IBM100 - Deep Blue IBM100 Choose your Country and Language: On May 11, 1997, an IBM computer called IBM ® Deep Blue ® beat the world chess champion after a six-game match: two wins for IBM, one for the champion and three draws. The match lasted several days and received massive media coverage around the world. It was the classic plot line of man vs. machine. Behind the contest, however, was important computer science, pushing forward the ability of computers to handle the kinds of complex calculations needed to help discover new medical drugs; do the broad financial modeling needed to identify trends and do risk analysis; handle large database searches; and perform massive calculations needed in many fields of science. Since the emergence of artificial intelligence and the first computers in the late 1940s, computer scientists compared the performance of these “giant brains” with human minds, and gravitated to chess as a way of testing the calculating abilities of computers. The game is a collection of challenging problems for minds and machines, but has simple rules, and so is perfect for such experiments. Over the years, many computers took on many chess masters, and the computers lost.

IBM computer scientists had been interested in chess computing since the early 1950s. In 1985, a graduate student at Carnegie Mellon University, Feng-hsiung Hsu, began working on his dissertation project: a chess playing machine he called ChipTest. A classmate of his, Murray Campbell, worked on the project, too, and in 1989, both were hired to work at IBM Research. There, they continued their work with the help of other computer scientists, including Joe Hoane, Jerry Brody and C. J. Tan. The team named the project Deep Blue. The human chess champion won in 1996 against an earlier version of Deep Blue; the 1997 match was billed as a “rematch.” The champion and computer met at the Equitable Center in New York, with cameras running, press in attendance and millions watching the outcome. The odds of Deep Blue winning were not certain, but the science was solid. The IBMers knew their machine could explore up to 200 million possible chess positions per second. The chess grandmaster won the first game, Deep Blue took the next one, and the two players drew the three following games.

Game 6 ended the match with a crushing defeat of the champion by Deep Blue. The match’s outcome made headlines worldwide, and helped a broad audience better understand high-powered computing. The 1997 match took place not on a standard stage, but rather in a small television studio. The audience watched the match on television screens in a basement theater in the building, several floors below where the match was actually held. The theater seated about 500 people, and was sold out for each of the six games. The media attention given to Deep Blue resulted in more than three billion impressions around the world. Deep Blue had an impact on computing in many different industries. It was programmed to solve the complex, strategic game of chess, so it enabled researchers to explore and understand the limits of massively parallel processing. This research gave developers insight into ways they could design a computer to tackle complex problems in other fields, using deep knowledge to analyze a higher number of possible solutions. The architecture used in Deep Blue was applied to financial modeling, including marketplace trends and risk analysis; data mining—uncovering hidden relationships and patterns in large databases; and molecular dynamics, a valuable tool for helping to discover and develop new drugs.

Ultimately, Deep Blue was retired to the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, DC, but IBM went on to build new kinds of massively parallel computers such as IBM Blue Gene ®. [Read more about this Icon of Progress.] The Deep Blue project inspired a more recent grand challenge at IBM: building a computer that could beat the champions at a more complicated game, Jeopardy!. Over three nights in February 2011, this machine—named Watson—took on two of the all-time most successful human players of the game and beat them in front of millions of television viewers. The technology in Watson was a substantial step forward from Deep Blue and earlier machines because it had software that could process and reason about natural language, then rely on the massive supply of information poured into it in the months before the competition. Watson demonstrated that a whole new generation of human - machine interactions will be possible. Learning chess strategies In 1985, Carnegie Mellon doctoral student Feng-hsiung Hsu and Thomas Anantharamen developed a chess-playing computer called "Chiptest." It could search 50,000 moves per second and was controlled by a SUN 3/160 workstation.

By 1987 Chiptest (Chiptest-M) was examining 500,000 chess positions per second. In 1988 Chiptest evolved into Deep Thought 0.01, running on a SUN 4 workstation. It then evolved into Deep Thought 0.02 and examing 720,000 chess positions per second. The new program included two customized VLSI chess processors. Its USCF rating in 1988 was 2551. In May, 1989 Deep Thought won its first World Computer Chess Championship with a perfect 5-0 score. In late 1989 Hsu joined IBM Research, along with his classmate Murray Campbell. They were to explore how to use parallel processing to solve complex computing problems. Chiptest/Deep Thought evolved into Deep Blue when ported to an RS/6000 SP super computer. The Deep Thought/Deep Blue team consisted of Hsu, Campbell, Joe Hoane, Jerry Brody, and C.J. Tan. The project moved to the Thomas J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York.

IBM's Deep Thought played Garry Kasparov in 1990 in a 2-game match in New York. Kasparov easily defeated the computer. By 1991 Deep Thought emerged into Deep Thought II running on an IBM/6000 computer. It was examing 7 million chess positions per second. In February, 1993 Deep Thought was renamed to Deep Blue. Deep Blue is a massively parallel, 32-node RISC System RS/6000 SP computer system built by IBM. It is a distributed memory multinode, large scale, high performance computing server. It was designed to play chess at the grandmaster level. The RS/6000 was introduced in 1993. There have been 9000 RS/6000 machines built by IBM in Armouk, New York. Deep Blue weighs 1.4 tons. Deep Blue utilizes the Power Two Super Chip processors (P2SC). Each of its 32 nodes employs a single microchannel card containing 8 dedicated Very Large Scale Intergrated (VLSI) chess processors, for a total of 256 processors working in tandem.

Deep Blue's programming code in written in C and runs under the AIX UNIX operating system. IBM spent 5 years and millions of dollars building Deep Blue. Deep Blue does not use any artificial intelligence. There is no formula for chess intuition. Deep Blue relies on computational power and a search and evaluation function. Deep Blue is the first computer to attain celebrity status and ended up on the cover of Newsweek ("The Brains Last Stand"). Deep Blue is recognized by over 50% of all Americans. Deep Blue first won fame by playing Garry Kasparov in Feb, 1996. Deep Blue lost that time, but an improved model was ready for him in 1997. The improved version had twice the processor speed and the 1996 version. In the 1996 match, Deep Blue was able to win game 1. For the first time under tournament conditions, the world chess champion had lost to a computer. Kasparov eventually won 3 games and drew 2 games to win the match. In May, 1997 Deep Blue (affectionately called Deeper Blue) played world chess champion Garry Kasparov and won the match.

Deep Blue won 2 games, lost 1 game, and drew 3 games to take the match in 6 games. The match was observed by 5 million people over the Internet. The games were played on the 35th floor of the Equitable Center in downtown Manhattan. Deep Blue was generating up to 200 million positions per second and evaluating the "goodness" of each chess position. It can calculate 200 billion moves in three minutes, the time allotted for each move. A grandmaster may be able to calculate 500 moves in three minutes. Deep Blue won its match on May 11, 1997. US Champion Joel Benjamin was a team consultant for Deep Blue. The 1997 match between Deep Blue and Kasparov generated $500 million of free publicity for IBM. Its stock went up over $10 to reach a new high for the company. In July, 2000 Deep Blue was featured on the animated television series Futurama on the Fox network. Deep Blue was charged with the task of protecting the Earth's time-space continuum, with help from Al Gore and Star Trek's Lt. Uhura.

Deep Blue currently resides at IBM's Watson Research Center in Yorktown, NY. It is used as a benchmark for more powerful computers, such as ASCII White. ASCII White is 1,000 times more powerful than Deep Blue and is used to simulate nuclear testing for the Department of Energy. This article was printed by permission of Bill Wall. Check out Bille chess site IBM Research | Deep Blue | Overview game 6: May 11 @ 3:00PM EDT | 19:00PM GMT kasparov 2.5 deep blue 3.5 Deep Blue Junior IBM Deep Blue Junior (DBjr.) is a portable version of IBM's advanced chess technology, Deep Blue. Deep Blue is the system which successfully played against Chess Grand Master Garry Kasparov in early 1996. Since DBjr. is a traveling version of Deep Blue, it is not nearly as strong as Deep Blue. However, it is still a very powerful opponent. There are several fundamental technology differences between Deep Blue and DBjr. Deep Blue uses parallelized software running on a 32-node RS/6000 SP* supercomputer.

It has 16 specialized chess accelerator chips running on each node (a total of 512 accelerator chips) which boost its powerful performance. DBjr. is based on a single-node RS/6000 workstation, and uses a total of 16 chess accelerator chips. DB jr. also runs in a non-parallelized (serial) mode, meaning it does not divide the processing work up between processors; all of the calculations are done on a single processor. Using its 512 chips, Deep Blue examines and evaluates chess positions at a high rate of speed -- at an average of 200 million chess positions per second. DBjr., with 16 of the same silicon chess accelerator chips, is capable of examining an average of 10 million chess positions per second. This configuration means that Deep Blue is ten times faster than DBjr. Even in this scaled-down form, DBjr. performs at the level of a Grandmaster player and has played very successfully against many formidable opponents. Using many of the same technology innovations of Deep Blue, and developed by the same IBM Research team, DBjr. has tested to be far superior than most other chess computers, with the exception of Deep Blue.

Deep Blue Deep Blue (chess computer) - Chess.com Chess.com Jun 20, 2010, 11:57 PM 12,064 Reads 2 Comments Deep Blue (chess computer) Deep Blue was a chess-playing computer developed by IBM. On May 11, 1997, the machine won a six-game match by two wins to one with three draws against world champion Garry Kasparov.[1] Kasparov accused IBM of cheating and demanded a rematch, but IBM refused and dismantled Deep Blue.[2] Kasparov had beaten a previous version of Deep Blue in 1996. Origins at Carnegie Mellon and move to IBM Research The project was started as "ChipTest" at Carnegie Mellon University by Feng-hsiung Hsu, followed by its successor, Deep Thought.

After their graduation from Carnegie Mellon, Hsu, Thomas Anantharaman, and Murray Campbell from the Deep Thought team were hired by IBM Research to continue their quest to build a chess machine that could defeat the world champion.[3] Hsu and Campbell joined IBM in autumn 1989, with Anantharaman following later.[4] Anantharaman subsequently left IBM for Wall Street and Arthur Joseph Hoane joined the team to perform programming tasks.[5] Jerry Brody, a long-time employee of IBM Research, was recruited for the team in 1990.[6] The team was managed first by Randy Moulic, followed by Chung-Jen (C J) Tan.[7] After Deep Thought's 1989 match against Kasparov, IBM held a contest to rename the chess machine and it became "Deep Blue", a play on IBM's nickname, Big Blue.[8] After a scaled down version of Deep Blue, Deep Blue Jr., played Grandmaster Joel Benjamin, Hsu and Campbell decided that Benjamin was the expert they were looking for to develop Deep Blue's opening book, and Benjamin was signed by IBM Research to assist with the preparations for Deep Blue's matches against Garry Kasparov.[9] In

 1995 "Deep Blue prototype" (actually Deep Thought II, renamed for PR reasons) played in the 8th World Computer Chess Championship.

Deep Blue prototype played the computer program Wchess to a draw while Wchess was running on a personal computer. In round 5 Deep Blue prototype had the white pieces and lost to the computer program Fritz in 39 moves while Fritz was running on a personal computer. In the end of the championship Deep Blue prototype was tied for second place with the computer program Junior while Junior was running on a personal computer.[10] Deep Blue versus Kasparov On February 10, 1996, Deep Blue became the first machine to win a chess game against a reigning world champion (Garry Kasparov) under regular time controls. However, Kasparov won three and drew two of the following five games, beating Deep Blue by a score of 4–2 (wins count 1 point, draws count ½ point). The match concluded on February 17, 1996. Deep Blue was then heavily upgraded (unofficially nicknamed "Deeper Blue")[11] and played Kasparov again in May 1997, winning the six-game rematch 3½–2½, ending on May 11.

Deep Blue won the deciding game six after Kasparov made a mistake in the opening, becoming the first computer system to defeat a reigning world champion in a match under standard chess tournament time controls. The system derived its playing strength mainly out of brute force computing power. It was a massively parallel, RS/6000 SP Thin P2SC-based system with 30-nodes, with each node containing a 120 MHz P2SC microprocessor for a total of 30, enhanced with 480 special purpose VLSI chess chips. Its chess playing program was written in C and ran under the AIX operating system. It was capable of evaluating 200 million positions per second, twice as fast as the 1996 version.

In June 1997, Deep Blue was the 259th most powerful supercomputer according to the TOP500 list, achieving 11.38 GFLOPS on the High-Performance LINPACK benchmark.[12] The Deep Blue chess computer which defeated Kasparov in 1997 would typically search to a depth of between six and eight moves to a maximum of twenty or even more moves in some situations.[13] Levy and Newborn estimate that one additional ply (half-move) increases the playing strength 50 to 70 Elo points (Levy & Newborn 1991:192). Deep Blue's evaluation function was initially written in a generalized form, with many to-be-determined parameters (e.g. how important is a safe king position compared to a space advantage in the center, etc.). The optimal values for these parameters were then determined by the system itself, by analyzing thousands of master games. The evaluation function had been split into 8,000 parts, many of them designed for special positions. In the opening book there were over 4,000 positions and 700,000 grandmaster games.

The endgame database contained many six piece endgames and five or fewer piece positions. Before the second match, the chess knowledge of the program was fine tuned by grandmaster Joel Benjamin. The opening library was provided by grandmasters Miguel Illescas, John Fedorowicz, and Nick de Firmian. When Kasparov requested that he be allowed to study other games that Deep Blue had played so as to better understand his opponent, IBM refused. However, Kasparov did study many popular PC computer games to become familiar with computer game play in general. Aftermath After the loss, Kasparov said that he sometimes saw deep intelligence and creativity in the machine's moves, suggesting that during the second game, human chess players had intervened on behalf of the machine, which would be a violation of the rules. IBM denied that it cheated, saying the only human intervention occurred between games. The rules provided for the developers to modify the program between games, an opportunity they said they used to shore up weaknesses in the computer's play that were revealed during the course of the match.

This allowed the computer to avoid a trap in the final game that it had fallen for twice before.[citation needed] Kasparov requested printouts of the machine's log files but IBM refused, although the company later published the logs on the Internet.[14] Kasparov demanded a rematch, but IBM refused and dismantled Deep Blue.[15] Owing to an insufficient sample of games between Deep Blue and officially rated chess players, a chess rating for Deep Blue was not established. In 2003 a documentary film was made that explored these claims. Entitled Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine, the film implied that Deep Blue's heavily promoted victory was a plot by IBM to boost its stock value.[15] Kasparov vs. Deep Blue : NPR Kasparov vs. Deep Blue Embed Embed Embed Embed Heard on Snap Judgment In 1997, Deep Blue, a computer designed by IBM, took on the undefeated world chess champion, Garry Kasparov. Kasparov lost. Some argued that computers had progressed to be "smarter" than humans. GLYNN WASHINGTON, HOST: And speaking of Stephanie Foo, she likes to take things literally.

And I told her, I said Stephanie, don't be such a drag. You've been smoking the company line, you got to loosen up, come on, the rules are meant to be broken - it's time to rage against machine - lady rage, come on. Well, Stephanie - Stephanie promptly brought me a story about raging against a machine. The real machine and someone raging against it. Stephanie Foo, take it away. STEPHANIE FOO, BYLINE: OK, yes. This story is about chess, but not just any chess game - one of the most famous ever. (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Deep Blue and Garry Kasparov, the world's chess champions... FOO: It's 1997 - world chess champion Garry Kasparov versus Deep Blue, a computer designed by IBM. And for people who wanted to believe that the human brain was still stronger than computers, this was a huge deal. (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING) MAURICE ASHLEY: This is international chess match, I'm Maurice Ashley. The future of humanity is one the line. Now the weather.

FOO: Now Kasparov has never lost a match - ever. He was destroying all the grandmasters at the age of 22. He's even beaten Deep Blue once before, so he is going into this rematch totally confident, and true enough - bam - Kasparov wins game one easy. (Applause) FOO: But then game two is where everything starts to go wrong. In this match, Deep Blue is dominating. Kasparov is visibly frustrated. He's is rubbing his face, sighing, and then abruptly Kasparov just walks off the stage and quits - forfeits the game. The night after the game, his fans analyze the match and figured something out - something Kasparov, an undefeated grandmaster should have seen. If he had not stormed off the stage and just played his normal game, he could've tied Deep Blue. (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The match now stands at one game apiece. FOO: Now, the match was best of five games, with Kasparov eventually losing the whole thing, but the turning point was when he forfeited that match.

So since 1997, people have always speculated - what happened in game two? Did he quit because the computer was really so much smarter than he was? Then recently this book by Nate Silver came out called "The Signal And The Noise." In it Murray Campbell, one of the engineers who created Deep Blue and who was at the match, comes out and says that he thinks he knows what really happened, and he says it starts in the first game - the game Kasparov won. MURRAY CAMPBELL: Near the end of game one Kasparov had reached a very strong position. It was clearly to any chess expert in the audience, that Deep Blue was going to lose in the long run. FOO: But here's where it's interesting. At the end of the game Deep Blue did something weird - it committed suicide. CAMPBELL: Deep Blue was calculating a particular move that it could make that would prolong the game as long as possible. And then at the last second, it switched to a completely different move and played it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE #2: Rook to D1.

CAMPBELL: And this particular move was really bad, and so it caused us to give up the game right away. FOO: This really bad move confused Kasparov. Murray says he heard Kasparov's team stayed up that night trying to analyze the logic behind that move - what it meant. The only thing was - there was no logic. CAMPBELL: The more obvious explanation is that there was a bug. UNIDENTIFIED MALE #2: Uh-oh. FOO: A glitch - the kind of plot twist only a nerd could love. CAMPBELL: Due to a bug in the program, unfortunately, it had played a random move. FOO: But Kasparov didn't know that, and Murray guesses that Kasparov was so caught up thinking the machine do something that he didn't that he lost it, and the whole rest of the match was a landslide. CAMPBELL: My theory is that Kasparov might have seen the drying opportunity but didn't, because he was overestimating Deep Blue's capability and assuming that it was incapable of making a mistake that would allow a draw. Deep Blue was very strong but wasn't that strong.

And I don't know if this is true or not - I think we'll never know unless Kasparov says himself, but you probably won't get to talk to him because he doesn't like to talk about the subject. FOO: Yeah, Kasparov spent suggesting that IBM cheated, and he hasn't really talked about the game for many years - until now. MIG GREENGARD: You have to understand, he's a little frustrated talking about this stuff over and over again sometimes. FOO: That's Mig Greengard. He's been Kasparov's aid, publicist and confidant for 14 years. And he's here to speak on Kasparov's behalf. GREENGARD: He's authorized me to talk with you about it. I talked with Garry about it... FOO: It being the glitch. GREENGARD: ...And what he said to me - he said it's ridiculous that move had no impact on his subsequent play - and had no impact on him - that's it, move on. So that's all really that I can - that I can go with, is the horse's mouth.

FOO: So maybe Murray is wrong about the glitch but Mig says, he's not wrong about Kasparov having a sort of mental breakdown - it just happened a little later. Mig told me that Kasparov was used to playing with computers. He thought he had them all figured out. Kasparov had certain traps that he would set, lures for computers, and computers would always fall for them. So in game two, Kasparov set his trap and waited. GREENGARD: Because he had these assumptions that of course being a computer, it's probably going to play this, this and this. FOO: But it didn't - it didn't take the bait. UNIDENTIFIED MAN #2: I see what you're up to. GREENGARD: The played something else. FOO: Something good. GREENGARD: Something that not only is not the predicted computer move - but a very, very strong move. FOO: So you're saying that this is the moment where basically he was psyched out. GREENGARD: Right. It was just very - I think a very confusing, very disorienting experience to have to then sit down at the board not really knowing what you're facing.

Can I still try to trick it? Does is still play like a computer? Does it make mistakes at all? So psychologically damaging to Garry in that he realized this was a whole new animal. FOO: And then after that really awesome move, Deep Blue actually makes another bad move. UNIDENTIFIED MALE #2: I guess I'll play this. FOO: This bad move is the one that allows Kasparov to tie. But Kasparov is too convinced he's going to lose to see the fault. GREENGARD: Like well, no way the computer would allow that - that can't be there. Whereas against a human you think why not, maybe he made a mistake in his calculations - I'll give it a shot. Against the computer you get - the computer gets the benefit of the doubt. How could something play like God, then play like an idiot in the same game? FOO: In a way that's like a total machine mistake though, right? Because since the machine doesn't have a specific style or personality like, each different move that it makes could be brilliant and idiotic.

GREENGARD: Sure, sure - of course when he resigned he didn't know any of this - which itself was demoralizing and humiliating. FOO: So essentially what Mig's saying is that Deep Blue wasn't necessarily as smart as we all thought. Deep Blue didn't have this magnificent triumph over Kasparov, it was more that Kasparov forced himself to fail. GREENGARD: In actually turned out to be a bit of a red herring as far as artificial intelligence goes. It turned out it didn't have emulate human thought to beat the world champion. It didn't even have to play great chess, but it mostly revealed that humans aren't perfect - humans make mistakes. They certainly - it turned out to be less complicated than we'd hoped. Deep Blue could calculate 200 million possible moves per second, but it was Kasparov who is overthinking it. WASHINGTON: Thanks so much to Mig and Murray for helping us out on that piece. And of course, you've got to check out the almighty Nate Silver's book "The Signal And The Noise." And yes, that piece was produced by Stephanie Foo. We've got issues against the machines today on SNAP.

And when we return, the man tries to corrupt me with all the free food I can stuff into my mouth. And we're going to illegally destroy private property just because we can. On SNAP JUDGMENT the "Rage Against The Machine" episode continues. Rock on and stay tuned. Copyright © 2014 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at for further information. NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc. , an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record. IBM Research | Deep Blue | Overview Biographies Of The IBM Deep Blue Team Chung-Jen (C.J.) Tan Chung-Jen Tan is the senior manager of the Application Systems Technologies department at the IBM T.J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York. He is also the manager of the IBM Deep Blue computer chess project.

Since 1984, he has been engaged in various activities for developing IBM's research programs in the area of architecture development and machine design for highly parallel scalable systems. His department was responsible for the architecture definition and instrumental in the design of the early versions of the IBM RISC System/6000 Scalable POWERparallel System (SP). For his research activities in parallel processing systems he was awarded an IBM Outstanding Technical Achievement Award in 1987, and a IBM Research Outstanding Contribution Award again in 1994. As part of the overall research activities in understanding how to effectively solve large complex problems with parallel processing computing systems, the Deep Blue project was started in his department in 1993. C.J. is a member of the ACM, a senior member of the IEEE, and a member of the ACM Computer Chess Committee. He received a B.S.E.E. degree from Seattle University in 1963, and a Doctor of Engineering Science from Columbia University in 1969. He joined the IBM T.J. Watson on Research Center in 1969 as a research staff member, and has been involved in technical and managerial activities in the areas of design automation, optimizing compilers and parallel processing.

Murray Campbell Murray Campbell is a research scientist at the IBM T.J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York. He has been working on the Deep Thought and Deep Blue computer chess projects since joining IBM in 1989. Murray was awarded an IBM Outstanding Innovation Award for his contributions to the Deep Blue project. Deep Blue and its predecessor machines have won many awards and distinctions: first computer to defeat a grandmaster in tournament play - 1988, the Fredkin Prize for the first grandmaster-level chess computer, the OMNI Challenge Prize, and first computer to defeat World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov in a regulation game - 1996. The machines developed by Murray and his colleagues have also won numerous ACM International and World Computer Chess Championships. Murray received his doctoral degree from the Carnegie-Mellon University School of Computer Science in 1987, for work on chunking as an abstract mechanism in solving complex problems. He received an M.Sc. in computing science in 1981 from the University of Alberta for his research in parallel game tree search. He also received his B.Sc. in computing science from the University of Alberta in 1979.

Murray has been involved with computer chess research for more than 15 years. He is also an expert chess player as well as a former chess champion of Alberta. He has co-authored a number of papers on computer chess, including a Mephisto-award inning paper on selective search algorithms. Feng-Hsiung (F.H) Hsu Feng-Hsiung Hsu joined IBM in 1989 as a research staff member at the IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, and is currently the principal designer of the Deep Blue chess machine. He received a PhD in computer science from Carnegie-Mellon University in 1989 for architectural work on chess machines and for work on parallel alpha-beta search algorithms. He is best known for his work on the chess machine Deep Thought, which won the Fredkin Intermediate Prize in 1988 as the first computer to achieve Grandmaster-level rating, and the Omni Challenge Prize in 1990 by defeating International Master David Levy. He is also the recipient of the 1990 Mephisto Award for his doctoral dissertation and the 1991 Grace Murray Hopper Award for his contributions to architecture and algorithms for chess machines.

His current research interests, besides "building the ultimate chess machine," include algorithm design, parallel software design, high performance system architecture, VLSI design and special-purpose computing. Joseph Hoane, Jr. Joseph Hoane, Jr. has been working on the software for Deep Thought and Deep Blue for five years at the IBM T.J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York. His previous efforts at IBM Research include work on RP3, a research parallel processor; network simulation for parallel processors to understand communication overhead; and a custom imbedded compiler for a database system. From 1984 to 1987, he worked at IBM, East Fishkill, on a custom wiring program for Multilayer Ceramic Modules. He graduated in 1984 from the University of Illinois with a B.S. in computer science, and received an M.S. in computer science from Columbia University in 1994. Joel Benjamin Joel Benjamin, a native New Yorker, was born in Brooklyn, and is 33 years old. Today, Joel resides in Manhattan.

In 1977, at the age of 13, Joel became the first person to break Bobby Fischer's record, becoming the youngest U.S. Master to that time. In 1980, he became an International Master. In 1985, Joel graduated from Yale University with a B.A. in history, and he became an International Grandmaster in 1986. In 1987, Joel became the first awardee of the Samford Fellowship as the most promising player under the age of 25 in the United States. Joel is a 3-time U.S. Junior Champion. He became U.S. Champion in 1987. Joel has participated in a record 15 consecutive U.S. Invitational Championships. He is a 5-time U.S. Olympic Chess Team member and 2-time medalist. He won 2 gold medals in the 1993 World Team Championship. Joel is also the 3-time defending champion of the Harvard Cup, in which Grandmasters play against chess computers.

In his only regulation meeting against world champion Garry Kasparov at Horgen in 1994, Joel and Garry played to a draw. Joel appeared in the movie, "Searching for Bobby Fischer", and was named to the list of 50 smartest New Yorkers by New York Magazine in 1995. Joel worked briefly with the IBM Deep Blue team in their preparation for the match with Garry Kasparov in Philadelphia in February 1996, and has worked with the team coaching Deep Blue in preparation for the rematch since last fall. Jerry Brody Jerry Brody has been working on the Deep Thought and Deep Blue hardware systems for almost six years at the IBM T.J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York. He joined IBM Research in 1978. Since joining IBM, he has worked on the Research Parallel Processor Prototype (RP3); the Yorktown Simulation Engine (YSE), a logic simulation machine; and the 801 machine hardware replication, IBM's first RISC processor. Jerry also worked (1978) on VS-4 hardware, a vector scan system that etched patterns directly on silicon wafers for submicron integrated circuits.

He graduated in 1959 from the RCA Institute in New York City, with an A.S. degree in television and RF theory. IBM Research | Deep Blue | Overview An early version of Deep Blue, Chiptest, is born at Carnegie Mellon University. Computer science doctoral students Feng-hsiung Hsu and Thomas Anantharaman are the proud parents. Feng initiated the project by designing and implementing a single-chip chess move generator using 3-micron VLSI technology. He then hooked up the circuit to a circuit to a toy chess program developed by Anantharaman. Search capabilities were added later. Murray Campbell joined the team a few months later, lending his considerable chess expertise to the effort. This early incarnation of Deep Blue could search approximately 50,000 moves per second and was controlled by a SUN 3/160 workstation.

CB News - Deep Blue's cheating move | Chess News Deep Blue's cheating move by Albert Silver 2/19/2015 – It is a sign of just how impactful the famous Deep Blue match against Kasparov was in 1997, that 18 years later, books come out citing it still, and magazines such as Time cast their eye on it even today. Here we take a close look at the most controversial move from game two, that prompted Kasparov to accuse the Deep Blue team of cheating. The results may surprise you. ChessBase 14 Download Everyone uses ChessBase, from the World Champion to the amateur next door. It is the program of choice for anyone who loves the game and wants to know more about it. Start your personal success story with ChessBase 14 and enjoy your chess even more. More... Nearly two decades later, the match still fascinates This week Time Magazine ran a story on the famous series of matches between IBM's supercomputer and Garry Kasparov.

The subject was a few of the moves that stood out for a variety of reasons, such as a bug in game one of the 1997 match, and a move in game two that Kasparov found so unbelievable that he accused the Deep Blue team of cheating. The allegation was that a grandmaster, presumably a top rival, had been behind the move. In fact, grandmaster Yasser Seirawan told Wired in 2001 , “It was an incredibly refined move, of defending while ahead to cut out any hint of countermoves, and it sent Garry into a tizzy.” The topic of analyzing some key moves by Deep Blue with a top engine was recently covered at ChessBase News in a series of three articles: Komodo 8: Deep Blue revisited (part one) 12/26/2014 – When Garry Kasparov faced IBM's super computer Deep Blue, there was not a player alive who did not secretly dream of having their own private Deep Blue to consult on demand. That day has already come and passed as today's engines such as Komodo 8 can outperform the famous computer even on a smartphone.

Here we take a look at the famous match and key moments. Komodo 8: Deep Blue revisited (part two) 12/31/2014 – The first two games of the titanic match between the world's strongest player versus the world strongest chess computer showed significant changes. While the computer played moves that baffled humans, the number of moves a grandmaster would outright scoff at were dwindling and could only be judged as eccentric. Today's best engines are actually no different, just stronger. Komodo 8: Deep Blue revisited (part three) 1/9/2015 – Nearly eighteen years later, the matches between Garry Kasparov and Deep Blue continue to stir the imagination and fascination of people around the world. It has inspired books, documentaries, and theatrical productions. Looking over the games with a top engine such as Komodo 8, and comparing with the computer logs, sheds new light, and even reveals a missed win by Kasparov. However, the purpose had been to highlight refinements and revelations uncovered with modern hardware and chess engines, and since there had been no disagreement with the so-called cheating move, it was not mentioned.

So the engines agree with Deep Blue's choice, is that all? Not quite. Let's take a look at the controversial moment first. This was the position on the board after 35 moves. It is White to play. Before trying to simply guess what was played, if you don't already know, it is important to remember that the year is 1997, and engines, and even supercomputers, played quite a bit differently than today's uber-engines. They were notoriously materialistic, and a tactic used by a player such as Kasparov, who would get deep into the head of his opponent, was to bait the machine with a 'poisoned pawn', allowing him to direct the game in a direction of his choosing. The pawn on b5 is clearly weak, and it should not be hard to bring it crashing down. The problem is that the most direct method is far less than optimal.

As noted by grandmaster John Nunn, who annotated the game then and whose notes can be found among the tens of thousands of commented games in MegaDatabase: [Event "New York Man-Machine"] [Site "New York"] [Date "1997.05.04"] [Round "2"] [White "Deep Blue"] [Black "Kasparov, Garry"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C93"] [BlackElo "2785"] [Annotator "John Nunn"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "r1r1q1k1/6p1/p2b1p1p/1p1PpP2/PPp5/2P4P/R1B2QP1/R5K1 w - - 0 36"] [PlyCount "6"] [EventDate "1997.05.??"] [EventType "match"] [EventRounds "6"] [EventCountry "USA"] [Source "ChessBase"] [SourceDate "1997.11.17"] {It would be wrong to play} 36.

Qb6 Rd8 (36... Bc7 $2 37. Qe6+ Kh7 38. Qxe8 {wins}) 37. axb5 Rab8 38. Qxa6 e4 {when, at the cost of two pawns, Black has developed considerable counterplay based on ...Qe5 and possibly ...e3. However, this is again a remarkable move by Deep Blue; most computers (including Fritz and Hiarcs) go for the material without hesitation. Did Deep Blue reject this line based on very deep analysis, is there some subtle programming involved?} 1-0 Needless to say, Deep Blue did not follow the trail of bread crumbs Kasparov was carefully sprinkling in its path. It played the very strong 36.axb5! axb5 and 37.Be4! to which Nunn comments, " A cruel move.

Black's only chance of counterplay is to activate his bishop by ...e4, but Deep Blue cuts the rope which might have saved the drowning Kasparov." In fact, if you consult any of the top engines of today, whether it be Houdini 4, Stockfish 6, or Komodo 8, they all choose Deep Blue's move 36.axb5. For example: Komodo 8: 36.axb5 axb5 37.Be4 Qd8 38.Kh2 Rcb8 39.Ra6 Kf8 40.R6a5 Kg8 41.R1a2 Rxa5 42.Rxa5 Bc7 43.Ra1 Bb6 +/- (0.84) Depth: 29 00:02:15 686MN, tb=57 The problem is that it does not condemn 36.Qb6 either, just the blind pawngrabbing that follows. That very same Be4 can be combined with it to great effect. So what does this all mean?

It means that while 36.axb5 was indeed a very strong move, it was not the only one, and the move order was not actually essential so long as the ideas are maintained, and, as pointed out by Nunn, White avoids allowing Black the time to strike back with ...e4 himself.

Analysis with the top engine lines: [Event "New York Man-Machine"] [Site "New York"] [Date "1997.05.04"] [Round "2"] [White "Comp Deep Blue"] [Black "Kasparov, Garry"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C93"] [BlackElo "2785"] [Annotator "John Nunn"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "r1r1q1k1/6p1/p2b1p1p/1p1PpP2/PPp5/2P4P/R1B2QP1/R5K1 w - - 0 36"] [PlyCount "7"] [EventDate "1997.05.??"] [EventType "match"] [EventRounds "6"] [EventCountry "USA"] [Source "ChessBase"] [SourceDate "1997.11.17"] 36. axb5 $1 ({It would be wrong to play} 36. Qb6 Rd8 (36... Bc7 $2 37.

Qe6+ Kh7 38. Qxe8 {wins gewinnt}) 37. axb5 ({Komodo 8 64-bit points out that after} 37. Be4 $1 {White will continue to maintain a strong advantage, even after Black's best chance with} a5 $1 ({The tempting} 37... Qh5 $2 {to try to get counterplay with the queen is insufficient and ultimately worse.} { Komodo 8 64-bit:} 38. axb5 Rab8 39. Qxa6 Qh4 40. Re2 Qg3 41. Qa3 Rxb5 42. Qc1 Bc7 43. Kh1 Rbb8 44. Qe1 Qxe1+ 45. Rexe1 Kf8 46. g3 Bb6 47. Ra6 Rd6 48. Rd1 Ke7 49. Kg2 Rd7 50. Rda1 Kd6 51. R1a5 Ke7 52.

Ra2 Kd6 53. Ra1 Ke7 54. Rd1 Kd6 55. Kf3 Ke7 {1.80/31}) 38. axb5 axb4 39. Rxa8 Rxa8 40. Ra6 Rd8 41. cxb4 c3 42. Qc6 Qh5 43. Qxc3 Qe2 44. Qd3 Qe1+ 45. Kh2 Kh7 46. Qc4 h5 47. Qd3 h4 48. Qf3 Qxb4 49. Qg4 Bc5 50. d6 Qd4 51. Qxh4+ Kg8 52. Qe1 Rxd6 53. Ra8+ Rd8 54. Rxd8+ Qxd8 55. h4 Qd4 56. Qb1 Qc4 57. g3 Kf7 58. Kh3 Ke7 59. Bc6 Bd4 60.

Qe4 Qf1+ 61. Kg4 Qd1+ 62. Qf3 {0.97/31}) 37... Rab8 38. Qxa6 $2 ({Komodo 8 64-bit quite agrees that Qxa6 opens the way for Garry, but sees} 38. Qc6 $1 {as quite winning for White.} axb5 39. Qxe8+ Rxe8 40. Ra6 Red8 41. Be4 Kf8 42. Kf2 Ke7 43. Kg3 Rb7 44. Kg4 Kf8 45. R1a5 Bb8 46. Re6 Kf7 47. Kf3 Kg8 48. Ra1 Kh7 49. Rc6 h5 50. h4 Kh6 51. Raa6 Ba7 52. Re6 Rbd7 53. g3 Bg1 54. Rxe5 {1.82/29}) 38...

e4 {when, at the cost of two pawns, Black has developed considerable counterplay based on ...Qe5 and possibly ...e3. However, this is again a remarkable move by Deep Blue; most computers (including Fritz and Hiarcs) go for the material without hesitation. Did Deep Blue reject this line based on very deep analysis, is there some subtle programming involved?}) 36... axb5 37. Be4 {A cruel move. Black's only chance of counterplay is to activate his bishop by ...e4, but Deep Blue cuts the rope which might have saved the drowning Kasparov.} Rxa2 38. Qxa2 {This position is just lost. Black's bishop must stay on d6 to block the d5-pawn, but Black cannot both maintain this bishop and defend the weak pawn on b5. Black's total lack of counterplay is the deciding factor: White has plenty of time to slowly infiltrate with his queen and rook.} Qd7 39.

Qa7 {and Deep Blue had a winning advantage.} 1-0 It is clear that while Deep Blue was far ahead of its time, by the time the controversial position arrived, it had more than one path to victory. If you are seeking the best today, in the most advanced interface available, including a Premium subscription to Playchess, then Komodo 8 is the way to go.

Komodo Chess 8 includes: The Komodo 8 engine, which can support up to 64 processor cores and 16 GB of hash memory The new Deep Fritz 64-bit program interface (+ 32 bit program interface) Online access to the world’s largest analysis database “Let’s Check”, with over 200 million extensively analyzed positions (free access to “Let’s Check” until December 31, 2016) Access to ChessBase engine cloud Premium membership to Playchess.com for six months Database with over 1.5 million games System requirements Minimum: Pentium III 1 GHz, 2 GB RAM, Windows Vista, XP (Service Pack 3), 7/8, DirectX9, 256 MB graphics card, DVD-ROM drive, Windows Media Player 9 and Internet access for program activation, access to Playchess.com, Let’s Check and program updates.

Recommended: PC Intel i7 (Quadcore), 4 GB RAM, Windows 8.1, DirectX10, 512 MB graphics card, 100% DirectX10-compatible sound card, Windows Media Player 11, DVD-ROM drive and Internet access for program activation, access to Playchess.com, Let's Check and program updates. Price: €79.90 (€67.14 without VAT for customers outside the EU; $86.62 without VAT). Languages: English, German. ISBN: 978-3-86681-442-4; EAN: 9783866814424. Delivery: Download, Post

Question: Developed by IBM, Deep Blue was a computer that played what?
Answer: Chess