#Kasparov chess machine plus#

Kasparov made an off-the-board tactic mistake before the match allowing IBM to come up with the rules they wanted. Kasparov candidly admits - thanks to 2017's engines - that his playing level was undeniably sub-optimal, for many, many reasons. If you want pointers were to read, let me know.Дeep Thinking (2017, Public Affairs), Kasparov's latest book, is probably the last, closing chapter about this topic. Was like 'beta' state, if not still alpha. The same team leader in the DBlue team said practically that the machine had a large amount of quirks not yet worked out. But I am pretty sure that if Kasparov wouldn't have allowed the DBlue team to fix the machine in between, it would have taken many rematches to beat him. So it is quite likely - unless one blindly believes Kasparov - that Deep Blue did it. With a longer match AND no changes in the computer, Kasparov would have kept the lead. Further why only 6 games? Sure for audience, but it could have been longer, IBM was paying anyway.

Like adding opening theory, fixing bugs and so on.

#Kasparov chess machine plus#

Deep blue team researched a lot, didn't have necessarily the best algorithms of the time, but with their evaluation function + search plus massive chess computational power (through ASICs) they could compensate it.ДЇurther Kasparov - and that was the main mistake in my view - allowed the team to do changes to the computer between games. If you read the books and so on, it is very unlikely that it happened. What are peopleвЂ™s takes on KasparovвЂ™s accusations of cheating/IBM skullduggery