Talk:Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov

message: This summary article was started by user:ZeroOne.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed --Stemonitis 06:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I could've copy-paste moved this article myself because I was the only one to edit it, but it do is nice to have the history available. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 10:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new article 

message: The move lists are using 1/2 and not ½ because they are supposed to be in Portable Game Notation format, so that you can copy-paste them into your favorite chess application. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 10:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see now.  I guess programs that can read PGN can't read "white moves the pawn in front of his king two squares." Bubba73 (talk), 15:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1/2 versus ½ 

message: The result tables have a result column that have 1-0, etc.  I think it would be good to have a column to list the winner, or "draw" in case of a draw.  This could be in addition to the current "result" column or replace it.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. However, I implemented it, for now, by rendering the winner in bold text. Do you think that's enough? --ZeroOne (talk | @) 22:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, Winner in bold is enough.  Thanks.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  result tables 

message: This article is entirely devoid of any discussion of the implications of the matches in the chess world or for computer chess, or artificial intelligence, or anything else. Surely there were "lessons learned" from the matches—the Deep Blue – Kasparov, 1997, Game 6 article even points out that "Deep Blue was further strengthened from the previous year's match with Kasparov". What were the lessons learned? - dcljr (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denouement? 

message: It would be good if Kasparov's allegations in 1997 were explained. --Dweller (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: here are two sites that say something about the clain:
*https://www.chess.com/blog/clizaw/did-ibm-cheat-kasparov - cites Wikipedia!
*http://time.com/3705316/deep-blue-kasparov/
other sites talk about the 2nd end-game in terms of a possible machime error.64.53.191.77 (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheat allegations 

message: I remember watching a TV documentary on this match some years ago, which suggested that IBM had a roomful of chess experts sneakily helping the computer, yet there is no mention of this in the article.   Was this content removed from Wikipedia by IBM staff ? Darkman101 (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of Cheating by IBM 

message: In the intro it says Kasparov won the first 1996 game but in the table further down the page it shows the 1st game as won by deep blue. SOmeone needs to check and adjust the info.Khasab (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it says "The first match was played in Philadelphia in 1996 and won by Kasparov." (A 'match' consists of 6 'games'.) --IHTS (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  who won which game 

message: It is reported that "Deep Blue's 44th move in this game puzzled Kasparov, and he attributed it to "superior intelligence"."
This is wrong, as in game 1, Kasparov was already lost at move 44. The move that sparked controversy, was instead move 37th in game 2, as also reported in the comments to that game Pasqualobos (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, you're right.  I removed the nonsense text about move 44 in the commentary on game 1 of the 1997 match. Quale (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1997 rematch, game 1 

message: Currently, the page states that the controversial move was revealed to be a bug by Murray Campbell, but this is not supported by it's two citations. The first citation is a ChessBase article which analyzes the move, but makes no claim about whether it was a bug. In the second citation, the Wired article does make that claim, but it looks like Wired is misreporting it's source: The source for that Wired article is Nate Silver's book "The Signal and the Noise," where Murray Campbell was interviewed and claimed that move 44 in the first game was a bug, not the controversial move in game 2. This is correctly reported in other articles based on that source, such as this CNet article: https://www.cnet.com/news/did-a-bug-in-deep-blue-lead-to-kasparovs-defeat/ For this reason, I've deleted that line. I've also restored the lines about the bug in game 1, since that seems to be factually supported. However, to address the concerns in the talk page above, I've reworded it so it is clear the notion Kasparov could have considered the move a sign of "superior intelligence" is unique to Nate Silver's analysis, and is not necessarily a universally accepted fact. Supernoob5000 (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deep Blue's "bug" move was in 1997 Game 1, not Game 2 

message: This is really editorializing, because 43... Rg2 would have drawn; DB's move 43 was a blunder. This is mentioned in "Deep Thinking" by Kasparov 2017.
Chapter 9 notes, can't see the page number. Cancerward (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  1997 game 5 "Deep Blue played a brilliant endgame" 

message: like best of 6 and if 3-3 then go into tiebreaks? i think we should please include 'under normal chess tournament conditions (in particular, standard time control; in this case 40 moves in two hours)' and other info. Thewriter006 (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  what was the format? 

message: It's of little or no relevance to the actual article, but their parody of Ted Koppel lost his mind because Kasparov lost. Even Will Ferrell as the Unabomber was trying to calm him down. Just a bit of silliness for you. Hellbus (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saturday Night Live