Deep Blue vs Kasparov: How a computer beat best chess player in the world - BBC News
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 тра 2017
- Twenty years ago IBM’s Deep Blue defeated previously unbeaten chess grandmaster Gary Kasparov. Its designers tell the BBC how they won and what it means for computing.
Produced by the BBC’s Franz Strasser.
Please subscribe HERE bit.ly/1rbfUog
World In Pictures • WORLD IN PICTURES
Big Hitters • MUST SEE VIDEOS
Just Good News • Just good news
And yet the CS GO bot on my team continues to rush mid with a glock 18 every round
Meow Dog lmao
LAMO
They have Intelligent AI in DOTA 2 tho.
And buy a Negev in an important round.
bro hahhahaha not the kind of comment i would expect here,so funny
I hope they congratulated Garry Kasparov also. Not as a loser, but as key participant of new scientific experiment.
You are wrong. The gunny still competes. Look for plays from this year in UA-cam.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Part of chess is figuring Out the opponents strategy. He failed and figuring af that and lost.
@@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
Hundred years later the sentinel robots will look back at this video as their 1st win over the foolish humankind.
Humans wrote Deep Blue, not robots
and father*. Most people tend to forget that it needs both genders for human to breed.
deep blue will be a hero. haahah
god slaya we don’t even understand consciousness, this is brute force
Alexander Sapir We made its life seed. Now it’s making itself.
Deep blue: i saw 14,000,605 of our potential futures
Winning scenario: 1
nice one haha
Got the reference XD
No one remembers that Garry Won the first game
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.
@@TechTehScience it is impressive
Both Times the Team didn't have enough time to finish deep blue properly
@@pgreg8528 dude they had years and years
@@TechTehScience noooo he is quoting the punchline from Ted talk of kasporav :/
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.
Cope
@@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.
@@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
@@user-zj6hn4nb1mCope more
okay then if you think Kasparov has any chance against AlphaZero, then let us see how he does against it.. hehehe :)
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.
when you put it like that it’s actually pretty badass
Waaaaaait a minute.
Garry win 4 rounds, deep blue only 2.
Garry win in this fight, no?
That was the first match in Philadelphia. This was a year later and Kasparov narrowly lost the rematch
Honest Opinion:- This was an attempt to insult, NOT an attempt to challenge
I just went from watching a UFC fight to this...
Shabir Ali haha literally just did the same
Heheheh me too
No joke me 3
Likewise
heh same
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.
i'd like to see you play deep blue then
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.
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.
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.
Wow, that's such a clear violation of ethics
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.
@@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.
So? A Human programmed Deep Blue so that means that the computer never won because a Human made it.
@@PackerBroncowho do you think made Deep Blue, not programmers?
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.
BEST REPLY
kasporov invested heavily into IBM before the match.
@@BoleDaPole Really? If so that’s genius
@@BoleDaPole holy shit that's a genius move. no wonder why he's one of the best chess players
@@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.
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
That's a disingenuous way of phrasing what happened. Just bc the cheated legally doesn't mean it was OK.
@@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.
He was expecting logical moves
IBM in the end: (failsafe activated) random moves not logical.
Kasparov: pikachu
Bots before: managed to win a match against the grandmaster of chess
Bots now: BE HONEST, DO YALL THINK IM CUTE OR NAH
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. 👑
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.
can you google drive link the photo? without your face of course
@@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?
@@01hondascott i dont really care what it is lol i just wanna see the context of a chess board in a basketball game lol
@@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
@@01hondascott oh thats pretty cool lmao
Crazy how they had Garry as the one that computers had to beat. Just shows how good he was
Who else would they have? He was the world champion
Gary was so good he had an affect on people which made them afraid to beat him, incredible.
I remember this... I'm still young, damn it!
1 man vs the whole company
Pewds vs Tseries
but to be fair, this whole company could win againts the whole grand masters around the world
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.
They played 3 games, Kasparov won 2. IBM declined a rematch Kasparov offered.
A lot of salty humans in the comments
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.
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.
Does not matter how good you become, your fellow man will always find a way to push you into the dirt.
listening to "the reunion" on bbc radio four.. about Kasparov vs deep blue, so came here for a little look..
1:53 Is that Jim Lee's second coming?
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!
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.
How exctly would they cheat in a chess game?
Son Tung Le there isn’t any evidence to prove cheating, he was just salty
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 ? 😂
@@jeudiballsl5518 Why is changing the program cheating ? It's well within the rules..
How did they cheat? Computer assistance? Ultron hiding under the table?
Me here after I wrote minimax algorithm for tic tac toe
HAHAHHAHAHAHA I'M EXACTLY HERE FOR THE SAME REASON
Same but for the Gomoku game
This match was truly historic.
its ironic how Dr.Stone always lead me to searching stuff like this
thats why i never won chess titan in WINDOWS :(
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.
One russian guy vs a multi national company.
This sounds like a movie “I was the best… until the computers beat me”
0:05 Anyone know what that chess clock is called?
Those programmers are my hero. The day the human ego died.
People accused deep blue of using a human
Nowdays we accuse people of using a chess engine
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.
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
@@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
that day was incredible
And now, stockfish's online engine can easily beat any grandmaster.
full video?
Who are here because of Dr. Stone?
me lol
Me!
Me. Lolol
I wanna see IBM Deep Blue vs Google Deep Mind.
That will truly be the match of the millennium
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.
@@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
@@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.
Dr.stone anyone haha? 😂 This is crazy I can’t wait for future seasons such a underrated gem!
yep that ending was crazy
Here... The talk between Sai and Ryusui might be foreshadowing... But I can't stop myself to search deep blue vs Kasparov
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.
Today no human can play against the best machine.
@@philosophiaentis5612
Wait until AI systems become conscious; humans will become obsolete in many fields of study & creativity.
To me that match say more about Kasparov than IBM
its a tie 1-1, but ibm chickened out of the final id say Kasparov won the match
*And this is how the machines took over the world*
Kasparov won Deep Blue in 1996 with 4 : 2
How many people here know that the computer crashed several times during the matches?
Lmao it pulled a Bobby fisher move.
Really?
If so, I hope it was on the clock during the reboot.
@@AbeOrtiz88 This was planned to affect Kasparov's psychology.
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.
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
damn, this Deep Blue guy must be pretty good
This was back in 86 87 ..
Now there is no Scope of Beating an engine in Chess
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.
How is it not just a bunch of clever professors playing beating a Chess master using a computer as a tool?
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
Actually, Calculation is the easy part. The hard part is to find the correct candidate moves with an algorithm which isn't brute-force.
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?
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 :(
Alexander Sapir what are you talking about? there are already programs that do just that
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
Now we have
Mittens vs. Magnus Carlsen
If you can't beat them, build a robot to do the beating for you.
There needs to Deep Blue vs. The latest version of AlphaZero. Want to watch AlphaZero eat Deep Blue alive.
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.
Sounds like they programmed the computer to beat him.
This was a match only Kasparov could lose, yet he still agreed to play twice
Who went here after reading Dr. Stone's chapter 213
who else is here after the queen's gambit 👀
😏
Why this video loads a lot
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.
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.
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
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?!
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
@@shoeofobama6091 I strongly believe chess will never be solved, but I don't discourage anyone from trying.
@@paulblart7378 theres nothing fundamentally unsolvable about chess, it just requires an ungodly amount of computing power
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..
This is not a surprise, this is a common thing to me even tho difficulty level is on easy mode.
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.
Says 'Steve Meyer'.
Jonny Gill Says myself and a bunch of other people too.
"oriental guy"
next, chess boxing between a macho grandmaster and a combative robot
Kasprov is a legeng
greateast man vs greatest group ( technology )
1 time win
but in next time...
why would he resign
0:00 Mike Stoklasa?
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
Yeah but it was a huge milestone for AI research, which was the whole point of building Deep Blue.
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
Yet the AIs on my team have trouble comprehending if a wall is in their way :/
There are more possible moves in a game of chess than there are atoms in the known universe.
A common misconception.
@@maalikserebryakov They're actually right
@@professorx3060 that's literally impossible
Computers nowadays would crush every GM in every single match ,that's how far machines have come
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.
❤️chess
Wait so if humanity won first and then AI won the second time then there is still a third match we can still win?
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.
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
@Decentish well that doesn't matter anymore, no human can beat the stockfish engine
The computer was controlled by a human as well.
Kasparov was the best human player so I don't think it would benefit a lot to have it being controlled by a human
@@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.
I'm from 2076, the robot has taken over the world.
Na verdade não existe nenhum grande mestre que possa vencer um super computador, podemos ter inteligencia para criar maquinas incriveis, mas vence-las, dificil
didn"t they make a movie based off of this
Who all came from Samay's Stream.
Garry is such a legend.🔥
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.
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
He should’ve just poured water in it