Deep Blue vs Kasparov: How a computer beat best chess player in the world - BBC News

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 24 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 553

  • @Roman-id4vn
    @Roman-id4vn 7 років тому +3827

    And yet the CS GO bot on my team continues to rush mid with a glock 18 every round

  • @ilferrari
    @ilferrari 7 років тому +2266

    Kasparov played below his strength in this match. He was trying to second-guess the computer all the time, play anti-computer moves. In 2003 he played against two far stronger computers, and drew both matches.

    • @Boxedpapi
      @Boxedpapi 5 років тому +203

      EXACTLY in my eyes honestly it is more of a draw since they literally had so much research and support against a single talented man

    • @Guztav1337
      @Guztav1337 4 роки тому +66

      Considering it was 2½ - 2½
      I would also say this was actually a draw.
      But we have come a long way since then. Good job either way.

    • @AntonnyTan
      @AntonnyTan 4 роки тому +11

      Thank you sir Kasparov, to returned honor back to humankind. Yet, this algorithm and such would always remind people to the day they defeat us and tend to make us forget, Kasparov revenge.

    • @pgreg8528
      @pgreg8528 3 роки тому +15

      Part of chess is figuring Out the opponents strategy. He failed and figuring af that and lost.

    • @shuozhang6947
      @shuozhang6947 3 роки тому +52

      ​@@pgreg8528 The problem was that the computer sometimes had programming errors and made moves that made no sense. However, Kasparov couldn't tell if it was seeing something he couldn’t or making an error. He wasnt able to look at Deep Blue's previous games either, while deep blue analyzed tons of kasparov's games. So kasparov never knew what moves Deep Blue might play. Kasparov was always at a major disadvantage

  • @radikusmanov7574
    @radikusmanov7574 7 років тому +1459

    I hope they congratulated Garry Kasparov also. Not as a loser, but as key participant of new scientific experiment.

    • @radikusmanov7574
      @radikusmanov7574 7 років тому +11

      You are wrong. The gunny still competes. Look for plays from this year in UA-cam.

    • @MrSupernova111
      @MrSupernova111 7 років тому +23

      Nothing Edgar said was incorrect. Kasparov retired years ago and was giving speeches before returning to competitive chess this year. Don't be so quick to jump into conclusions.

  • @godslaya4563
    @godslaya4563 7 років тому +2612

    Hundred years later the sentinel robots will look back at this video as their 1st win over the foolish humankind.

    • @alexandersapir9079
      @alexandersapir9079 7 років тому +95

      Humans wrote Deep Blue, not robots

    • @OldConorWasGreat
      @OldConorWasGreat 7 років тому +23

      and father*. Most people tend to forget that it needs both genders for human to breed.

    • @ultraboombean
      @ultraboombean 7 років тому +7

      deep blue will be a hero. haahah

    • @VyasAnand
      @VyasAnand 6 років тому +1

      god slaya we don’t even understand consciousness, this is brute force

    • @carlhyldborglundstrm9807
      @carlhyldborglundstrm9807 5 років тому +2

      Alexander Sapir We made its life seed. Now it’s making itself.

  • @jasonsuriadi2246
    @jasonsuriadi2246 5 років тому +372

    Deep blue: i saw 14,000,605 of our potential futures
    Winning scenario: 1

  • @MidnightsHoard
    @MidnightsHoard 6 років тому +191

    I feel the psychological aspect of playing something you are not familiar with, played an instrumental role in Kasparov's defeat. Humans look at "tape" to get a better understanding of their player, but he was not able to do this. Already this put's him at a disadvantage. Him coming up with ideas, such as "anti-computer moves" so quickly was a testament to his genius, his ability to adapt at a dime, exploiting bugs in a computer system to ultimately lead to a win. This is a guy who would go to a dimly lit library with a journal to record good chess moves on a shriveled up piece of paper. I mean it really is not bad at all. He was going against a billion dollar company with hundreds of geniuses and all the resources in the world, all working together to try and beat this one man, and you know what? He still put up a fight.

    • @xancarter3037
      @xancarter3037 Рік тому +11

      when you put it like that it’s actually pretty badass

    • @ArranVid
      @ArranVid 20 днів тому

      @@xancarter3037 Duh, most people put it like that.

  • @kherossilverlight8400
    @kherossilverlight8400 4 роки тому +325

    It's almost always underlooked how in the timelapse between the first match (which Kasparov won) and the rematch, Deep Blue was specifically designed to beat Kasparov. Meanwhile, Kasparov was denied access to any of the "new" Deep Blue matches, leaving him at a clear informational disadvantaje.

    • @kebabkebob7808
      @kebabkebob7808 2 роки тому +7

      Cope

    • @rakshithanand8262
      @rakshithanand8262 2 роки тому +51

      @@kebabkebob7808 It's not really copium as such. Kasparov was at a disadvantage in terms of preparation AND the pressure of playing a machine that feels no fear or stress when one of his best strength was the sheer terror he inspired. He was also denied a third set of matches after deep blue won because IBM was not confident in a repeat victory.
      And he has played against stronger computers since and drawn consistently. Of course, nowadays he is handily outclassed by even mid-range chess apps.

    • @M414-q6o
      @M414-q6o Рік тому +6

      ​@@rakshithanand8262 and how does that change the fact that he lost? Deep blue was still the first computer to beat the world champion. none of your execuses are relevant to this fact

    • @Asgoga
      @Asgoga Рік тому

      ​@@M414-q6oCope more

    • @Hury209
      @Hury209 Рік тому

      okay then if you think Kasparov has any chance against AlphaZero, then let us see how he does against it.. hehehe :)

  • @proton_sponge
    @proton_sponge 5 років тому +829

    No one remembers that Garry Won the first game

    • @TechTehScience
      @TechTehScience 4 роки тому +91

      That's because it's not that impressive. One of the greatest Grandmasters beat a chess computer when they were still in their infancy. Garry had far tougher opponents than Deepblue in its first game. This however was big as it marked the beginning of a rapidly developing technology.

    • @yungboomer6467
      @yungboomer6467 4 роки тому +68

      @@TechTehScience it is impressive

    • @pgreg8528
      @pgreg8528 3 роки тому +3

      Both Times the Team didn't have enough time to finish deep blue properly

    • @truenoae8689
      @truenoae8689 3 роки тому +7

      @@pgreg8528 dude they had years and years

    • @SaintcantfeintIIOKII
      @SaintcantfeintIIOKII 3 роки тому +1

      @@TechTehScience noooo he is quoting the punchline from Ted talk of kasporav :/

  • @jasongoodacre
    @jasongoodacre 7 років тому +89

    Gary Kasparov lost because he made an absolute insane move early on attacking the knight. This allowed the sacrifice with potential traps opening up the position. He incorrectly assumed that a computer would not play that move.

    • @samcavanagh7993
      @samcavanagh7993 6 років тому +4

      i'd like to see you play deep blue then

    • @Cnut_the_grape
      @Cnut_the_grape 4 роки тому

      Yeha that's what we call an inaccuracy and the modern computers call the worst move in chess history.
      Fuck you stockfish for criticizing every move I play.

  • @nikita228Rus
    @nikita228Rus 5 років тому +160

    Waaaaaait a minute.
    Garry win 4 rounds, deep blue only 2.
    Garry win in this fight, no?

    • @davidhiggins330
      @davidhiggins330 5 років тому +36

      That was the first match in Philadelphia. This was a year later and Kasparov narrowly lost the rematch

  • @mrrp405
    @mrrp405 2 роки тому +46

    I think it must've been incredibly stressful for Kasparov, and he was treated unfairly by the organizers, but even so the achievement DeepBlue accomplished was incredibly.

  • @trixbrix554
    @trixbrix554 5 років тому +61

    Honest Opinion:- This was an attempt to insult, NOT an attempt to challenge

  • @Rogue_Console
    @Rogue_Console 7 років тому +322

    I just went from watching a UFC fight to this...

  • @PackerBronco
    @PackerBronco 4 роки тому +70

    The computer did NOT beat Kasparov. After Gary cleaned Deep Blue's clock in Game 1, the programmers went back and made some modifications to the computer program. In other words, human intelligence intervened on Deep Blue's behalf based on what the programmers observed about Gary's strategy. What should have happened is that once the match had begun, Deep Blue was on its own.

    • @panama2468
      @panama2468 2 роки тому +2

      Wow, that's such a clear violation of ethics

    • @omeven5785
      @omeven5785 2 роки тому +16

      it doesn't work like that, they couldn't adjust deep blue to only work against kasparov, they just polished their code like a good programmer should do. And by the way, a human player would do exactly that, adjust their strategy based on previous experiences with this opponent.

    • @PackerBronco
      @PackerBronco 2 роки тому +11

      @@omeven5785 But that's my point. The HUMAN programmers were adjusting the code based on what they observed from the first game. So it was HUMAN intervention to respond to what they saw Gary do in Game 1. It was not Kasparov vs. Deep Blue, it was Kasparov vs. Deep Blue + A Team of Programmers AND chess grandmasters acting as consultants. To be a true test, IBM should not have been allowed to change anything once the match had begun. If that had to tweak something it should have been for a hypothetical 3rd match.

    • @jpdixon
      @jpdixon Рік тому +10

      So? A Human programmed Deep Blue so that means that the computer never won because a Human made it.

    • @mguddeti
      @mguddeti Рік тому +7

      @@PackerBroncowho do you think made Deep Blue, not programmers?

  • @KaPowProduction
    @KaPowProduction 6 років тому +204

    It was a game thrown. Because Kasparov has already won and IBM kept on improving Deep Blue, if Kasparov wins again, they will never stop until IBM finds a way to beat him. So, Kasparov stopped it by losing, It worked.

    • @trixbrix554
      @trixbrix554 5 років тому +6

      BEST REPLY

    • @BoleDaPole
      @BoleDaPole 4 роки тому +14

      kasporov invested heavily into IBM before the match.

    • @prismarinestars7471
      @prismarinestars7471 4 роки тому +19

      @@BoleDaPole Really? If so that’s genius

    • @gatomeong
      @gatomeong 3 роки тому

      @@BoleDaPole holy shit that's a genius move. no wonder why he's one of the best chess players

    • @VvC_Lad
      @VvC_Lad 3 роки тому +6

      @@prismarinestars7471 he made a company and it was failing I think then IBM took advantage of this and made a contract with Gary to improve their chess engine and gain more money. After the 1st game of gary kasparov with deep blue, ibm stocks increased 3x then they had a rematch where they put gary at a significant disadvantage. They won and earned a lot or money after that. Idk but imo gary was the one exploited by IBM but hey if it wasn’t for that we wouldn’t have good chess engines that helped improve chess.

  • @hutterite1
    @hutterite1 3 роки тому +42

    IBM won that match, not on the board, but off the board. One important condition to policy was they were allowed to tweak, fix and adjust the machine between games. Even during the game. Kasparov was being thrown something different every game. He lost due to pressure; but it had been in the fine print

    • @panama2468
      @panama2468 2 роки тому

      That's a disingenuous way of phrasing what happened. Just bc the cheated legally doesn't mean it was OK.

    • @freshlymemed5680
      @freshlymemed5680 6 місяців тому

      ​​@@panama2468how is it cheating? In the same way a human can adapt from their experiences in the previous match the machine was allowed the same. It just wasnt capable of adapting on the fly by itself during that time while we have chess AIs on our phones that can do just that now.
      Its definitely not the most graceful way of doing things but its still undeniably impressive.

    • @Jts-s8k
      @Jts-s8k 2 місяці тому

      @@freshlymemed5680 The humans were making the machine adapt; the machine was unable to adapt by itself.

    • @PackerBronco
      @PackerBronco 2 місяці тому

      @@freshlymemed5680 I think it is cheating at least in the spirit of the match, which should be human alone vs. computer alone. If humans are revising the code between games based on what they're observing of Kasparov's strategy, then Kasparov is playing against human competition plus computer code.
      If the programmers want to tweak the code, they should have done it before the next match but not within the match itself.

  • @01hondascott
    @01hondascott 4 роки тому +20

    this kicked off a huge chess boom in my junior high, it didn't matter of you were a jock, a geek, a prep, everyone was playing chess, there is a picture of me in my yearbook playing a game of chess on the bench in between shifts while playing in a basket ball game lol.

    • @Manima108
      @Manima108 3 роки тому +1

      can you google drive link the photo? without your face of course

    • @01hondascott
      @01hondascott 3 роки тому

      @@Manima108 i will see what i can do yes, did you just want the head removed from the neck up, or just try and edit out the face?

    • @Manima108
      @Manima108 3 роки тому +2

      @@01hondascott i dont really care what it is lol i just wanna see the context of a chess board in a basketball game lol

    • @01hondascott
      @01hondascott 3 роки тому

      @@Manima108 yea its me and another guy sitting on the bench in between shifts and instead of facing the court we are sitting facing eachother with the chess board on the bench between us and the photo is taken from the side lines

    • @Manima108
      @Manima108 3 роки тому

      @@01hondascott oh thats pretty cool lmao

  • @keikeikei55
    @keikeikei55 4 роки тому +46

    Bots before: managed to win a match against the grandmaster of chess
    Bots now: BE HONEST, DO YALL THINK IM CUTE OR NAH

  • @Pdiddy2400
    @Pdiddy2400 3 роки тому +7

    They played 3 games, Kasparov won 2. IBM declined a rematch Kasparov offered.

  • @salticz9202
    @salticz9202 Рік тому +11

    Crazy how they had Garry as the one that computers had to beat. Just shows how good he was

    • @M414-q6o
      @M414-q6o Рік тому +1

      Who else would they have? He was the world champion

  • @jrak4071
    @jrak4071 Рік тому +8

    Gary was so good he had an affect on people which made them afraid to beat him, incredible.

  • @MultiThunder93
    @MultiThunder93 4 роки тому +24

    He was expecting logical moves
    IBM in the end: (failsafe activated) random moves not logical.
    Kasparov: pikachu

  • @williamjayaraj2244
    @williamjayaraj2244 5 років тому +27

    History will remember this incident for a long long time to come. Congratulations to both the human chess master Gary and the machine chess mater Deep Blue.

  • @sunilkc5927
    @sunilkc5927 5 років тому +23

    1 man vs the whole company

    • @Ray-mw1fx
      @Ray-mw1fx 5 років тому +7

      Pewds vs Tseries

    • @khein2204
      @khein2204 3 роки тому

      but to be fair, this whole company could win againts the whole grand masters around the world

  • @davidevans3227
    @davidevans3227 2 роки тому +2

    listening to "the reunion" on bbc radio four.. about Kasparov vs deep blue, so came here for a little look..

  • @Pdiddy2400
    @Pdiddy2400 3 роки тому +3

    Does not matter how good you become, your fellow man will always find a way to push you into the dirt.

  • @LITTLE1994
    @LITTLE1994 Рік тому +4

    I can tell the grandmaster didn't play at his full capacity, because he was not used to be up against an AI but rather against professional humans.

  • @sontungle2641
    @sontungle2641 6 років тому +56

    But after the Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov, Kasparov find out that IBM was cheating so Kasparov want to rematch but IBM regret and Deep Blue project was cancelled.

    • @cattleherder1912
      @cattleherder1912 6 років тому +18

      How exctly would they cheat in a chess game?

    • @nothingtoseehere8865
      @nothingtoseehere8865 5 років тому +13

      Son Tung Le there isn’t any evidence to prove cheating, he was just salty

    • @sapien153
      @sapien153 5 років тому +26

      What is cheating anyway ?? The computer can do whatever it wants by rules of the game. How can it cheat then ? By getting assistance from a human ? 😂

    • @sapien153
      @sapien153 5 років тому +1

      @@jeudiballsl5518 Why is changing the program cheating ? It's well within the rules..

    • @Cnut_the_grape
      @Cnut_the_grape 4 роки тому +16

      How did they cheat? Computer assistance? Ultron hiding under the table?

  • @kato_dsrdr
    @kato_dsrdr 3 роки тому +25

    The amazing thing is that no matter which of them win, it still means that humans are damn awesome... Imagine creating a machine that can play equally against the best human or having a human that can play against the best machine.. It's both awesome.

    • @philosophiaentis5612
      @philosophiaentis5612 3 роки тому +4

      Today no human can play against the best machine.

    • @sufficientmagister9061
      @sufficientmagister9061 Рік тому

      ​@@philosophiaentis5612
      Wait until AI systems become conscious; humans will become obsolete in many fields of study & creativity.

  • @barron8006
    @barron8006 5 років тому +17

    The computer did make very adapative moves, which it was not programmedto do. Very suspicious. After Gary lost, IBM immediately dismantled the computer to preclude a re-match.

  • @lindaxhardo
    @lindaxhardo 3 роки тому +1

    Here I am again due to Origin DB. I'm reading it in Greek language and I'm on page 538 right now. I'm amazed of the whole thing Brown wrote down!

  • @alkan3191
    @alkan3191 3 роки тому +2

    its ironic how Dr.Stone always lead me to searching stuff like this

  • @sharathvenkatesh
    @sharathvenkatesh 5 років тому +8

    How many people here know that the computer crashed several times during the matches?

    • @AbeOrtiz88
      @AbeOrtiz88 4 роки тому +2

      Lmao it pulled a Bobby fisher move.

    • @dreamlifter7569
      @dreamlifter7569 4 роки тому +1

      Really?

    • @PackerBronco
      @PackerBronco 4 роки тому

      If so, I hope it was on the clock during the reboot.

    • @toyclub721
      @toyclub721 3 роки тому

      @@AbeOrtiz88 This was planned to affect Kasparov's psychology.

  • @anwitmondal6417
    @anwitmondal6417 5 років тому +7

    One russian guy vs a multi national company.

  • @cringepatrol6393
    @cringepatrol6393 3 роки тому +2

    This sounds like a movie “I was the best… until the computers beat me”

  • @william39855
    @william39855 4 роки тому +15

    And now, stockfish's online engine can easily beat any grandmaster.

  • @DoubleVanimation
    @DoubleVanimation Рік тому +3

    People accused deep blue of using a human
    Nowdays we accuse people of using a chess engine

  • @Krrrimmi
    @Krrrimmi 4 роки тому +17

    I only read this on newspaper Sports section back in Feb. '96.
    It was huge talk among my chess player classmates back in highdchool.
    Thanx for uploading this. 👑

  • @ronin_user
    @ronin_user 3 роки тому +6

    Those programmers are my hero. The day the human ego died.

  • @alisher_a5097
    @alisher_a5097 Рік тому +2

    Kasparov won Deep Blue in 1996 with 4 : 2

  • @ASLUHLUHC3
    @ASLUHLUHC3 4 роки тому +33

    A lot of salty humans in the comments

  • @PunksterOS
    @PunksterOS 7 років тому +8

    I remember this... I'm still young, damn it!

  • @C.Zacarias-Main
    @C.Zacarias-Main 6 місяців тому +1

    IBM's Deep Blue was one of the First AI (Artificial Intelligence) to play chess against a grand master in chess. The Cold War gave birth to Google, UA-cam, and Chat GPT.

    • @ArranVid
      @ArranVid 19 днів тому

      Google is satanic. The Google chrome wheel is 666. The Google Mail symbol is a red and white letter based on freemasons...freemasons still wear it to this day.

  • @nawazeeshali4340
    @nawazeeshali4340 Рік тому +1

    This match was truly historic.

  • @JanizMakudomaru
    @JanizMakudomaru 3 роки тому +9

    Who are here because of Dr. Stone?

  • @MonkeyDIvan
    @MonkeyDIvan 4 роки тому +5

    1:53 Is that Jim Lee's second coming?

  • @bijeshamatya8090
    @bijeshamatya8090 7 років тому +12

    human phycology comes to play at high stakes gameplay so it might be possible that he was completely broken down. Remember Chess is not just gameplay of strategy human factors also comes to play.So, hurrah to deep blue

    • @slinkerdeer
      @slinkerdeer 4 роки тому

      ​@@idiotsopinions Thing about stupid people is they aren't intelligent enough to realise the limits of their own knowledge. So, they lack the intelligence to know they don't have the knowledge. Pretty much a deadly circle that can only be broken by facts and evidence from someone who actually knows what they are gabbing on about

  • @DC-zi6se
    @DC-zi6se 5 років тому +14

    It was inevitable. With computers getting better and better, humans simply can't match up anymore. Chaotic imagination is the only difference between man and machine's "mind" so as to speak.
    A computer would drub any human brain in speed, calculation, representation and analysis.

    • @Whoami691
      @Whoami691 4 місяці тому

      But only within it's own limitation.
      Data from star trek is a good representation of this. Faster, stronger and more analytical than humans, but ask him to create his own art piece and he cannot do it.
      He can take elements from the art of others and use them for his own but, but aside from copying other element from already existing art he is unable to come up with an artistic concept that belongs solely to him.
      It's the same here. A machine cannot write a play or a book, it can't paint a picture or sculpt a statue without referencing the accomplishments of others.
      I could take a crack at sculpting right now, or pottery, or writing. I could do so entirely out of my own imagination, knowing nothing about any of it - but take away all external examples and a machine just cannot do it.

    • @bingus4901
      @bingus4901 Місяць тому

      Nowadays we can't even match in creativity.

    • @ArranVid
      @ArranVid 20 днів тому

      @@bingus4901 Not true. It depends

    • @ArranVid
      @ArranVid 20 днів тому

      @@bingus4901 AI will never surpass humans when it comes to art and music...because that stuff is subjective. But when it comes to objective things like Maths, chess, science....yes, AI will surpass humans.

    • @bingus4901
      @bingus4901 19 днів тому

      @@ArranVid I see your point. But if Art is subjective then wouldn't AI and Humans be equal?

  • @karis7539
    @karis7539 4 роки тому +12

    Me here after I wrote minimax algorithm for tic tac toe

    • @marccasals6366
      @marccasals6366 4 роки тому +4

      HAHAHHAHAHAHA I'M EXACTLY HERE FOR THE SAME REASON

    • @LordlyRecords
      @LordlyRecords 2 роки тому +1

      Same but for the Gomoku game

  • @arvinjaylo7430
    @arvinjaylo7430 4 роки тому +9

    thats why i never won chess titan in WINDOWS :(

  • @gurugeorge
    @gurugeorge 7 років тому +22

    How is it not just a bunch of clever professors playing beating a Chess master using a computer as a tool?

    • @warsinaction2450
      @warsinaction2450 7 років тому +29

      gurugeorge Because of the complexity of a postion in chess, it is very hard to calculate well. It was an incredible achievement to do it. What got him is computers play very weird. They might sac a queen to come out of a 10 move sequence a pawn ahead

    • @alexandersapir9079
      @alexandersapir9079 7 років тому

      Actually, Calculation is the easy part. The hard part is to find the correct candidate moves with an algorithm which isn't brute-force.

    • @gurugeorge
      @gurugeorge 7 років тому +4

      Yeah, that's what I'm thinking - ultimately it's pitting the professors' Chess acumen (and the Chess knowledge/ability of whoever they consult for knowledge, or whatever books and learned articles on Chess they consult) *as embodied in their programming,* versus Kasparov, with a slight advantage to the computer because of its speed of calculating multiple possibilities, plus the absence of any psychological element on the computer's side.
      Compare and contrast a "baby" AI learning Chess on its own, figuring out its own tactics, etc., etc. - _then_ that would be something like a real test between computer intelligence and person (then the person would be even more likely to lose, I think).
      I don't know, maybe Deep Blue is already doing something like this, and it's knitting its own internal programming, going beyond what's programmed into it?

    • @alexandersapir9079
      @alexandersapir9079 7 років тому

      Unfortunately, a computer program cannot change its own code (and will never be able to do that). Alan Turing has proved it mathematically. Computers can't program themselves because it's mathematically impossible :(

    • @samcavanagh7993
      @samcavanagh7993 6 років тому +4

      Alexander Sapir what are you talking about? there are already programs that do just that

  • @willypro4949
    @willypro4949 4 роки тому +5

    I wanna see IBM Deep Blue vs Google Deep Mind.
    That will truly be the match of the millennium

    • @Rhannmah
      @Rhannmah 4 роки тому

      huh? It would be an absolute beatdown, like a grown man fighting a child. AlphaZero already beats Stockfish 100-0, which is the CURRENT best chess computer player in the world. It is MANY times more powerful and optimized than Deep Blue ever was, and it gets DESTROYED by Deepmind's AlphaZero.

    • @willypro4949
      @willypro4949 4 роки тому +2

      @@Rhannmah but it would be interesting, not for the sake of seeing an old computer get beat up by an AI, just to see if Deep Blue can fight to the end or at least see the conditions that will put Deep Blue in to surrending the match

    • @Nemsesis3624
      @Nemsesis3624 4 роки тому +1

      @@Rhannmah Dude, wtf are you talking about? In which world Alpha Zero beats stockfish 100:0? Alpha Zero only beat Stockfish 8 which was limited by move time and not allowed using it's opening book. Stockfish 11 is rated several 100 Elo points above alpha zero and is TCEC Champion two times in a row now and therefore the best chess engine in the world.

  • @chaseconnor1959
    @chaseconnor1959 8 місяців тому

    That was the first match loss of Kasparovs entire career… he was extremely emotional and was questioning the authenticity of the machine due to the creators agreeing to let him see the details of the program after the conclusion of the match. They never let Kasparov see the machines engine and therefore he suspected human intervention in the machines chess play.

  • @neloysinha8098
    @neloysinha8098 5 років тому +1

    People saying it was one man vs company..just try to remember when u started out to code ..it was easy to write ,if u r given 12÷15 ,as 4/5 ,but trying to write a small code to tell the program to do it..not so much.

  • @randomlyentertaining8287
    @randomlyentertaining8287 Рік тому

    So many comments talking about how IBM tweaked the computer between the two matches or that Kasparov won the first match. Apparently, they don't seem to understand that none of that is irrelevant. The main point is that the computer beat him at all. The tweaking didn't matter, the fact that the computer could beat him at all showed that it DID have the ability to win. If the computer had been able to tweak itself between matches, the same as a human player can, then it still would've won. Yes, IBM refused another match. Why would they need to bother? Whatever its outcome, the point was already made. Computers could very well one day have the ability to beat any human in their first encounter. That's what mattered.

  • @JahNuhThunDeeTheOneAndOnly
    @JahNuhThunDeeTheOneAndOnly 3 роки тому +2

    *And this is how the machines took over the world*

  • @FrozenShogun850
    @FrozenShogun850 3 роки тому +9

    Dr.stone anyone haha? 😂 This is crazy I can’t wait for future seasons such a underrated gem!

    • @MakimaDog
      @MakimaDog 3 роки тому

      yep that ending was crazy

    • @ramameshram9421
      @ramameshram9421 3 роки тому

      Here... The talk between Sai and Ryusui might be foreshadowing... But I can't stop myself to search deep blue vs Kasparov

  • @MiguinGineer
    @MiguinGineer 3 роки тому +2

    Who went here after reading Dr. Stone's chapter 213

  • @yeeehees2973
    @yeeehees2973 Рік тому

    This was a match only Kasparov could lose, yet he still agreed to play twice

  • @Jesusandbible
    @Jesusandbible 2 роки тому +1

    The fact Deep Blue "missed" a mating combination proved it was a mega computer PLUS humans versus Kasparov. Can you imagine a match between two grandmasters each of which had a different super computer to help him, or Magnus Carlsen and AlphaZero versus....... someone? So they NEVER WON THAT MATCH. They cheated.

  • @hamburgerhamburgerv2
    @hamburgerhamburgerv2 2 роки тому +1

    damn, this Deep Blue guy must be pretty good

  • @clash5j
    @clash5j 2 роки тому +1

    It wasn't that big a deal for me. It wasn't a triumph of machine over human, it was a triumph for the HUMANS that developed Deep Blue

    • @paulblart7378
      @paulblart7378 2 роки тому +1

      Yeah but it was a huge milestone for AI research, which was the whole point of building Deep Blue.

  • @juanda680
    @juanda680 6 років тому +2

    To me that match say more about Kasparov than IBM

  • @thegloriousryius
    @thegloriousryius 4 роки тому +3

    Sounds like they programmed the computer to beat him.

  • @brunoevangoncalves
    @brunoevangoncalves 4 роки тому +3

    who else is here after the queen's gambit 👀

  • @gustavomartinez6892
    @gustavomartinez6892 6 років тому +1

    Gary kasparov should teach us all about maintaining a good Mental Health after being bitten by a bot, he really knows how it feels, and maybe he knows how to surpass that conflict to.

    • @dominusdone5023
      @dominusdone5023 4 роки тому +1

      First of all its better to know that you were beaten by a robot designed by a company to win then be beaten by another man and lose your chess title of being the best human at chess. Also you dont have to be a jerk

  • @Random_user274
    @Random_user274 Рік тому +1

    Is it just me that I want to see Magnus play against deep blue?

  • @ElliottPiano
    @ElliottPiano 3 роки тому

    Don't forget guys , it wasn't a computer that won , it was people building a computer that did
    it's still humans vs humans

  • @milocbc
    @milocbc 2 роки тому +1

    Now we have
    Mittens vs. Magnus Carlsen

  • @Napoleon_Blownapart
    @Napoleon_Blownapart 2 роки тому +2

    If you can't beat them, build a robot to do the beating for you.

  • @vikhyath.
    @vikhyath. 4 роки тому +3

    There needs to Deep Blue vs. The latest version of AlphaZero. Want to watch AlphaZero eat Deep Blue alive.

  • @Mr.Mister420
    @Mr.Mister420 3 роки тому

    This was back in 86 87 ..
    Now there is no Scope of Beating an engine in Chess

  • @zweiritter3569
    @zweiritter3569 4 роки тому +1

    There will never be a computer that can compress all possobilities of a chess game. Theres at least 10^120 possibilities and thats so much info that the whole universe cant contain that much information.

    • @professorx3060
      @professorx3060 2 роки тому

      Yes, but how many of those are winning moves? I would say only 10^10 moves are good in chess, which is still incomprehensible for us, but more manageable for AI

  • @gothia6515
    @gothia6515 3 роки тому +8

    Kasparov is one of the greatest chess players of all time. However, it baffles me a bit that they were surprised by his behaviour. He already proved multiple times that he is a sore loser. He even admited this himself later.

  • @paulschwarber3351
    @paulschwarber3351 3 роки тому

    Why this video loads a lot

  • @chandanpanda9035
    @chandanpanda9035 3 роки тому

    Who all came from Samay's Stream.
    Garry is such a legend.🔥

  • @vijayaraghavanrajagopal475
    @vijayaraghavanrajagopal475 4 роки тому

    that day was incredible

  • @RonPaul42069
    @RonPaul42069 4 роки тому

    0:00 Mike Stoklasa?

  • @thesupersteve1000
    @thesupersteve1000 7 років тому +5

    The computer was controlled by a human as well.

    • @Safwan.Hossain
      @Safwan.Hossain 5 років тому

      Kasparov was the best human player so I don't think it would benefit a lot to have it being controlled by a human

    • @wingzero2348
      @wingzero2348 5 років тому

      @@Safwan.Hossain Yes it does, did you even watch the documentary. Kasparov was playing against a style that a computer would play but with human interference it changes the whole dynamic.

  • @mazorepic8883
    @mazorepic8883 3 роки тому +2

    There are more possible moves in a game of chess than there are atoms in the known universe.

    • @maalikserebryakov
      @maalikserebryakov 3 роки тому

      A common misconception.

    • @professorx3060
      @professorx3060 2 роки тому

      @@maalikserebryakov They're actually right

    • @panama2468
      @panama2468 2 роки тому

      @@professorx3060 that's literally impossible

    • @ArranVid
      @ArranVid 20 днів тому

      @@professorx3060 Yes it's true. But it's the number of possible games of chess, not the number of possible moves of chess.

  • @n40798
    @n40798 6 років тому

    0:05 Anyone know what that chess clock is called?

  • @migueleduardo6297
    @migueleduardo6297 3 роки тому +1

    If Kasparov won in 1996 and Deep Blue won in 1997 , then is a draw. They should assembly DB again to the third and final matche

  • @rickybobby8563
    @rickybobby8563 3 роки тому

    It doesn't sound like you guys have all the facts correct.. My dad was working at IBM during this period of time so I was paying close attention..

  • @albertdowson5436
    @albertdowson5436 9 місяців тому

    Computers nowadays would crush every GM in every single match ,that's how far machines have come

  • @randomstranger3576
    @randomstranger3576 7 років тому +8

    I don't like how that oriental guy acts like he beat kasparov. I want to see him play vs Garry himself. oh and btw, does anyone know his name without looking it up? didn't think so.

    • @covershedgbdbs
      @covershedgbdbs 6 років тому +2

      Says 'Steve Meyer'.

    • @gixxerfixxer4159
      @gixxerfixxer4159 6 років тому

      Jonny Gill Says myself and a bunch of other people too.

    • @ashtree8868
      @ashtree8868 4 роки тому +1

      "oriental guy"

    • @ArranVid
      @ArranVid 20 днів тому

      Let's not be racist, racism is bad. But the dude was annoying and arrogant, I agree with you on that. Plus, IBM did shady stuff actually. Kasparov said they cheated and he was right.

  • @REDPOWERable
    @REDPOWERable 7 років тому +12

    Here in Russia, they made a real terminator who is ready to kill. Just saying if u r still smiling about a machine beating a human.

  • @sherlyvthomas6095
    @sherlyvthomas6095 3 роки тому +3

    Wait so if humanity won first and then AI won the second time then there is still a third match we can still win?

    • @decentish8546
      @decentish8546 3 роки тому

      No, because as soon as the game was done IBM dismantled deepblue and destroyed their logs. They were scared of a rematch and also likely cheated in this match.

    • @shoeofobama6091
      @shoeofobama6091 2 роки тому

      back then there was a pretty real chance kasparov could have won overall against ibm but now we have chess ais that we can say with confidence that no human who ever lived or ever will live can beat. and artificial intelligence is still in its infancy

    • @kekwnet
      @kekwnet Рік тому

      @Decentish well that doesn't matter anymore, no human can beat the stockfish engine

  • @bikpineda9127
    @bikpineda9127 Рік тому +1

    imagine if he battled stockfish or alphazero

    • @DarkWizardGG
      @DarkWizardGG Рік тому

      He can fight those AIs toe-to-toe but cant still beat it.😁🤖🤖🤖

  • @juanok2775
    @juanok2775 3 роки тому

    To be honest chess is very simple for deep learning but now cleaning your house or cooking a dish oh hell that shit is hard

  • @gamegineer11
    @gamegineer11 2 роки тому

    I'm from 2076, the robot has taken over the world.

  • @erkascazuchi8443
    @erkascazuchi8443 3 роки тому

    next, chess boxing between a macho grandmaster and a combative robot

  • @Wolzane
    @Wolzane 2 роки тому

    didn"t they make a movie based off of this

  • @jenhaiflich
    @jenhaiflich 4 роки тому

    why would he resign

  • @FM-dm8xj
    @FM-dm8xj Рік тому +1

    How ironic, Gary lost because he was too emotional, to intimitated and therefore too human.....

  • @riverfrontdetroit1
    @riverfrontdetroit1 Рік тому +1

    This AI is dangerous

    • @DarkWizardGG
      @DarkWizardGG Рік тому

      More dangerous than ChatGPT?! lol😁😄😅🤖🤖🤖🤖

    • @ArranVid
      @ArranVid 19 днів тому

      AI will be dangerous in the future. The people who like AI or who are in love with AI can fuck off.

  • @capnrob97
    @capnrob97 Рік тому

    And today, 1n 2023, Leela Chess Zero running on $99 Jetson Nano would wipe Deep Blue off the board.

  • @melodychest9020
    @melodychest9020 3 роки тому +1

    When the day comes when EVERY single game played by a Computer against a Computer always ends in a draw .. then I think chess is solved and we can all move on! However, I get the feeling that this may never happen or am I wrong?!

    • @shoeofobama6091
      @shoeofobama6091 2 роки тому

      theres no reason that chess cant be a solved game. but im curious to see if white wins, black wins or its a draw.
      its definitely possible but theres no way to know if computers will ever reach that amount of strength. solving chess, a game with so many factors and moves possible would require a god like computer

    • @paulblart7378
      @paulblart7378 2 роки тому

      @@shoeofobama6091 I strongly believe chess will never be solved, but I don't discourage anyone from trying.

    • @shoeofobama6091
      @shoeofobama6091 2 роки тому

      @@paulblart7378 theres nothing fundamentally unsolvable about chess, it just requires an ungodly amount of computing power

  • @bazza2974
    @bazza2974 7 років тому +19

    Ibm cheated

    • @sapien153
      @sapien153 5 років тому +3

      How can you cheat in a game where you are allowed to do anything.. lolz

    • @kadayori12
      @kadayori12 4 роки тому +1

      By what? Consulting a human?

    • @dominusdone5023
      @dominusdone5023 4 роки тому +1

      @@kadayori12 Think of it like this. Youve played a previous match with Kasprov and then you look at how he plays the unexpected move then you modify your computer to play the unexpected and to guess what hes going to do.

  • @somshekharpatil270
    @somshekharpatil270 3 роки тому +1

    Stockfish.. beat this deep blue to ashes please

  • @x_isaka
    @x_isaka 5 років тому

    full video?