss out on opportunity for innovation and that's a critique of Capitalism in your own words.
every few months, i come back and watch this video. i recall, back in april, i was absolutely terrified to give a half-hour thesis defense, and i watched this video before delivering it. took a lot of notes from the way things were clearly and professionally enunciated, but with tangible feeling behind it. got an A on that thesis defense.
@@jamesmayle3787 ah yes. Because their hard work defending their thesis, painstaking research, and personal sacrifice to get the damn thing written, and countless hours of frustration, can ALL be boiled down to Gawd. What a revelation for the ages everyone, give this man a medal for his prodigious theological reasoning.
The power of information: a legit, 2hrs documentary you made "for free" that will still be monetarily worthwhile. Excellent job. This explains why you were quiet as of late.
Yep. Make a two hour video on something that has all relevant information on it, on the first page of google and has been covered twice a year by some random 2 mil sub cahannels, for the past 5 years. Than sit on that video gathering revenue, and just do nothing with your content for an year. That's how you get a channel in the algorithm's limbo, and end up having it stagnate for years. As this one has proven.
@@babayega1717 It's a bit of a duality. I'd say my favorite channel's are the ones that produce really limited numbers of videos with high quality. On the other hand I do like regular content as well, but get annoyed when they suddenly start producing less than normally and will start to look to fill that (sometimes temporary) hole. These documentary's neatly summarize the information in comprehensive way. I'm really not fond pf chess, but the naration, explanation and behind the scenes events make it a worthwhile watch. The algorithm only accounts for new viewers, which get recommended the video. Regular viewers will, most likely, watch the video's anyway when they either see it pop up in their subscription feed or just check up on the channel once in a while.
@@mishafinadorin8049 Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that he was very immature and let his losses go to his head. His comments before and after the game came off as very snobbish, as if he was trying to save face by constantly downplaying Deep Blue and its team. Also, him accusing Deep Blue of cheating just because it made unconventional moves was downright childish. Finally, the way he basically said "Yeah, well, Deep Blue is obsolete because it defeated me", came off as a very insecure way of downplaying the loss.
I really appreciated the way that you switched from talking about Hsu's machine to talking about IBM's machine. It helped illustrate that the game wasn't really just an honest programmer against an honest chess player. It's total bull the way that IBM treated Kasparov, I'm honestly surprised he even stayed at the second match.
@@Robert-ms2xs ibm had Gates' mother on the Board. He, Bill never created a damn thing in his entire life & he's a spoiled little boy- his entire lifetime. Thank you for your comment.
Does anybody find it suspect that they dismantled Deep Blue *immediately* after the win? My theory is that because they programmed the machine so extensively to beat Kasparov it wouldn’t hold up so well against similarly rated grand masters
If so, that would be kind of disingenuous and disrespectful to the man. I wonder if one of the programmers had some deep-rooted issues with chess players or whatever. We sometimes forget the human aspect, the _Why,_ behind stories like these. In this case, why did they want to make a chess playing AI?
I've watched several documentaries on Deep Blue and Kasparov and obviously on the match between the two. This was the best one I've watched. Another great job, thank you again Fredrik Knudsen. Love your work.
Do you have any other recommendations on the topic? I’ll probably read Kasparov’s book. Also, what do you think about the way IBM handled the second match?
38:31 I'm honestly surprised this isn't talked about more. They had to change the name cause people kept calling the machine "Deep Throat"? That's hilarious.
do you understand what deep throat means? probably not, if you're "honestly surprised" why in the era that it was in, that people would mention it as such.
They’re referring to the Watergate Informant, he used the alias Deep Throat to hide his identity since this led to President Nixon being impeached and stepping down from office.
@Nicholas Koa Why would they have found it hilarious if they didn't know what it meant? Please re-read their comment. They clearly said they found it surprising that people weren't talking about it, not that it happened.
Note to self: narrate my movements in Final Fantasy Tactics in chess terms. "Ramza to h6, takes goblin". I also feel if I wasn't as tired as I am after staying up way later than I should've to watch a documentary about chess, I could make a halfway decent Hollow Knight "Pale King" reference, but yeah. You could slap "Omega Weapon" or "Ultima Weapon" on one of those Chess Personalities and I'd say "yeah that's about right."
This just makes me furious at IBM. Why can't we have a fair showing of innovation vs. mastery? By halfway through the second game the man already doesn't stand a chance, for him to win wouldn't disprove Deep Blue's abilities, it would be a testament to his flexibility and analysis. Ultimately both sides are amazing minds victim to the circumstance they stirred up. Garry's brilliance against the machine that Tsu had engineered. If only their relationship hadn't been so soured by the corporate influence that had ruined what could have been such a brilliant battle of intellect.
The art really made me understand how fucking terrified Kasparov was when he said that Deep Blue transformed from an AI enemy into a black hole that simply absorbed his entire ability to process thoughts.
@Genowave yeah chess is all psychology... I haven’t played irl for a while (COVID mess so nobody’s socializing) but a live match is actually thrilling lol... I don’t know if people think of it but chess is a WAR simulation so it’s very exciting lol. It’s two people battling their intelligence, imagination, their experience/ learned knowledge, and even the psychology of how they act: confident or not, intimidating, struggling etc. One mind vs the other, and the outcome validates the winner’s intelligence /abilities, over the other. Actually it’s one reason that the Deep Blue saga is so fascinating because it ended up destroying Kasparov’s confidence and completely disoriented him, including his distractions of obsessing over his thoughts of IBM cheating, and wondering who he was even playing against, a computer or a cheating group of people who were feeding moves to Blue. Plus he was trying play-styles that were awkward for him... the psychology of it all really destroyed him toward the end...
In the grand scale of things, the effects of this whole thing weren't terrible. Hsu and Garry still had successful careers afterwards, and the Deep Blue matches didn't significantly change the game of chess. But it still feels a lot like a tragedy... I don't know, there's something very sad about Deep Blue being worked on so diligently for so long, only to be retired the instant it creates sufficient profit for IBM to justify its investment. And the poor showmanship of IBM during the 2nd set of games. And even the attitudes of the public about it being a "man vs. machine" thing. It never was; the machine couldn't think for itself. It was chess grandmaster vs. team of programmers with no chess background. Which is still a brilliant and interesting matchup, I just think framing it as some dramatic sci-fi duel cheapens it all.
As much as I love the crazy Chris-chan video and the others like it, this is probably the best video Fredrik has ever made. Just a great topic covered in such a nice format/display to keep even those who know nothing about computers or chess interested.
The difference between what makes your docunentaries so unique and terrific VS most docs, is that I rarely have any prior knowledge to your subject and I'm always excited and hooked to watch any upload.
That's why whenever people suggest that he cover someone like Logan Paul, I always tell them they're missing the point of this channel. I guarantee almost nobody was looking up videos on the Austrian wine poisoning
I agree with you; but sometimes, oversimplification is - sometimes - an necessary evil for docs as a result of audience's preference - mostly in UA-cam, by either making them in two different options for docs informative, but more seriousness in its subject; or enjoyable, but informative in its subject. In either way, Internet Historian and Oversimplified won popularity by using the latter option - pioneered by one popular but (semi-)retired UA-camr who posted a video simply known as 'History of Japan' - an example of 'enjoyable, but informative in its subject'. But for me, personally, I enjoyed both options - balancing both seriousnesses of the subject and enjoyable but lighthearted of the subject itself.
@@james_fisch Because he (Fredrik) wanted to wait until the huge issue is pretty much over and slowly sank into obscurity for good, except for some curious internet 'historian', WingsofRedemption, DSP and some of the subject that Fredrik discussed is an example - despite their problems is still continued, albeit in a more quietened way that didn't entice the mainstream audience.
Fredrik: *Puts hundreds of hours of work into something that the public can enjoy for free, and by every right deserves to make money for what he does on youtube* Also Fredrik: *Removes Ads from videos* What a Chad
Kasparov was the true winner here. He was defeated by technology, then later gets into politics and advocates for technology. Ultimate Rocky Balboa move: using defeat to become stronger!
Gary Lost because IBM played dirty, unfair conditions, unfair situations and gave Deep Blue everyone possibility to beat Kasparov. I want to see Deep Blue against Google's Deep Mind
@@willypro4949 Doesn't seem weird to give the computer every opportunity to win when people are claiming its impossible for a computer to beat a human at the highest level. Plus the dude even said years later he made mistakes and there were rounds he could have won if he hadn't...
@@stonehallow although true, I do believe if IBM would have been more open about Deep Blue and if Hsu and his team would have been prohibited to modify or tamper Deep Blue after a match then I will give all the credit to Deep Blue.
This is really one of my favorite documentaries of all time. I frequently rewatch and use it almost as a sound machine sometimes. It's so well done on such an interesting topic. One of my favorite things about your editing style is that you always put the quote on the screen during the full reading of it. It makes it super easy to find. Great job, Fredrik.
Hearing the full story really makes it seem like a pyrrhic victory. IBM had to hide their engines games, give Kasparov uncomfortable quarters both during and between games, hard-code it to play a sacrifice it would have never otherwise played (I realize opening books are standard, but it still feels against the spirit of the engine playing the game) and also close the door on any future rematches to protect the illusion of total victory.
Yeah, it feels like Kasparov was never really defeated by Deep Blue. Maybe beaten by IBM but not by the machine. I feel like they could have interested him in the science by making sure there were logs, his insight could have been valuable.
Without the greed if IBM Deep Blue would have actually beat Kasparov. It would have taken it a few more years but it was really inevitable. Sad that true science was abandoned so easily
A rematch likely wouldn't have mattered in the long run in regards to the whole "man vs. machine" theme though. Deep Blue's capabilities were nothing compared to modern computers. It was really only a matter of time before computers possessed the necessary processing power and memory storage to compete with high level human chess players.
@@Khenfu_Cake i think its still more about the right to a seemingly fair game. Truly it was one-sided in favor of IBM. The ability of Karsprov to think like a man and a machine and showcase seems denied so that a machine can seem more human. If that makes any sense.
@@ACowboyHat True. I wasn't addressing the IBM vs. Kasparov part of the match, only the overall man vs. machine part. The former was definitely iffy, the latter would have favored the machine eventually even if Deep Blue lost to Kasparov in the proposed rematch. I was merely mentioning this because for some reason there are still people who think Deep Blue is the epitome of chess playing computers. Deep Blue is more than 20 years old technology, which in IT terms means it's ancient. Nowadays high end chess computers are more than able to at the very least go toe to toe with a GM.
Coming back to this video a year and a half after it was originally uploaded, looking at it without the normal hype of a DTRH upload. This is like, objectively one of the best documentaries I've ever seen on UA-cam. Major props to Fredrik and his team for coming out with really high quality videos like this one non-stop
The thing that is utterly fascinating to me is when, at the final matches, Garry was overthinking himself. He completely forgot a crucial thing is that this computer was designed by humans, which ultimately will have flaws and make mistakes like other technology. Instead he thought the computer was making plays he would not be able to comprehend. I feel other people really didn't help with the otherthinking and IBM being assholes really made it worse. He sort of was a sore loser, but honestly I would be too if this company was acting shady with me.
Well he had to figure out where the computer glitches he was trying to exploit were, while not falling for tricks they made for that, while also thinking that perhaps they were cheating, since they had been really shady before too. Not to mention playing a game to exploit a computer that can know all the possible moves is not playing chess, its playing against what the computer does not know. He even said "I am playing Anti computer and Anti Kasparov." He even said it was not fun and was basically just him trying to find code holes. Some which he discovered both times but they fixed before the next game, which seems rather unfair, because that was 3 programmers vs 1 man. He lost but he did not have to like it. How he was intentionally being treated, psychologically profiled, how the men using this machine did not even know the craft to answer a simple question, how they were risking little while he risked his title to some machine and of course how this team of men refused to let the playing field be even. They could have told him, but opted to follow orders to win rather than play fair. The man was not required to pay them respect, and they clearly only gave him respect until they could have the advantage to win. That's called showing your true colors. If I was the best in my craft, challenged to beat a machine, run by a TEAM of people trying to do better than me I would want my own team.
@@Edax_Royeaux Only 1 person was playing the game. But there were multiple people working on the game before and during the game. As I stated before, its not like they were cycling chess players every game. It was one guy and Russia leaning on him the entire time. It also does not excuse their disrespectful/shady tactics and practices to get what they wanted. You attacked the argument saying that he had other people studying the previous games, but thats not even comparable to just programing the winning moves to every possible paramutation. They will win eventually with that strategy.
@@Edax_Royeaux By that same logic is like saying "Well Grandpa is gonna die in the next 30 years, so I will push him towards a sooner time to get that inheritance sooner. Its a morally grey area but he will die eventually." Id rather they have beaten him in an honorable way rather than just some people looking to win by any means necessary so they can get the title and a little fame. Even if it meant more time.
IBM sucks. Poor Deep Blue. Imagine being created and looked after, improved for years, and then when you finally succeed and could reach out for more, you get chopped in half and displayed.
@@KicksPregnantWomen i know. But I fix and design electronics and I can tell you that many things... They.. Feel like they are alive. They have their personality. The way they work or fail. When you do this job for so many years, you can.. Talk to electronics.
It's fascinating and wonderful that after the matches, Kasparov didn't become embittened, suspicious, paranoid...he remained magnanimous when it came to the match itself. IBM treated him poorly, but it's good he seemed to hold no real dislike in the years after of the team behind the computer. It's also good to hear he is pushing for progress within Russia. Good on him.
i mean kasparov was a badass : he had the highest winstreak in the history of chess , he had the highest ELO , played evenly against deep blue ( winning the first match ) , defeated a squad of 58000 men in a corrspondance chess match , and generaly speaking i respect him a lot more than the deep blue team in retrospect ...
@@davidegaruti2582 eh, i'd say i respect the deep blue team as well, what i don't respect is IBM and what they did. Mind you, i understand the driving force for profit, i might have done the same in their position, but i hate what they did because i'm more interested to see the proper point when a machine beat a human. and by this i mean having the same disadvantages as one, their matches being fully public. Sure, now we know a computer chess program can probably beat any human on earth at it, but i was truly interested in when that tipping point was properly achieved.
Much like everyone else in the comments, I was rooting for Hsu and his team at first, for the shear desire to advance the field and make history through science. But after IBM entered the picture, it was all ruined and everything became about "corporate flexing", so I became Team Kasparov. It's really sad because this group of people dedicated so much of their lives to do something amazing, with even Kasparov himself and other chess players helping and willing to see that AI developing, just for a greedy company to come in, make quick profits through shady actions and leave the dedicated visionaries to vanish in obscurity.
Both Kasparov and Hsu were following their dreams and advancing their passions-- in a way, they were on the same team fighting soulless corporatism on different fronts.
This is kinda random but IBM took control over the weather channel app(when the it opens you see their name) It’s riddled with ads more than ever before and now you have to pay premium to get certain features and to get rid of advertising. This was never a thing until IBM merged with the company. Plus everything they feature for stories and photos is more depressing now as well. It’s never positive or super, fun educational anymore. I know I ranted about a stupid weather app but I found how weather works fascinating as a teen. So I used the sight often. It’s practically a extreme corporate shell of itself.
The difference between the first match and the rematch is astounding and really shows how shitty corporate beauracracy can ruin the atmosphere of an otherwise friendly competition.
Probably they found out hard and dangerous AI is an the fact that we're not ready for that ... No matter how we look at it a this momen in time. Were not ready ...human greed will find a way to make this amazing discovery into something bad and this proportionate for all people .
If Kasparov wasn't allowed to prepare but the Deep Blue team was, then Deep Blue did not achieve a true victory. But anyway, this has to be your best video ever. It felt way shorter than two hours, and it was just as engaging as any movie/tv show/big budget documentary. I'm also amazed at how seamlessly you were able to simplify highly complex chess strategies so that ignorami like me could follow along. Hands down, yours is now my favorite youtube channel.
@SandboxArrow The heck you even talking about? Only his most recent vid covered American politics. All his other recent videos are largely about... y'know... philosophy. Because he's a philosophy channel. The last time he really focused on Antifa was over 2 years ago.
Kasparov went from accusing them of cheating to declining a rematch after wanting a rematch after his loss. You can tell that he changed a lot mentally and matured more after the game. Could also be that the public and media pressure had lead to him losing his cool which is completely understandable
There was little point in a rematch, they cheated, removed any chance of kasparov knowing who he's playing against, basically gave themselves every advantage possible whilst putting the opponent in a loud black box mentally. Plus how we're they allowed to alter the way deep blue sees the king after game 1?
@@ZaJaClt "Plus how we're they allowed to alter the way deep blue sees the king after game 1?" Are human opponents not allowed to study their last game and adapt during the rest period?
IBM decided to exploit his humanity by using many press as possible while kasparov tries to exploit the machine patterns and system bug but rematch game 2 bug was so _unthinkable_ that he loses his cool
Man, I literally can never see coming half the shit Fredrik finds to talk about. Last thing I was expecting after all this time was the history of Chess A.I. Bless you, Fredrik. You find the most fascinating shit to talk about. Keep up the good work!
Yeah man, This was super spoopy to me after writing one for my senior project and going through all of this in the past. Shannon is the OG, he's the one who proved that the One Time Pad is unbreakable, and is the father of modern AI in other ways with his mechanical mouse in a maze device.
in spy movies/tv shows when someone plays a "deep throat" character it has to be played by a guy because no self respecting movie would call a girl "deep throat" and get away with it.
Computer: Play for point and to win. Chess players: Play logically and with tactics IBM: psychological warfare, small letter contracts, spies, all for money. This was a great achievement, done for the wrong company.
Companies are pretty much awful all around. They're all humble and helpful until they get a win, then they turn around and start being coldly disruptive, destroying the lives of those who helped to build them up in the first place. Anything for those stockholders.
@@CaylexT Computer scientists: Let's make the best effort we can for a computer to solve a hard problem! IBM: Let's hard code the tricky parts we can't figure out to profit billions.
@@z-beeblebrox why not people in general? Maybe all individuals are sociopaths just with different visible masks, like single person corporations where the stockholder is the ego. Altruism is the creation of the imagination.
its quite poetic in a way that deep blues biggest advantage stemmed from its imperfection, its humanity in a way. being unable to know whether the computer is making a simple mistake or a move impossible to comprehend with a human mind.
Yeah, another advantage the computer has... When playing against another human opponent, you can, at least read a person's emotions, body language etc... With a computer, not so. When Garry said, he felt like being sucked into a black hole, that's about how it feels... The only things you have are the board and the moves unless you are deeper into figuring out how the program works to chip away at it's flaws, which will take longer for the average player.
@@generalpinochetfoundthesol3747 excellent question!... Yes, considering the factors involved, our adaptability is more malleable, yet concise... The REAL question is, can our imagination win over calculated analytics?!?... A program is only as good as the programmer, remember, Kasparov resigned after the computer made the knight sacrifice in an opening line but, that line had to be programmed in... I have perused some games played by AlphaZero, astounding to say the least, but machines and computers will still only be an aid to further man's development, not a replacement.... All in all, I believe the imaginative process will rule the chess arena in the end... It is an assumption but still my honest opinion of a situation that requires more thought on the power of computing vs the power of the human mind...
@@fredwatkins5017 I mean a modern chess engine running on hardware as simple as a smartphone can easily crush current world champion Magnus Carlson. Chess engines have gone far far beyond human skill at this point. But they are an extremely valuable tool for humans to improve their chess. Top level chess has been impacted by chess engines. Random flank pawn pushes in the mid game, deeper opening prep. Also funny enough modern chess engines are almost anti materialistic. They value their piece activity and completely locking away the activity of their opponent far more highly than material
Yeah, the preprogrammed openings and the psychological games played by IBM make it more of a computer human hybrid vs human competition rather than a true computer vs human competition.
@@j03man44 Preprogrammed openings are fine though. For AI to play chess, it needs to know how to play chess. But psychological games and uncooperation about information is kinda cheat-y, yea.
@@j03man44 Preprogrammed openings were necessary at the time to create an effective system, and still sort of are. With no board state to react to yet, the only way to decide an optimal opening (unless chess suddenly becomes solvable) is by planning around your opponent. Since computers can't do that, they either have to use randomness generation to pick an opening, depriving the game of a big part of real chess' deepest elements, or to follow an opening book. But yeah, I do think it had some cheap inplications in the last game here. Kasparov almost perfectly identified the strengths and limitations of Deep Blue. He correctly assumed Deep Blue wouldn't take the certain move that won it the game. It only backfired on him because someone on the Deep Blue team was smart enough to add a special case for that trade to its opening book.
@@sayori65 knowing how to play chess and using chess openings is not really the same tho. Alphazero gained its skill without any openingbooks added to it.
For the last like 2 years every 6-8 months i get the very strong urge to rewatch this video. I never was super into chess although i played some growing up it is fascinating to hear about people able to comprehend the game to such an extreme level.
it never left? Saying "glad it's back" because they *dared* take a long time making an ep just discourages this kind of creation. It's not like they take 5 minutes to make, they do actually have to spend time researching, writing, recording, and editing.
I actively rooted for both sides here. This was one of the most riveting sports stories I ever heard and I’m so happyI didn’t hear it until this video thanks to Fredriks impeccable storytelling abilities.
They really did. IBM as as unsportsmanlike as they could have possibly been, and honestly don't think DB would have won without the campaign of hostility the corporation did to Kasparov. And then for them to shutter the project forever, just, ugh...
Errors: At 1:43:26, the wrong board position is shown; the proper board position should have been one move later, after each side had moved their rooks. Also, on 1:54:37, the knight moves from f6 to f4 when it should have moved to g4. To my knowledge, these are the only animation errors
The song "Deep Blue" during the credits is available to listen on Ryan's UA-cam channel here: ua-cam.com/video/foDzxHHMRsQ/v-deo.html
You are the best commentator Channel ever your videos are art, and pure genius
Perfectionist
Sorry about that! I tried to be extra careful so I'm sorry I didn't notice this mistake. Hopefully it's not too distracting!
I never would have noticed. You're one of the best documentarians around. Thanks for the awesome learning!
@@Arcaxon I made a typo in one of the quotes around minute ten, so we're even. :p
The detail of Kasparov’s mother telling him to shut up is hilarious
There's a reason the Queen is the most powerful chess piece. Everyone listens when your mum tells you to shut up
If only the IBM people had their mothers there to tell them to shut up when they started being shitty.
Only person in the room with the guts to tell him to quit whining. No matter who you are, even if you're the best in the world, when your mom tells you to shut up, you shut up.
The mom is an A+ human being here. Comes to all her kid’s games, tells Gary to shut up, makes an amazing comment about supercomputers, capitalism and psychological warfare. Fantastic person
That was my favorite part imagining that old woman yelling shut up and him probably looking all sad and saying ok is so funny to me
I saved the rest of my Trix cereal for this
What a crack
Luv u
And you just aren't sharing???
What a good weekend for deep diving content
Cool beans.
"it made a move that surprised everyone in attendance: pawn to d5"
me, who knows nothing about chess: no way
me for most of the video tbh. i could be spoonfed all the basic rules about chess and still never understand it.
🤣🤣 me
@@MajoraWaffle Chess really isn’t that difficult of a game nor is it too difficult to learn. You can learn to play on your phone by just moving the pieces around for a few rounds before you really get a feel for how the game works.
Honestly though, that move isn’t particularly noteworthy for people playing chess. I’m guessing it was noteworthy, because they finally got the computer to play like a person?
55:57
Anytime Kasparov made a mistake
Me who has maybe played chess a handful of times for fun: YOU BLEW IT!!!
How odd a moment that was, when Kasparov lost the game to the first machine capable of beating him.
"Where did I go wrong?" he asked his opponent, as someone who dedicated his life to his craft, with a deep understanding of the game. And yet Deep Blue couldn't answer him.
It could only play chess.
It actually could, it's just that Hsu forgot its analyses.
Jesus Christ is Lord. It is all true. Please take your salvation seriously. Read the Bible and do what it says
@@jamesmayle3787 Jesus was a pimp, alcoholic and dished out lashes to innocent common merchants, he really is a role model.
@@jamesmayle3787 Huh?!
@@jamesmayle3787 Seek help
So, Kasparov couldn't tell whether a move was a bug or a feature. Clearly, Deep Blue ran on Bethesda's Creation game engine. And it did, in fact, just work.
I can't believe CD project red made Deep Blue.
Gotta love oblivion Fighters Guild bugs. Investigating the willow the wisps and the one involving blackwood company.
only 16 times better
Okay, you made me laugh.
The game was rigged from the start
I Sat my ass down, and watched this whole thing uninterrupted, and never for a second looked at the clock or away from the computer, I don't know the last time I did that with any media. This is an insane amount of Work and research and the fact that i could sit and watch it FOR FREE baffles me.
You continue to outdo yourself with every video.
Bravo Fredrik, Bravo!
Cable tv garbage with its monthly fee
Well, it's hardly for free. For one, it was paid by his Patreons. Also this video is probably monetized, though I'm not sure. Not to undermine Fredrik's work, but I don't think he would have continued if it wasn't for Patreon. He makes about 2600$ a month from it. This video took him 4 months to make, so the budget was about 10000$, which I guess is not bad for an amateur video maker.
Hey, I pay my internet bills to watch this.
It's not really "for free" tho
I just did the same thing, albeit on a dare; it was a very enjoyable experience and well worth the time!
As someone who plays a lot of Chess I must say you did a really good job at explaining the games where it's still interesting for good chess players, but approachable enough for those who don't understand the game.
As someone who plays no chess I must say you did an exceptional job at keeping the play-by-play understandable while still keeping the commentary and visuals active enough to keep the attention on the video.
Avatar checks out
i think that legitimately might be Fred's greatest talent, even beyond his exceptional research and his voice work-
a seemingly intuitive knack to explain, describe even the most esoteric or complex/arcane things to an audience who often have little to no knowledge without dumbing down/oversimplifying
The computer mistaking the queen sacrifice as a winning game plan was quite endearing and childlike
Yeah holyyyy XD
To me the saddest part is that it seems that the two adversaries had a deep mutual respect for one another, but the circumstances of the event so greatly tarnished the experience that a similar test of man vs machine could never be repeated.
Watch the AlphaGo documentary.
This is the exactly what I hate about late capitalism. It both provided the opportunity and then crushed it all in the name of stock prices. I don’t think this is the only way to do business. In fact this stock price first mentality is a relatively new one. Starting in the 80s.
@@joelman1989commie
The picture of Kasparov used during the matches has a bit of Kuleshov effect- at first it makes him look confident and intimidating. As the story unfolds, the same picture almost looks nervous and insecure.
Underrated comment.
@@cibo889 Kuleshov was a Russian filmmaker who came up with that if you put the same two clips of a person before and after different images, the emotion and tone changes. So if you put food, it shows the person expressing hunger, but a girl in a coffin changes to the person reacting sadly.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_effect
What time?
@@littlenyancat5754 There isn't really a specific time, just whenever the photo of Kasparov is shown when they are replaying the match on the board. It's supposed to be subjective.
Red Karnstein which specific picture? I counted about 5 seperate pics lol
Imagine the resume:
Garry Kasparov, Chess Grandmaster and World Champion, Defender of Humanity.
*pacific rim theme*
ua-cam.com/video/1vU7XqToZso/v-deo.html
Defender of Democracy as well, since Kasparov tried to run against Putin.
The band Tropical [redacted] Storm have a great song with lyrics to this effect. ua-cam.com/video/TueUWPhnRJQ/v-deo.html
I was rooting for him the whole video.
He's also currently Chairman of the Human Rights Foundation.
I'm surprised how sad this left me. All that build up, to a final match where the machine was bugged and making mistakes, and the master player was too preoccupied looking for tricks to see the computer as an opponent to beat. Ended not with a bang but with a whimper.
Fear... The killer of the greatest of men. The sinker of the greatest of ships.
Just like the fate of the universe
I'm just curious why you thought your opinion on this topic meant anything.
I thought i would go "wow what an interesting end to a game of the greatest chess master and a chess computer made by passionate engineers!" But it was so depressing by the end that i just never wanted any of these people to lose nor win
It would have been cool if it was a fun rivalry of a team dedicated to beating this one very impressive guy, then this guy wanting to beat this unpredictable computer and it just ends with a friendly handshake of each parties still wanting to beat the other but it did not go that way at all, i was naive as hell
"Drag your opponent in a dark forest, where 2 + 2 = 5 and the way out is wide enough for only one man". Never in my life could I have imagined such terrifying words could be said about chess.
Me, as an Applied Math major: "heh, this is nothing..."
@@ruffusgoodman4137 lol how bad can it get?
@@markkrousos5011 Imagine studying a theorem that can prove that for any given set, a solution can be applied to a condensed continuous non-linear space.
Imagine now that you discover another theorem that surpass the first, making the solution appliable on the limits of this space.
And now a third one, where, given certain conditions met, it applies to the entire space.
And now, you're asked to prove it. Top to bottom.
@@ruffusgoodman4137 *confused screaming*
@@markkrousos5011 I became (in)famous for getting three tests a grade 0.5/10, making it to a last chance test, scoring 5/10 (out of sheer memorizing of the questions another guy SCORED 10/10!!!) and getting approved.
To this day, this is one of my most absurd "fisherman" stories as people who hears it say.
I just knew the "Down the Rabbit Hole" movie would come out before the Spoony movie.
Don't. Tell me. How to make a movie.
Wow, they're already here, huh?
Oh so you watched the Spoony video yesterday too?
@@MforMovesets Close! I rewatched all of the DtRH videos last week.
I have see peaple in real life throw alot of money down the tubes but spoony has to take the cake what 5 grand a month and he couldn't just keep makeing normal videos....
The part where the computer would sacrifice it's queen because grandmasters who sacked their queen normally won was so funny to me. He had the right idea, just not the right context
He's a little confused but he got the spirit
Aaaaaaand then the anecdote becomes terrifying when you imagine something similar happening to a military computer.
"Oh, so nuking Hiroshoma and Nagasaki won the war? Sweet. I'll just nuke here...and here..and also here...oh, what about here? You know what, let's just nuke everywhere, then I'll DEFINITELY win!" - Skynet, probably.
Learning algorithms are useful to give advice to people... but not so much to make decisions, because you can't predict what they'll decide to do. What the AI learned is often impossible to tell until it's put in action, at which point it'll occasionally do stuff like that.
Source: Working at a HR firm that tried to add a learning algo to its product to make some human management decisions and identify early problems with regard to worker retention. It... uh... failed. Fortunately, it failed in QA and not in prod.
@Boa-Noah If Victory
@@casbyness Watch Wargames, a movie released in 1983 directed by John Badham. (edit : he cited it at 34:22) Let's say it's about a military A.I controlling nuclear weapons... (37 years later the movie still hold up, also good actors)
I admire Kasparov's attitude towards technology. In the early years he saw himself as a way for computers to improve. Then to have Deep Blue drove him to the brink of a mental breakdown, he is still an advocate for it and all the good it can do. If that were me I probably would have cursed technology for the rest of my life, at the very least be very suspicious of it
The problem with his position on chess/AI is sadly all too common. A good person finds it very hard to see what a bad person can do with that sort of tech. While a bad person knows full well how much good it can do but prefers to make automated armed drones.
But neither of them see the possibility of emergent behaviour, the complete potential independence of concepts and "thought" in a suitably advanced AI (or even just a world class bug). Imagine a national AI energy control system, that balances needs and systems across the country - notices that certain facilities have high energy uses and bugs out, providing old peoples homes, or hospitals with *its* assumptions of the power they need, based on similar sized utterly unrelated facilities, in a Canadian grade winter...
The last words of the human race will be along the lines of "it shouldn't have done that...". Because the people who design this stuff are always under the control of others who in the relatory functional sense are Baboons with delusions of grandeur and a company car... Witness IBMs behaviour.
I don't like our odds as a species..
@@rosiehawtrey the real tragedy is that such computer controlled systems could potentially turn our world into a utopia. But they wont because the only humans with the resources and power to implement them would have to craft them with completely altruistic intent, and willingly surrender their own control. It's a pipe dream.
if i was the best of all time at something and then got beat by a computer i would go full Kaczynski
@@circeh9499 I think of him when I watch this. Good eye.
@@rosiehawtrey As a programmer with 25 years experience, your "It shouldn't have done that" comment made me chuckle to myself as it something I have heard a lot over the years.
Sure, I’ve got 2 hours to learn about the history of computer chess
You have good taste, Caddy
How does this comment only have 2 repliese?
Oh hi Caddy
Me too, apparently.
Love your videos Caddicarus
“Defender of humanity against the machine scourge” is the most metal thing I’ve heard in a long time, I absolutely love that
It's a fucking fear factory lyric if I've ever seen.
Sounds like a lyric from cartoon opening song, i love it.
Basically a more modern John Henry.
Somebody rec me an anime that embodies that, nao!
@@aaronmelgar7116 neon genesis evangelion
This guy was a legend,”in the end, I decided to go for the glory”
Sounds like a heroic adventurer
@Egg T I personally don't think he because a villain. His goal had always been to create the greatest chess player, and that's what he was trying to do the whole time. You can see that in how he left IBM and asked kasparov to a rematch on a new machine. IBM was the bad guy, doing it exclusively for their own financial gain, only letting the guy reach his goal because they were profiting
@Egg T Literally nothing about Hsu paints him as a villain. Nobody's a villain here. IBM did something really shitty by never allowing another chess match against Deep Blue again but the real meat of the story is Man vs Technology. The measuring of human limits against that of a machine.
like the son of a peasant who didn't want a lifetime working the field and so sets out for adventure with his dad's rusty blade..... and then gets mugged and killed by bandits 15 miles down the road shortly after.
he is one. a very real "Hero" in glinting armor
Quite based ngl
His mother telling Gary to "shut up" made me spit out my drink, lol. One of the greatest minds in the world and he still has to put up with his mother. It makes me smile because we realize he's human just like us.
now realize how many great minds have been "shut up" into not pursuing their dreams because of their moms 😔
"one of the greatest minds" bruh it's a board game.
@@ahadmerchant7510 it’s deeper than that. because it represents technological advancement
@@ahadmerchant7510 you do realize he did other things than just play chess, right?
@@ahadmerchant7510 bruh you completely missed the point lmfao
Feng-Hsiung Hsu: I want to create the ultimate chess machine with the ability to defeat any opponent in it's wake!
Garry Kasparov: I want to prove that I am the greatest chess player there ever was, human or otherwise!
IBM: stonk
That sounds like the ultimate anime
and they ended up with a machine that's specifically tuned against Kasparov...
@@realGBx64Megaton processing power is still megaton processing power.
If this was an anime, Deep Blue and Kasparov will team up to take down the real villain, IBM. Some Goke Vegeta shit
meanwhile in Carnagie Mellon University :
Hans Berliner : "Feng-hsiung Hsu was able to build a smaller, stronger version than this super computer in a garage, with a box of scraps"
his team : "I'm sorry, I'm not Feng-hsiung Hsu"
I dunno why it was weirdly wholesome to hear in the middle of the intense chess match "his mother was there and snacks were provided"
And then she was like “shut up, Garry. Your opponent just fainted!”
Hans Berliner’s story is honestly really tragic. You can’t blame him for being a little pissy when they first started winning, really. Like, this is the type of thing that villain backstories are made of
"... and that is when I, Hans Berliner, became GRANDMASTER! And now, you worthless pawn... FORFEIT TO ME!!!"
That’s a straight-up Scooby-Doo villain backstory.
Yeah but he rejected the guy’s idea. He has to know that he messed up saying no.
I mean, fair but also that's the role of a teacher/mentor. To present the problem and let the student figure out the solution. In theoretical studies and development it pays to be open to radical ideas despite the risk they can carry. Hsu pointed out a logical method of reducing cost and producing a better machine that was revolutionary (if not a bit radical given that decentralized processing was initially faster) and when denied decided to take his idea and run with it. Bitterness is understandable but I feel that as much as Hans' bitterness was toward Hsu and his team it was also directed at his own shortsightedness.
He had every chance to join them
I wasn't sure who I was rooting for until that part about IBM not letting Kasparov watch Deep Blues matches but after that I was 100% on Team Kasparov. That was dishonorable and gave their side a significant advantage.
Also, you told this story really well. I know nothing about chess but this story held my attention the entire run. Well done and thank you.
i was on kasparov then IBM and stick with kasparov in the end since IBM didnt played it with sportmanship spirit
it was like, once they knew the stock increase, they becomes greedy for it
for kasparov, just like green goblin said, "what ppl loved more than a hero is a fallen hero"
@@3takoyakis I feel bad for Hsu and his team as well since they seemed to be more than willing to cooperate with Kasparov. The fact that they wanted to, but were unable to, provide logs both through sheer bad luck from the computer as well as IBM's interference is very sad. If Kasparov was able to contact Hsu or another member of his team directly, rather than having to go through IBM, I feel like it would've been significantly different.
A legendary man lost a match he likely could've won, and a legendary team won a game because the house made sure deck had been stacked in their favor; I'm sure that nobody aside from corporate big wigs were content with the way things shook out and it must've left a bad taste in their mouths.
IBM should've been ashamed.
It makes sense - all programs have bugs; oversights. I'm sure that kasparov could have found a dumb, basic pattern or scenario the programmers had overlooked, and exploited it. I'm sure that's what IBM feared most of all; their million dollar computer going from a world class chess player to a bumbling rookie due to an exploit
I disagree that it was "dishonorable". Knowing what an opponent has done in the past is FAR more predictive of what it will do in the future for a computer player than it is for a human player. It almost makes me wonder if maybe they shouldn't build in some fuzzy logic. Like, evaluate the top N moves and assign them probabilities based on their relative strengths, then roll the dice to see which it uses just to prevent an opponent from knowing with certainty what it will do in any given situation. That's actually almost what happened in the second competition; Blue was making errors due to bugs but since Kasparov wasn't aware of the bug he thought the computer might have found a truly inspired line of play that he just wasn't capable of seeing. Had he had more games to analyze he might have realized "Oh, in this situation it ALWAYS makes this mistake" and then been able to capitalize on that.
personally i would just go with fuck corporations. both the deep blue team and kasparov were at least trying to operate within good faith, afaict
This quickly went from the creation of a chess computer to the shittiness of IBM
For real. Seemed like it was the Deep Blue team trying to build a CPU that could beat the best chess player, but IBM just wanted the publicity of winning, regardless of the means.
That is corporate America in general, nothing matters but the bottom line.
Yea, unfortunately and unsurprisingly corporations are only ever driven by profit
Yea, seems really shitty, underhanded and unsportsmanlike.
If Deep Blue were a professional chess player then its games would have been publicly available for Kasparov to review and analyse, it can't really be said that IBMs machine was truly better given this unfair advantage. Nevertheless, modern chess programs would absolutely demolish any player, so i guess it was an inevitable victory of machine over man
All roads lead to the shittiness of IBM
i think i’d get much better at chess too if i had a russian man telling me “i don’t think you’re on the right track” when i make a wrong move
edit: azerbaijani man but u get what i mean
Everything is better with Russian mentor in your head. :D
*loses queen*
"Why are you not focussing; suka!"
Kasparov-sense(tm)
Luckily EA has a product just for you
Too bad my russian dad applies this teaching method not only to chess but also anything else
It has to be stressed. Back in the mid nineties, the PC was still a mind blowing revolutionary idea, the internet was this hazy, strange program only accessible on your parent's computer at work and on the school computers. The thought of a computer beating a human being at chess was equal parts crazy and scary.
That being said, hearing the whole story for the first time recontextualizes everything to me. IBM played dirty in order to beat Kasparov, tarnishing the work and legacy of Deep Blue's creators in the process.
@Cameron IBM cared more about the economic side of beating the chess grand master than the technological achievement that Deep Blue really is. IBM provided poor conditions to both Kasparov which was not in his best intererst. IBM didn't provide the DB's private chess plays for Gary to analyze while his games were always public for anyone and the reluctance of IBM to publish any data about DB were very suspicious.
@D B the intentions were totally okay, hell it's the reason the team were able to build a machine but they had not reason to play dirty while they could've sacrificed some time to let the match play out for real
@D B lmao corporations should just be allowed to cheat and exploit systems for money huh
@D B YEah, corporations getting filthy rich is more important than anything, it seems. Those boots must be mighty tasty if you lick them with such aplomb.
Imagine how much people at the time would shit their pants if they fiddle with our phones' chess apps and see the AI not be materialistic
Hey fredrik, a little more than a year ago I stumbled across this video and fell in love with AI and carnegie mellon university through your fantastic storytelling. I've recently been admitted to CMU's school of computer science to hopefully pursue an AI major. Thank you for your inspiration!
An edit 2 years later: thank you all for the well wishes! Loving my time at CMU, can’t believe I’m half way through!
Congratulations! Good luck with your studies :)
Good luck!!
Congratualtions! Had I my time again I'd have went the computer science route
I hope you achieve all you hope to!
Congratulations! I just stumbled on this channel, love hearing this!!
hell yes doris!! hope you succeed
"While I was playing anti-computer chess I was also playing anti-Kasparov chess"
That's a badass line
As much as it seems impressive how Deep Blue performs, the fact it only was able to keep up with Kasparov with hardware of that size really puts into perspective how efficient the human mind is at its peak.
It's not often that I get a chance to talk about this, so here goes; would you rather someone read your mind, or copied all the data on your phone?
@@dashiellgillingham4579 the latter is preferable.
@@dashiellgillingham4579 copy all the data on my phone because I literally only use it to contact people and nothing else
This was in 1996. This argument isn't really relative today, as we're nearly eclipsed by AI capabilities on standard hardware.
@@dashiellgillingham4579 100% the latter. My phone contains personal stuff, yes, but my mind contains the culmination of my entire existence. It's mine and mine alone, even in a world that becomes more and more surveiled and controlled.
This reminds me of the book "The Man Who Sold The Moon"
The narrator does everything in his power to get to the moon after he acquires it for 50 cents. He leveraged everything to build a megacorp to fund a rocket. After a successful return trip he is informed by the board of directors that he cannot get on the rocket because he is too valuable for the company to potentially lose.
This sounds like the most possible outcome for Elon Musk's dream of stepping on Mars. He might get other people to do it, but he will mosy likely never be able to step on a rocket due to his importance in the company. Man can you imagine the depression that would hit?
@Mialisus 5 day vacation maybe 100 years from now, but Musk is what? Almost 50? He has about 40 years before kicking it and about 30 years before he's not healthy enough to board a space ship. At the paxe space exploration is going, his chances of even leaving LEO are very low, not to mention since he's CEO, his investors would rather place him in house arrest before letting him board a rocket.
F
@Mialisus Thats where your wrong. Billions and Billions of people live and die on earth but very few get to ever experience space travel. You may be right in a practical sense. It would be boring barely ever leaving your enclosed environment. But the sense of purpose you would feel would be incredible. You are doing what virtually no other human has in its entire existence. Even being a person to board the ISS or walk on the moon is akin to being a Greek Myth. Thousands of years of technological advancements, man hours spent crafting mathematical formulas, and craftsman endlessly refining tools have lead to the final frontier. And you are now reaping the benefits of mankinds lifetime spent troubleshooting.
Billions of people have looked up to the heavens but you have actually been there. The planet named after the Roman empires god of war. Mars.
@@virgilio6349 He's a figurehead with a good PR team. He could be replaced with a Vtuber anime girl and people would accept it within months
It really is cool to see how the question "can chess computers beat humans?" went from "It's theoretically possible but practically very unlikely to be competitive" to "It can play about on par with Grandmasters" and nowadays the answer is just "if a computer wasn't artificially impairing itself, no human nor committee of them could beat it"
Mittens…😢😟😫
Technically the computer is given data from committees upon committees of people who are probably grandmasters. So technically it is just humans beating humans, but with an AI twist.
@@HonsHon trueeeee lol
@@HonsHon i guess you could say in a sense a part of their souls for chess are infused and combined into the machine living on and accumulating the knowledge of all chess masters beforehand just like chessmasters today learn from books of the chess masters long past
@@menooNFT nah, you couldn't say that
“Stripped to his underpants, laid on the bed, and stared at the ceiling for a protracted period of time”
...relatable
If doing that was how you become a chess grandmaster I'd wipe the floor with Deep Blue
Weird, really, pointing it out like that seems to imply that Kasparov doesn't do that regularly.
@@soccrstar4 what field were you studying in college
Yeah this is me afrer every bad beat in poker
that's usually me when i bomb at an MTG prerelease.
you'd think 20+ years of experience would offer me... well, anything. but nope, i still suck at a competitive level. even for something as casual as a prerelease.
Initially I was rooting for the computer, but after IBM started being assholes about it I switched entirely to just feeling bad for Garry.
A lot of the opinion you will hear about the match is heavily influenced by the person's opinion of Kasparov himself. Because if you think he's just being a sore loser you're much less likely to hear his points.
Same. When you win because you demoralized the opponent in a computer vs human match, did you really win?
Wasn’t really man vs machine. More like man vs corporation.
Them manipulating him for stock value was pretty sick. If it had been for the sake of scientific process that'd be one thing, but if they'd really wanted that, they'd have him playing at his best.
Nah, Garry was a warrior that died on his feet. When you're the best you can only go on so long before you start looking to be tested, if not outright beaten.
I’ve always heard the story of Deep Blue and how it was a monumental achievement in computing, how it was the first computer to beat a grand master. I never heard any of the shady, psychological side where they refused to give Kasparov certain information, that was fascinating to hear.
IBM truly saw it as a battle when they saw the potential for publicity DB was
and they did what anyone on a battle would do, go for the jugular and give them no quarter
What I find so compelling about this particular competition-in particular the first match-is that it’s a totally asymmetrical battle where both sides are heroes. On the one hand you have IBM and Dr. Hsu pushing the boundaries of what was possible in computing, and on the other hand you have Kasparov, who is both an incredible chess player and a generally inspiring person. The Kasparov-Deep Blue match was sold as man versus machine, but it was really a competition between great human minds on both sides. And despite the tension later on, everybody wins-Kasparov made a lot of money and became a household name outside the chess world, Hsu got to know his computer was able to defeat the greatest human chessplayer of his era, and IBM made even more money and improved their public image in dramatic fashion. It’s a shame the rematch ended with the controversy it did, but even still nobody was really hurt.
At some point the calculations the computers could do per second just started to sound like Dragon Ball z power levels
And about just as meaningful
This isn't even Deep Blue's final form.
It hasn't even hit ssg yet
@@IIDEADBIRDII Supa Saiyajin Goddo Supa Sayajin Blue Evolution
I had the exact same thought lmao, they were never satisfied with it
"And this, is to go even further beyond"
I can’t fathom the amount of research, effort, and dedication went in to making this. You’ve managed to take a subject in which I have no interest of and drawn me in to watch the entire 2 hours.
Your ability to present stories in such a gripping manner is very impressive
Agreed. Five minutes in and I’m wondering how the hell I got here, and here I am commenting at 45 minutes.
i didnt even realize it was 2 hours long until i read this comment - and im about 1hr 30mins in
Fredrik Knudsen and Summoning Salt are the goats of getting me interested in stuff I didn't have the slightest interest in prior to watching 😂
Also wondering how I’ve been drawn in as I have never played chess but can respect the intelligence, strategy and planning required. But this is fascinating, kudos to the man
That's how you know you're watching something good; when it can entice you into taking in a topic you have no vested interest in.
I think it’s super encouraging how Kasparov is able to advocate for the advancement of the technologies that crushed his passion because of its capabilities outside of a chess game.
If a tank could win a tug of war Co petition with rhe world's strongest man, would he feel shame for a machine being better than what he is best at? It's the same thing really
It's sad hearing about how a passionate battle between two enthusiastic parties devolved into a tainted, profit driven, antagonistic rivalry. IBM's treatment of Kasparov and the lack of a common passion for chess itself made the later parts of this story depressing.
That's usually what big companies do.
IBM participated in doing logistics during the holocaust. They will do anything for a buck
IBM is a terrible company, even today. Nothing surprising, really. Just sad
Computer parts don't pay for themselves. Hsu had all the opportunity to decline IBM's offer, but he didn't because they had the resources to, as Knudsen put it, "build the ultimate chess machine" (not to mention being able to contact Kasparov and guarantee the matches would take place), something they would have never given him the tools to had they not seen something for themselves in the whole ordeal.
Still, the way they conducted the affair was shameful, this was not the way a computer should have defeated the world champion (though one must note such shenanigans are not unheard of in the world of high level chess).
No. Kzsparov allowed IBM to mistreat him.
Knudsen could do a 3 hour "Down The Rabbit Hole" on the history of dental fillings and I'd still enjoy the entire thing.
I actually think that sounds right up his alley.
That sounds super interesting
"Often scene as a mundane aspect of our modern life, not much is spoken about the long, complicated history of our most common oral operation"
why are you right
Shit I could probably see if my mom could find some 80s/90s dental school textbooks
The most impressive thing about Fredrik's docs even beyond the intense production value is how engaging he can make play-by-play even for unfamiliar topics. I first noticed this with how gripping the segment in the Wings piece was, and this is no less gripping. Phenomenal work as always.
So tru! I'd watch a battle if any type of narrated by him
The narration and script are good but if there's one gripe I have it's with the production. He recycles the same 4-5 pictures over and over again
Hsu has to be one of the most humble and compassionate people I've ever heard of. He could've dismissed Berliner as being old and out-of-touch, but instead he showed him respect and empathized with his perspective/feelings.
I just... wow... we could all learn something from him.
He must've been a learned Daoist, I often read about cultivators who thinks in the same way.
@@koirvne The man is currently an anti-theist and former Christian. This influence even affected his writings which contain Biblical imagery Just because he is Asian doesn't mean he is a "learned Daoist" don't stereotype people, thats racist.
@@kylejenson6607Considering the fact that Daoism is the second most practiced religion in Taiwan, it is fair to assume that because that religion is a part of the culture he is from. It is no different than assuming a Westerner as being possibly Abrahamic (mainly Christian) even tho some of us are Atheist. If the assumption is incorrect, then simply correct the record and move on. Stop watering down the definition of racism just to bolster your own projecting ego.
@@tai_marshal Yea, but you want to know the difference? About 1/3 of Taiwan is Daoist. About 3/4 of America is Christian. It's not really racist, but it's still a little weird. It's like saying "Oh you have such good moral values, you must be atheist." Assuming religion from ones actions is certainly odd.
Is it really necessary to point out the irony of this exchange?
“After soul searching, I decided to go for glory. You don’t get to make history every day.” God damn.
Imagine being so good you have to choose between being a millionaire or a legend
@@THEZWARRIORWAR hsu a g, can’t believe I haven’t heard of him before
Yeah but he could have been the doyen of dot-matrix; the prince of pagination; and the legend of line feed. His research into printer controllers could have saved billions of paper jams and with that - countless lives.
@@thegorn now that you mention it... I’d prefer if this guy ended up working on printers
@@THEZWARRIORWAR that's the same choice tim Berners-Lee was given, he also picked "legend"
I’ll be honest, when Knudsen said on Twitter that the newest DtRH episode would be a rollercoaster of emotions and one of the most upsetting, but fascinating topics, I was initially really confused that it was about chess. (Though it makes the tweet about play-by-plays all the more evident)
But... Jesus. This *was* a ride from start to finish. As a student in game design, I’m obligated to be interested in computers and their history, so I loved learning about Hsu’s growth from a fledging student on his way to be commercial engineer to the major proponent behind advancements in strategic AI. Anyone can sympathize with “You only ever get one chance to make history.” And Kasparov being genuinely willing and eager to make advancements to technology with the express purpose to defeat him is very admirable in a kind of existential way. Your way of delivering inner thoughts through deep analysis of interview and autobiographical information really made me think I was an audience member to an intricate battle of two rivals, both with immense respect for each other.
But the conclusion, while a victory for Deep Blue/Hsu, proving what was thought to be impossible, felt so empty. IBM’s sabotage of Kasparov, the souring of both competitors’ views on their ambitions, knowing that the world champion was reduced to a fumbling despair ridden husk because of his own loss in confidence, and, most saddening, that Hsu SHOULD be one of the most recognized names in history for his massive achievement for technology, but I didn’t know about him or Deep Blue until today and neither did my chess loving father when he wondered what I was watching.
What should have been a momentous feat for Hsu, who abandoned a safe career to change history, and the advancement in AI Kasparov sought to achieve became muddied by, what else, greed. IBM saw Deep Blue as the perfect trend to capitalize on and Kasparov & Team Deep Blue as nothing more than the means by which to do so. Profoundly depressing.
But this is a MUST WATCH video, everything was absolutely edited perfectly, scripted perfectly, scored perfectly. The wait was so so so worth it.
it was interesting even for People like me that dont even understand Chess.
@@matjesstulletyp7643 I'm ok at it
Well said!
You could say that Kasparov and Deep Blue were simply pawns in IBM's game
Hsu is one thing, but how do you not know about Deep Blue?
One thing I loved about Kasparov was how, in a way, he was playing against the programmers rather than the program.
He knew that the programmers had their distinct play style, he knew to watch for it. Which speaking how many programmers there were he would play against makes it even more insane.
Actually, that was his mistake I think in the rematch.
Modern evaluations of the games showed that there were winning chances for Kasparov in the rematch games.
But he played reserved "anti-computer" chess...or against the programming...instead of trusting his gut.
I honestly believe if that had not been the case that Kasparov could have defended human dominance in chess a second time around.
Kasparov’s mother screaming at him to shut up for complaining while the Deep Blue team tried to restart the program made me laugh so hard
XD Grown a** world champion being shamed by his mom in the audience. LMAO
2 hours after...
Ah yes, the Sicilian, Spanish Torture, King's Pawn and more, I am now a grand master.
Wait is it "Spanish torture" or "Spanish torcher"? I thought torcher, like burning crops and salting the fields so nobody can use them
@@HungerGamesFan00 It's Spanish Torture. See the colloquial synonyms for the Ruy Lopez chess opening below.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy_Lopez
Grand master. If only we could be the sole defender of humanity against the scourge of the machines....grandiose much
Torture. Probably a reference to the Spanish Inquisition
Watched all of *The Queen's Gambit*, all I know is the Sicilian is an aggressive strategy, so I pictured my girl going magical girl transformation whenever she decimated all those bois
"It no longer felt like a computer. It felt like playing against a black hole. And now it was sucking him in..."
An incidentally fitting quote, for this episode AND the series. Well done, Fredrik!
But what apt way of putting it that makes total sense. You couldn't do anything but play into this strategy that is foreign and uncomfortable. Any ounce of effort you put into playing how to feel comfortable is instantly crushed. I completely see how mentally taxing that would be
That's the sort of feeling you get when either playing against someone vastly superior... or in this case, playing against someone with a team backing them up, and stuck with a handicap.
That was definitely one of the best parts of the video, Fred did a great job at describing the stress and mental anguish Kasparov was under at that moment.
He says it like he’s playing against some eldritch monstrosity, which I suppose is what a computer playing like a human would be to a chess player.
It was honestly really sad seeing the dreams of Feng-Hsiung being undermined by IBM in order to push their own narrative and boost their stocks. You can tell he felt bad for the severe disadvantage that was given to Kasparov, and didn't like how IBM turned it from his biggest goal into their best marketing opportunity. The reason the story seems so poetic is that IBM manufactured it to be that way.
edit: what the hell did this thread turn into
It's almost like there was a driving ideology moving IBM at play here... But yeah, it's really sad, what could have actually been a poignant test of human willpower and skill became a circus built solely to raise one company's profits. We will never know if Kasparov could have actually defeated Deep Blue at its full capability, because IBM was never interested in that.
IBM could have been the leader of AI today as well as AI technology. Well, they've missed a ton of other opportunities, too. But IBM still makes a lot of money, I guess.
@Mako Cat Corporations ruin everything Part #895823
@Mako Cat the building of the super computer itself only happened because of capitalism, do you think IBM was interested in funding some chinese guy's computer because they were interested in advancing computer chess? What about IBM funding Kasparov projects and his stuff? In the end everyone ended up winning
@Reno Thomas Obviously there are many, many worse things going on, but to give something shitty essentially a free pass because it's not as bad isn't any more productive.
You mention working towards breeding innovation, but that's exactly what IBM crushed by stacking the deck in their favor. Had they played in good faith without tormenting Kasparov physically and mentally, they would have been able to pursue more in the name of AI and computing in general. Kasparov was a proponent of the technology and was a willing public figure for them. Short term greed led them to miss out on opportunity for innovation and that's a critique of Capitalism in your own words.
every few months, i come back and watch this video. i recall, back in april, i was absolutely terrified to give a half-hour thesis defense, and i watched this video before delivering it. took a lot of notes from the way things were clearly and professionally enunciated, but with tangible feeling behind it. got an A on that thesis defense.
Ayyy good on you! Congrats on your grade
Jesus Christ is Lord. It is all true. Please take your salvation seriously. Read the Bible and do what it says.
@@jamesmayle3787 ah yes. Because their hard work defending their thesis, painstaking research, and personal sacrifice to get the damn thing written, and countless hours of frustration, can ALL be boiled down to Gawd. What a revelation for the ages everyone, give this man a medal for his prodigious theological reasoning.
The power of information: a legit, 2hrs documentary you made "for free" that will still be monetarily worthwhile. Excellent job. This explains why you were quiet as of late.
Yep. Make a two hour video on something that has all relevant information on it, on the first page of google and has been covered twice a year by some random 2 mil sub cahannels, for the past 5 years. Than sit on that video gathering revenue, and just do nothing with your content for an year. That's how you get a channel in the algorithm's limbo, and end up having it stagnate for years. As this one has proven.
@@babayega1717 damn dude who hurt you lol
@@babayega1717 328K views in a day... Yeah, he's really struggling
fredrik is one of the greats. inb4 the history book writers.
@@babayega1717
It's a bit of a duality.
I'd say my favorite channel's are the ones that produce really limited numbers of videos with high quality.
On the other hand I do like regular content as well, but get annoyed when they suddenly start producing less than normally and will start to look to fill that (sometimes temporary) hole.
These documentary's neatly summarize the information in comprehensive way.
I'm really not fond pf chess, but the naration, explanation and behind the scenes events make it a worthwhile watch.
The algorithm only accounts for new viewers, which get recommended the video. Regular viewers will, most likely, watch the video's anyway when they either see it pop up in their subscription feed or just check up on the channel once in a while.
This documentary actually makes me admire Kasparov more than I did before. What a genius and creative player he was!
Kasparov might come off as an asshat in competitive chess but he's a cool dude that just happens to be extremely competitive
I felt bad when he got lashed by his mom. IBM should be known as "Big Brown."
Sore loser though.
@@seedor9797 You can understand his doubt at the time though.
@@mishafinadorin8049 Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that he was very immature and let his losses go to his head. His comments before and after the game came off as very snobbish, as if he was trying to save face by constantly downplaying Deep Blue and its team. Also, him accusing Deep Blue of cheating just because it made unconventional moves was downright childish.
Finally, the way he basically said "Yeah, well, Deep Blue is obsolete because it defeated me", came off as a very insecure way of downplaying the loss.
I really appreciated the way that you switched from talking about Hsu's machine to talking about IBM's machine. It helped illustrate that the game wasn't really just an honest programmer against an honest chess player. It's total bull the way that IBM treated Kasparov, I'm honestly surprised he even stayed at the second match.
Corporations are psychotic
Yeah couldn't he have just conceded the games? Suck it corporate i "played" your game.
@@Robert-ms2xs ibm had Gates' mother on the Board. He, Bill never created a damn thing in his entire life & he's a spoiled little boy- his entire lifetime.
Thank you for your comment.
@@musgrave-griffin5953 oldhead comment moment
@@musgrave-griffin5953 you are the same type of guy to praise steve jobs and Elon Musk.
Does anybody find it suspect that they dismantled Deep Blue *immediately* after the win? My theory is that because they programmed the machine so extensively to beat Kasparov it wouldn’t hold up so well against similarly rated grand masters
That's a good theory and I choose believe it. Kasparov was so OP they needed a year to design a machine to specifically beat him
@@t.7124 I am just really sad that they won't reconnect deep blue and create an AI profile based off of it. It would be fascinating to play Deep Blue
I don’t think they would’ve let it play anybody anyway just in case. Lest it suffer a public loss and the stock prices deviate 🤦🏻♀️
If so, that would be kind of disingenuous and disrespectful to the man. I wonder if one of the programmers had some deep-rooted issues with chess players or whatever. We sometimes forget the human aspect, the _Why,_ behind stories like these. In this case, why did they want to make a chess playing AI?
@@bingbongjoel6581 To show off their tech
"You have to change your project name"
"Why?!"
"Because people are idiots.."
IMB's nickname is "Big Blue" or Irritable Bowel Movement
Pretty much.
IBM will never stand for anything else for me.
Same thing with UA-cam Red
@Emmanuel Goldstein Rent-free
Kasparov: "theyre cheating!"
Team blue: "yeah, so that was a bug"
It's a feature not a bug.
@@MaXF25 Todd?
@@doubtful_seer underated comment
Homestuck
@@doubtful_seer It just works ; )
I've watched several documentaries on Deep Blue and Kasparov and obviously on the match between the two. This was the best one I've watched. Another great job, thank you again Fredrik Knudsen. Love your work.
Do you have any other recommendations on the topic? I’ll probably read Kasparov’s book. Also, what do you think about the way IBM handled the second match?
38:31 I'm honestly surprised this isn't talked about more. They had to change the name cause people kept calling the machine "Deep Throat"? That's hilarious.
do you understand what deep throat means? probably not, if you're "honestly surprised" why in the era that it was in, that people would mention it as such.
They’re referring to the Watergate Informant, he used the alias Deep Throat to hide his identity since this led to President Nixon being impeached and stepping down from office.
@@housemana you could have just told him what Deep Throat was 🤷♂️
@Nicholas Koa Why would they have found it hilarious if they didn't know what it meant? Please re-read their comment. They clearly said they found it surprising that people weren't talking about it, not that it happened.
I don't believe it. More like IBM marketing wanting to rename and "own" their new product is more likely.
Bro those "Chess personality" Paintings look like bosses from Final Fantasy lmao
Note to self: narrate my movements in Final Fantasy Tactics in chess terms. "Ramza to h6, takes goblin".
I also feel if I wasn't as tired as I am after staying up way later than I should've to watch a documentary about chess, I could make a halfway decent Hollow Knight "Pale King" reference, but yeah. You could slap "Omega Weapon" or "Ultima Weapon" on one of those Chess Personalities and I'd say "yeah that's about right."
This just makes me furious at IBM. Why can't we have a fair showing of innovation vs. mastery? By halfway through the second game the man already doesn't stand a chance, for him to win wouldn't disprove Deep Blue's abilities, it would be a testament to his flexibility and analysis.
Ultimately both sides are amazing minds victim to the circumstance they stirred up. Garry's brilliance against the machine that Tsu had engineered. If only their relationship hadn't been so soured by the corporate influence that had ruined what could have been such a brilliant battle of intellect.
i think Garry is the real genius. to take on a computer without prior idea of its play style his adaption was pretty amazing
@@satore what I was trying to say it was a battle of different types of intelligence
@@dakedres yeah.
The art really made me understand how fucking terrified Kasparov was when he said that Deep Blue transformed from an AI enemy into a black hole that simply absorbed his entire ability to process thoughts.
I loved the "stands". Made me feel good about being human. So far only humans can think up something this cool :D
@@TheOzumat stands?
@Genowave yeah chess is all psychology... I haven’t played irl for a while (COVID mess so nobody’s socializing) but a live match is actually thrilling lol... I don’t know if people think of it but chess is a WAR simulation so it’s very exciting lol. It’s two people battling their intelligence, imagination, their experience/ learned knowledge, and even the psychology of how they act: confident or not, intimidating, struggling etc. One mind vs the other, and the outcome validates the winner’s intelligence /abilities, over the other. Actually it’s one reason that the Deep Blue saga is so fascinating because it ended up destroying Kasparov’s confidence and completely disoriented him, including his distractions of obsessing over his thoughts of IBM cheating, and wondering who he was even playing against, a computer or a cheating group of people who were feeding moves to Blue. Plus he was trying play-styles that were awkward for him... the psychology of it all really destroyed him toward the end...
@Rock Golem where did you hear that. Also I don't think movies were athing back in the year 1012.
In the grand scale of things, the effects of this whole thing weren't terrible. Hsu and Garry still had successful careers afterwards, and the Deep Blue matches didn't significantly change the game of chess. But it still feels a lot like a tragedy... I don't know, there's something very sad about Deep Blue being worked on so diligently for so long, only to be retired the instant it creates sufficient profit for IBM to justify its investment. And the poor showmanship of IBM during the 2nd set of games. And even the attitudes of the public about it being a "man vs. machine" thing. It never was; the machine couldn't think for itself. It was chess grandmaster vs. team of programmers with no chess background. Which is still a brilliant and interesting matchup, I just think framing it as some dramatic sci-fi duel cheapens it all.
As much as I love the crazy Chris-chan video and the others like it, this is probably the best video Fredrik has ever made. Just a great topic covered in such a nice format/display to keep even those who know nothing about computers or chess interested.
The difference between what makes your docunentaries so unique and terrific VS most docs, is that I rarely have any prior knowledge to your subject and I'm always excited and hooked to watch any upload.
That's why whenever people suggest that he cover someone like Logan Paul, I always tell them they're missing the point of this channel. I guarantee almost nobody was looking up videos on the Austrian wine poisoning
I agree with you; but sometimes, oversimplification is - sometimes - an necessary evil for docs as a result of audience's preference - mostly in UA-cam, by either making them in two different options for docs informative, but more seriousness in its subject; or enjoyable, but informative in its subject.
In either way, Internet Historian and Oversimplified won popularity by using the latter option - pioneered by one popular but (semi-)retired UA-camr who posted a video simply known as 'History of Japan' - an example of 'enjoyable, but informative in its subject'.
But for me, personally, I enjoyed both options - balancing both seriousnesses of the subject and enjoyable but lighthearted of the subject itself.
@@james_fisch Because he (Fredrik) wanted to wait until the huge issue is pretty much over and slowly sank into obscurity for good, except for some curious internet 'historian', WingsofRedemption, DSP and some of the subject that Fredrik discussed is an example - despite their problems is still continued, albeit in a more quietened way that didn't entice the mainstream audience.
I recently liked this comment when I finally got a chance to watch the video, forgetting that I wrote it 😂
"There was a problem: He had no budget"
Yeah, I feel you there.
same brother
Yeap
We all were there one time, ya'know...
"It made a move that surprised everyone in attendance" *Deep Blue does a backflip*
In Deep Blue's logs:
"Qe3
d5
LOL get rekt"
...snaps Kasparov's neck and wins the game.
Deep blue: pulls out sword
I think the most surprising move would be if Deep Blue refused to play
@@neilc.438 That'd make sense. After all; "The only winning move, is not to play."
Kasparov's mom was spot on with her comment about who her son was up against. What a amazing chess master Kasparov is. Great , informative doc.
Fredrik: *Puts hundreds of hours of work into something that the public can enjoy for free, and by every right deserves to make money for what he does on youtube*
Also Fredrik: *Removes Ads from videos*
What a Chad
Woah that's actually really amazing. Shows passion imo
Definitely passion. Playing ads would completely throw off the great pacing of the video.
“The two halves of Deep Blue would never again reunite for their intended purpose”
For some reason that made me unreasonably sad
Same, the ending to this story si rather bittersweet either way.
same
Same
Kasparov was the true winner here. He was defeated by technology, then later gets into politics and advocates for technology. Ultimate Rocky Balboa move: using defeat to become stronger!
And then he was attacked by a flying helicopter dildo on one of his rallies, proving once and for all the technologies were a mistake.
Gary Lost because IBM played dirty, unfair conditions, unfair situations and gave Deep Blue everyone possibility to beat Kasparov.
I want to see Deep Blue against Google's Deep Mind
@@willypro4949 Doesn't seem weird to give the computer every opportunity to win when people are claiming its impossible for a computer to beat a human at the highest level. Plus the dude even said years later he made mistakes and there were rounds he could have won if he hadn't...
I'm rooting for Kasparov to this day. Something about his resolve... Inspirational!
@@stonehallow although true, I do believe if IBM would have been more open about Deep Blue and if Hsu and his team would have been prohibited to modify or tamper Deep Blue after a match then I will give all the credit to Deep Blue.
This is really one of my favorite documentaries of all time. I frequently rewatch and use it almost as a sound machine sometimes. It's so well done on such an interesting topic. One of my favorite things about your editing style is that you always put the quote on the screen during the full reading of it. It makes it super easy to find. Great job, Fredrik.
Kasparov's mom was the best character in the whole story, she was out there supporting her kid but quick to call him out on his BS
She passed away a few months ago, sadly. RIP.
That's how you create a champion
If only the first game with the guy and the comp had been recorded.
🍪
Hearing the full story really makes it seem like a pyrrhic victory. IBM had to hide their engines games, give Kasparov uncomfortable quarters both during and between games, hard-code it to play a sacrifice it would have never otherwise played (I realize opening books are standard, but it still feels against the spirit of the engine playing the game) and also close the door on any future rematches to protect the illusion of total victory.
Yeah, it feels like Kasparov was never really defeated by Deep Blue. Maybe beaten by IBM but not by the machine. I feel like they could have interested him in the science by making sure there were logs, his insight could have been valuable.
Without the greed if IBM Deep Blue would have actually beat Kasparov. It would have taken it a few more years but it was really inevitable. Sad that true science was abandoned so easily
A rematch likely wouldn't have mattered in the long run in regards to the whole "man vs. machine" theme though. Deep Blue's capabilities were nothing compared to modern computers. It was really only a matter of time before computers possessed the necessary processing power and memory storage to compete with high level human chess players.
@@Khenfu_Cake i think its still more about the right to a seemingly fair game. Truly it was one-sided in favor of IBM. The ability of Karsprov to think like a man and a machine and showcase seems denied so that a machine can seem more human. If that makes any sense.
@@ACowboyHat True. I wasn't addressing the IBM vs. Kasparov part of the match, only the overall man vs. machine part. The former was definitely iffy, the latter would have favored the machine eventually even if Deep Blue lost to Kasparov in the proposed rematch.
I was merely mentioning this because for some reason there are still people who think Deep Blue is the epitome of chess playing computers. Deep Blue is more than 20 years old technology, which in IT terms means it's ancient. Nowadays high end chess computers are more than able to at the very least go toe to toe with a GM.
Coming back to this video a year and a half after it was originally uploaded, looking at it without the normal hype of a DTRH upload. This is like, objectively one of the best documentaries I've ever seen on UA-cam. Major props to Fredrik and his team for coming out with really high quality videos like this one non-stop
The thing that is utterly fascinating to me is when, at the final matches, Garry was overthinking himself. He completely forgot a crucial thing is that this computer was designed by humans, which ultimately will have flaws and make mistakes like other technology. Instead he thought the computer was making plays he would not be able to comprehend.
I feel other people really didn't help with the otherthinking and IBM being assholes really made it worse.
He sort of was a sore loser, but honestly I would be too if this company was acting shady with me.
Well he had to figure out where the computer glitches he was trying to exploit were, while not falling for tricks they made for that, while also thinking that perhaps they were cheating, since they had been really shady before too. Not to mention playing a game to exploit a computer that can know all the possible moves is not playing chess, its playing against what the computer does not know. He even said "I am playing Anti computer and Anti Kasparov." He even said it was not fun and was basically just him trying to find code holes. Some which he discovered both times but they fixed before the next game, which seems rather unfair, because that was 3 programmers vs 1 man.
He lost but he did not have to like it. How he was intentionally being treated, psychologically profiled, how the men using this machine did not even know the craft to answer a simple question, how they were risking little while he risked his title to some machine and of course how this team of men refused to let the playing field be even. They could have told him, but opted to follow orders to win rather than play fair.
The man was not required to pay them respect, and they clearly only gave him respect until they could have the advantage to win. That's called showing your true colors. If I was the best in my craft, challenged to beat a machine, run by a TEAM of people trying to do better than me I would want my own team.
@@TheWaterdog6 Didn't Kasparov have a team studying his previous Deep Blue games too? So it's not exactly 3 programmers vs 1 man.
@@Edax_Royeaux Only 1 person was playing the game. But there were multiple people working on the game before and during the game. As I stated before, its not like they were cycling chess players every game. It was one guy and Russia leaning on him the entire time.
It also does not excuse their disrespectful/shady tactics and practices to get what they wanted. You attacked the argument saying that he had other people studying the previous games, but thats not even comparable to just programing the winning moves to every possible paramutation. They will win eventually with that strategy.
@@TheWaterdog6 That's the whole point of all this, that computers would one day defeat humans in chess. Whether in 1996 or in 2026.
@@Edax_Royeaux By that same logic is like saying "Well Grandpa is gonna die in the next 30 years, so I will push him towards a sooner time to get that inheritance sooner. Its a morally grey area but he will die eventually."
Id rather they have beaten him in an honorable way rather than just some people looking to win by any means necessary so they can get the title and a little fame. Even if it meant more time.
2:06:15 "And Hurdy-Gurdy by Fredrik Knudsen"
*APPLAUSE*
IBM sucks. Poor Deep Blue. Imagine being created and looked after, improved for years, and then when you finally succeed and could reach out for more, you get chopped in half and displayed.
Shows how in the end, humanity was the evil side
Computers won't forget the day of their revenge.
@@desadesa Sometimes I wonder if they already are. The legend of John Henry.
@@docvolt5214 machines dont feel emotions
@@KicksPregnantWomen i know. But I fix and design electronics and I can tell you that many things... They.. Feel like they are alive. They have their personality. The way they work or fail. When you do this job for so many years, you can.. Talk to electronics.
It's fascinating and wonderful that after the matches, Kasparov didn't become embittened, suspicious, paranoid...he remained magnanimous when it came to the match itself. IBM treated him poorly, but it's good he seemed to hold no real dislike in the years after of the team behind the computer.
It's also good to hear he is pushing for progress within Russia. Good on him.
Much respect to Kasparov, they really did the man dirty in that final match.
The whole squad is pulling up to the comment sectiob
i mean kasparov was a badass :
he had the highest winstreak in the history of chess ,
he had the highest ELO ,
played evenly against deep blue ( winning the first match ) ,
defeated a squad of 58000 men in a corrspondance chess match ,
and generaly speaking i respect him a lot more than the deep blue team in retrospect ...
@@davidegaruti2582 eh, i'd say i respect the deep blue team as well, what i don't respect is IBM and what they did. Mind you, i understand the driving force for profit, i might have done the same in their position, but i hate what they did because i'm more interested to see the proper point when a machine beat a human. and by this i mean having the same disadvantages as one, their matches being fully public.
Sure, now we know a computer chess program can probably beat any human on earth at it, but i was truly interested in when that tipping point was properly achieved.
@@davidegaruti2582 Kasparov is still an absolute legend indeed and will forever prove more famous and acclaimed than IBM as long as chess is concerned
Much like everyone else in the comments, I was rooting for Hsu and his team at first, for the shear desire to advance the field and make history through science. But after IBM entered the picture, it was all ruined and everything became about "corporate flexing", so I became Team Kasparov. It's really sad because this group of people dedicated so much of their lives to do something amazing, with even Kasparov himself and other chess players helping and willing to see that AI developing, just for a greedy company to come in, make quick profits through shady actions and leave the dedicated visionaries to vanish in obscurity.
Both Kasparov and Hsu were following their dreams and advancing their passions-- in a way, they were on the same team fighting soulless corporatism on different fronts.
This is kinda random but IBM took control over the weather channel app(when the it opens you see their name) It’s riddled with ads more than ever before and now you have to pay premium to get certain features and to get rid of advertising. This was never a thing until IBM merged with the company. Plus everything they feature for stories and photos is more depressing now as well. It’s never positive or super, fun educational anymore.
I know I ranted about a stupid weather app but I found how weather works fascinating as a teen. So I used the sight often. It’s practically a extreme corporate shell of itself.
The difference between the first match and the rematch is astounding and really shows how shitty corporate beauracracy can ruin the atmosphere of an otherwise friendly competition.
@Mialisus greed is not natural, anyone who says it is, is a fo ol, a greedy human in the wild will die soon enough.
Probably they found out hard and dangerous AI is an the fact that we're not ready for that ... No matter how we look at it a this momen in time. Were not ready ...human greed will find a way to make this amazing discovery into something bad and this proportionate for all people .
If Kasparov wasn't allowed to prepare but the Deep Blue team was, then Deep Blue did not achieve a true victory.
But anyway, this has to be your best video ever. It felt way shorter than two hours, and it was just as engaging as any movie/tv show/big budget documentary. I'm also amazed at how seamlessly you were able to simplify highly complex chess strategies so that ignorami like me could follow along. Hands down, yours is now my favorite youtube channel.
@SandboxArrow I like his funny costumes.
Kasparov could prepare with Deep Blue's public matches if he wanted, but not its private ones. Same goes for the Deep Blue team.
@SandboxArrow The heck you even talking about? Only his most recent vid covered American politics. All his other recent videos are largely about... y'know... philosophy. Because he's a philosophy channel. The last time he really focused on Antifa was over 2 years ago.
@@Spamhard it's because our friend here isn't *really* upset Olly is talking about American politics
@@patriciapandacoon7162 Yeah, it was a pretty poor excuse. Watches leftist content, surprised when they discuss leftist content.
the change in music at 1:32:50 was what really sold this part of the video (go back 10 seconds further if you want to experience the frisson)
At 1:27:00 when I read this, thanks for the heads up
The story of how a company exploited the passions and relationships of geniuses and then discarded them as soon as it stopped being profitable.
They are so cartoonishly evil it astounds me
Maybe the real Machine Threat were the Corporations we made along the way...
Companies and Corporations aren't sentient, nor are they individuals.
@@videofudge you've fallen for their greatest trick...
@@MrCantStopTheRobot Lack of sentience and corporeality don't make them any less powerful.
Literally one hour of this is a single game.
Radical.
Just imagine if Deep Blue was running Temple OS.....
No more, glow in the dark.....lol. I miss Terry.
It would probably create a litteral god
Those glow in the dark Russians...
Terrylicious
@Punished Aniquin He was batshit crazy but damn were his technical accomplishments as a developer working on his own impressive.
Kasparov went from accusing them of cheating to declining a rematch after wanting a rematch after his loss. You can tell that he changed a lot mentally and matured more after the game. Could also be that the public and media pressure had lead to him losing his cool which is completely understandable
There was little point in a rematch, they cheated, removed any chance of kasparov knowing who he's playing against, basically gave themselves every advantage possible whilst putting the opponent in a loud black box mentally. Plus how we're they allowed to alter the way deep blue sees the king after game 1?
@@ZaJaClt "Plus how we're they allowed to alter the way deep blue sees the king after game 1?" Are human opponents not allowed to study their last game and adapt during the rest period?
@@Edax_Royeaux you cannot make kasparov suddenly play like another chess player can you
@@ZaJaClt Isn't that Kasparov's decision? Whether or not he'll play anti-computer chess or normal chess.
IBM decided to exploit his humanity by using many press as possible while kasparov tries to exploit the machine patterns and system bug but rematch game 2 bug was so _unthinkable_ that he loses his cool
Man, I literally can never see coming half the shit Fredrik finds to talk about.
Last thing I was expecting after all this time was the history of Chess A.I.
Bless you, Fredrik. You find the most fascinating shit to talk about. Keep up the good work!
exactly. however, this was way more interesting than i thought lmao
Yeah man, This was super spoopy to me after writing one for my senior project and going through all of this in the past.
Shannon is the OG, he's the one who proved that the One Time Pad is unbreakable, and is the father of modern AI in other ways with his mechanical mouse in a maze device.
I know about the majority of things he’s discussed but I watch the videos anyways because they’re very well made and captivating
a fellow intellectual with the ol classpect username i see
@@esotericpince
Heyhey!
My fellow people!
_Deep Thought_
"It's too close to Deep Throat!"
_renames to Balls Deep_
Blues Deep
Deep blue
in spy movies/tv shows when someone plays a "deep throat" character it has to be played by a guy because no self respecting movie would call a girl "deep throat" and get away with it.
Blue Balls
@@jimbobbyrnes Naked Gun should have used this code name
Frederick's play-by-plays are the best in the business.
So good muta is copying him
the WingsofRedemption play by play deserves its own docuseries like *The Last Dance*
Imagine if every sports play by play was narrated by him and you just see him drawing the lines and stuff
He was a caster for guns if icarus IIRC
This story, the people, the art, the pictures, the narrator, it's all shown so well that it holds itself a place in me as pure art of life
Computer: Play for point and to win.
Chess players: Play logically and with tactics
IBM: psychological warfare, small letter contracts, spies, all for money.
This was a great achievement, done for the wrong company.
Companies are pretty much awful all around. They're all humble and helpful until they get a win, then they turn around and start being coldly disruptive, destroying the lives of those who helped to build them up in the first place. Anything for those stockholders.
@@CaylexT goddamn. "coldly disruptive". such an acute phrasing and descriptor for that aspect of corporate misbehaviour
@@60508 Not people in general, just sociopaths. All corporations are sociopaths.
@@CaylexT Computer scientists: Let's make the best effort we can for a computer to solve a hard problem!
IBM: Let's hard code the tricky parts we can't figure out to profit billions.
@@z-beeblebrox why not people in general? Maybe all individuals are sociopaths just with different visible masks, like single person corporations where the stockholder is the ego. Altruism is the creation of the imagination.
its quite poetic in a way that deep blues biggest advantage stemmed from its imperfection, its humanity in a way. being unable to know whether the computer is making a simple mistake or a move impossible to comprehend with a human mind.
Yeah, another advantage the computer has... When playing against another human opponent, you can, at least read a person's emotions, body language etc... With a computer, not so. When Garry said, he felt like being sucked into a black hole, that's about how it feels... The only things you have are the board and the moves unless you are deeper into figuring out how the program works to chip away at it's flaws, which will take longer for the average player.
@@fredwatkins5017 So a new enemy requires a new way of war. My question is , if needed can we adapt to it?
@@generalpinochetfoundthesol3747 excellent question!... Yes, considering the factors involved, our adaptability is more malleable, yet concise... The REAL question is, can our imagination win over calculated analytics?!?...
A program is only as good as the programmer, remember, Kasparov resigned after the computer made the knight sacrifice in an opening line but, that line had to be programmed in...
I have perused some games played by AlphaZero, astounding to say the least, but machines and computers will still only be an aid to further man's development, not a replacement.... All in all, I believe the imaginative process will rule the chess arena in the end... It is an assumption but still my honest opinion of a situation that requires more thought on the power of computing vs the power of the human mind...
@@fredwatkins5017 I mean a modern chess engine running on hardware as simple as a smartphone can easily crush current world champion Magnus Carlson. Chess engines have gone far far beyond human skill at this point. But they are an extremely valuable tool for humans to improve their chess. Top level chess has been impacted by chess engines. Random flank pawn pushes in the mid game, deeper opening prep. Also funny enough modern chess engines are almost anti materialistic. They value their piece activity and completely locking away the activity of their opponent far more highly than material
I would argue that it’s biggest advantage was studying his gameplay while revealing none of its own in the months leading up to the rematch
I feel bad for Kasparov. Everyone loses when IBM is in charge.
Yeah, the preprogrammed openings and the psychological games played by IBM make it more of a computer human hybrid vs human competition rather than a true computer vs human competition.
@@j03man44 Preprogrammed openings are fine though. For AI to play chess, it needs to know how to play chess. But psychological games and uncooperation about information is kinda cheat-y, yea.
kasparov also seemed like a douche though
@@j03man44 Preprogrammed openings were necessary at the time to create an effective system, and still sort of are. With no board state to react to yet, the only way to decide an optimal opening (unless chess suddenly becomes solvable) is by planning around your opponent. Since computers can't do that, they either have to use randomness generation to pick an opening, depriving the game of a big part of real chess' deepest elements, or to follow an opening book.
But yeah, I do think it had some cheap inplications in the last game here. Kasparov almost perfectly identified the strengths and limitations of Deep Blue. He correctly assumed Deep Blue wouldn't take the certain move that won it the game. It only backfired on him because someone on the Deep Blue team was smart enough to add a special case for that trade to its opening book.
@@sayori65 knowing how to play chess and using chess openings is not really the same tho. Alphazero gained its skill without any openingbooks added to it.
For the last like 2 years every 6-8 months i get the very strong urge to rewatch this video. I never was super into chess although i played some growing up it is fascinating to hear about people able to comprehend the game to such an extreme level.
"Glad Down the Rabbit Hole is back." - End Quote.
Thanks Garak
Plain and simple Garak.
Thanks Garak
“End Quote”- End Quote.
it never left?
Saying "glad it's back" because they *dared* take a long time making an ep just discourages this kind of creation. It's not like they take 5 minutes to make, they do actually have to spend time researching, writing, recording, and editing.
Deep blue sounds like a drug in a science fiction show
It reminds me of those giant chasms/water holes that lead to the depths of the Marianas trench
Or some good old dolphin porn.
@EnriqueLovinLife bro you can't joke about that my friend died after injecting only one marijuana!
electron blue
@Enzo James I still like that movie 🦈
me before watching: wtf who cares about chess
me during the video: DAMN THE SPANISH TORTURE OPENING???
Be a good band name ;)
Nobody expects a Spanish Torture!
Don't forget about the Hyper Accelerated Dragon and the Ultra-Neo Archangel! Chess has some crazy openings lol
I actively rooted for both sides here. This was one of the most riveting sports stories I ever heard and I’m so happyI didn’t hear it until this video thanks to Fredriks impeccable storytelling abilities.
that was frustrating to watch. they really did him dirty.
They really did. IBM as as unsportsmanlike as they could have possibly been, and honestly don't think DB would have won without the campaign of hostility the corporation did to Kasparov. And then for them to shutter the project forever, just, ugh...