Talk:Deep Blue versus Kasparov, 1996, Game 1

message: Why is there no mention of this article by Kasparov on game 1 on this move? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984305,00.html 173.252.35.134 (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE DAY THAT I SENSED A NEW KIND OF INTELLIGENCE 

message: The second paragraph makes several unsupported POV statements, including
* The increase in strength between Deep Blue and "Deeper" Blue was minimal (the main article on Deep Blue says that several upgrades were made)
** It doubled its power from 100,000,000 pos/s to 200,000,000 pos/s calculations, among other strength adjustments and was noted that Deep Blue 1997 would beat Deep Blue 1996. Information on this may be found in "Behind Deep Blue: Building the Computer that Defeated the World Chess Champion" book. Xonatron (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slant about rematch 

message: Note that , linked to from the bottom of this page, was written by the same person as the original author of this article. There is no copyright infringement. --Camembert
It's been noted that much of this text is based on http://www.dwheeler.com/misc/deepblue-kasparov.txt - but this is not a copyright violation.  I am the author of the text on that page, and I have contributed that text to Wikipedia.   I record that information here (under "discussion") so that it won't be accidentally deleted speedily as a copyvio.  I've modified the web page location noting its contribution to Wikipedia, to make sure that's clear.  Enjoy! -- Dwheeler 18:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing it up Dwheeler. Sorry for the speedy tag. After 3 years most of your analysis still stands! Sander123 20:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pity the anlysis was so poor. Where did question mark on 25...Kh8? come from. It should, if anything be an ! and then followed by 27...f4! (27...d4 was inaccurate) after which black is better, with a draw likely. SunCreator (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT a copyvio 

message: I realize something like this is bound to get very technical, but could it perhaps get simplifed some? I found myself completely lost in trying to read through the jargon. Also, statements such as "This is an excellent place for White's queen." reek of original research. Cite "this is good/bad"-type statements to experts.--SeizureDog 23:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing and OR 

message: I came here via WP:Third opinion. I haven't done this before, but I'll give it a try. I think the one big article vs. several small articles is an editorial decision best left to the editors working a particular subject, as long as the results look reasonable and there is sufficient verifiable information in each article. My first impression of the Game 1 article was quite positive. It was clear, well laid out and about the right size. I know the game but am not a chess expert. I am not able to follow a game by reading chess notation. I got a nice feel for what happened from the article. It seemed like a model for a chess game article on Wikipedia. Same for 1997, Game 6. I'd like to see 1997 Game 2 expanded. Perhaps a few more positions such as 45 mentioned at the end. 
I do agree that there is a need for a summary article. It might consist of the second paragraph of the Game 1 article, a table listing each game with its outcome and significance, links to individual articles about key games, and ideally more about what has happened since. In my opinion, the complete moves of individual games should not be in the summary article as they would put off non-expert readers.  
I don't think the Baseball World Series articles are controlling precedents. The needs of each game are different. And one could argue that the Deep Blue - Kasparov matches are more notable than any World Series since they raise man vs machine issues that go far beyond the game. --agr 12:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, unfortunately, the problem is, these articles don't even discuss that issue. Perhaps that might be worth adding.  FrozenPurpleCube 13:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a summary, with the technical details of each game pushed to individual articles, might make it easier for an editor who is not a chess expert to add well-sourced material on the broader implications. Just to be clear, I'm not saying the organization you proposed couldn't work, just that this is a judgement call and having a separate article per game is a reasonable way to go.--agr 14:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it might be, but that would depend on the level of content available.  However, I don't think it's the case yet.  I think it'd be better to work from one page, and expand later.  In any case, the lack of a over-arching summary is the biggest problem.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that a summary article is needed. Why not write one?--agr 18:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I said, I believe in merging the pages together, but when I tried that I got reverted before I could get a chance to get some resources and clean it up.  Since I've got no interest in covering the individual games in their own articles, I'll leave the work to the people who have expressed a desire to do it that way.  As long as they're willing to cover the series as a whole, my main concerns are met.   Saves me the trouble of going to the library. FrozenPurpleCube 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I already began writing the summary article, as I stated above: User:ZeroOne/Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov. I'm planning to import it to the main namespace after finishing the initial copying of the moves and writing two-sentence summaries. I already suggested you should start such a fork in your own user space. Now that I've done so, we could compare the results. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 21:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good, when the summary article gets to the namespace that should settle the issue.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but I have zero interest in making a page just to compare results with yours.  If I don't feel the page version you have is adequate, I'll just make appropriate edits to it or make suggestions as to improvement.   FrozenPurpleCube 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was speaking of ZeroOne's page.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: I'm finished, I consider User:ZeroOne/Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov ready to be published in the main namespace. However, I cannot move it as there is a redirect in place of the target article, so I've just placed a move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. In case you disagree with me, just go ahead and delete the request, fix the problem and add the request back. Or delete the request and leave a constructive comment here. If/When the article is moved, Deep Blue - Kasparov, 1996, Game 5 and Deep Blue - Kasparov, 1997, Game 2 should be changed into redirects. About referencing: if no reference number is given, all the claims are referenced to  (which is listed in the references) and its sub-pages. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 00:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A redirect page with that name exists, but I think you can just take your text and copy it over to the new page.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I moved the text.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary page

message: The text in this article is ambiguous in terms of which side is Kasparov and which is Deep Blue.  Above the board it shows Kasparov as Black, however the game annotation indicates that Kasparov is white.  Which is correct?  
Trojanfoe (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kasparov is Black in this game.  The comment after White's 23rd move may be confusing: "This type of pawn sacrifice is typical of Kasparov's style of play. Indeed, Kasparov commented that he might have played 23. d5 himself".  It is talking about White's move, but it is a move by Deep Blue that Kasparov might have played if he were White.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Kasparov white or black? 

message: Charles Krauthammer wrote a comment on move 29. Nxb7: "Deep Blue's king was
under savage assault by a World Champion. Any human Any human under such
assault by a world champion would be staring at his own king trying to figure
out how to get away. Instead, Deep Blue ignored the threat and quite
nonchalantly went hunting for lowly pawns at the other end of the board. In
fact, at the point of maximum peril, Deep Blue expended two moves - many have
died giving Kasparov even one - to snap one pawn. It was as if, at Gettysburg,
General Meade had sent his soldiers out for a spot of apple-picking moments
before Beckett's charge, because he had calculated that they could get back to
their positions with a half-second to spare. In humans, that is called
sangfroid. And if you don't have any sang, you can be very froid. But then
again if Meade had known absolutely - by calculating the precise trajectories
of all the bullets and all the bayonets and all the cannons in Pickett's
division - the time of arrival of the enemy he could, indeed, without fear,
have ordered his men to pick apples. Which is exactly what Deep Blue did. It
had calculated every possible combination of Kasparov's available moves and
determined with absolute certainty that it could return from its pawn-picking
expedition and destroy Kasparov exactly one move before Kasparov could destroy
it. Which it did. It takes more than nerves of steel to do that. It takes a
silicon brain. No human can achieve absolute certainty because no human can be
sure to have seen everything. Deep Blue can."
This appears in https://en.chessbase.com/post/25-years-ago-deep-blue-beats-kasparov and partially in https://www.journalstandard.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2011/03/15/my-view-education-must-appreciate/44912266007/  (And was memorable enough that I thought of it 25+ years later.) Does anyone have the original citation?
Jrincayc (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, found it at https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,984175-2,00.html and added it to wikiquote. Jrincayc (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote about game