Kasparov vs Deep blue- foul play?

Everyone knows about the Kasparov vs Deep Blue match 1997- but there seemed to be some amount of foul play involved from the IBM company... Some strange non computer like moves from the machine lead us to ask- was there a player behind Deep Blue, influencing it? Please watch this video and discuss!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK0YOGJ58a0

I've seen the logs of Deep Blue's search algorithm, and you can too:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080418224511/http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/watch/html/game2.log

(a cleaner version: http://web.archive.org/web/20080625115940/http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/watch/html/game2clean.log )

Deep Blue didn't cheat, but Kasparov was justified in being pissed (although the allegations might have been out of line, in light of the fact that IBM had given Kasparov the logs within the day of the match).

Deep Blue didn't cheat but Kaspy was psychologically wiped out. Ibelieve Kaspy was stronger in 1997 but he lost because he wasn't in the game aince he believed Ibm cheated . If Kaspy wasn't wiped out mentally, he would have won.

As I seem to recall Kaspy was pissed because he claimed IBM programmed Deep Blue specifically to play vs him - to which my reply is, so what? Still it is a shame the strongest carbon-based chessplayer of all time (IMHO, so far) had to lose to some junk pile of transistors, circuit boards, RAM chips, etc. but all in all, Kaspy came across here as a crybaby, whiner and sore loser. Oh well...

SOURCE?? I know that they dismantled Deep Blue sometime (soon I think) after the match making a rematch impossible much to Kaspy's chagrin, but hey, maybe he could've offered to PAY for their expenses of keeping DB in one piece if he wanted a rematch that badly. Of course Kaspy didn't want to do that, he just wanted everything given to him on a silver platter at no expense - to himself that is.

Throwing away the computer analysis (if IBM did) strikes me as stupid, not shady but that's just my opinion.

Who else would be making the moves? Are we supposed to believe IBM would've bothered bribing some top GM(s) to help out? The point of the match was to prove how good Deep Blue was in general and playing chess is a relatively easy and sound way of doing so.

People do dumb and careless things all the time (like tossing out the analysis here) minus any conspiracy or having something to hide. Of course, such a thought is incomprehensible to people who see conspiracies under every bed and in every conceivable situation.

BTW how would the analysis "prove" anything, much less that Deep Blue acted on its own? Who else was around capable of beating Kasparov +4 -2 at the time?

IBM did release the logs, so it's a moot point.

See my previous comment -- those logs are the analysis. They won't make much sense unless you know how Deep Blue worked, though.

On another note, I think the most impressive thing about all this is that Deep Blue would get kicked around against modern algorithms.

I believe Seirawan wrote an article or few that addressed the Deep Blue and Kasparov match and games, maybe for chesscafe, and regarding Garry's confusion how it could find such great moves at high depths in some positions, and allow the famous position that was possibly could have been drawn that Garry resigned.  Kasparov is not noted for his tact when losing (recalling rxns. when losing consecutively against Karpov, against a young Radjabov, etc)

Now we're just going to be wasting time if I'm pointing out facts and you're just denying because you don't think anyone would do it...  AntonyCG

I'm not denying any facts here, just your conclusions: ie the facts = IBM cheated or had something to hide - or maybe your conclusions are also facts?

BTW I have a documentary on the match which I watched awhile ago, maybe I will rewatch it as I don't recall anything in it about this particular controversy but it's been awhile since I watched it.

PS: Looks like anyone else can watch it as well, for free

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/game-over-kasparov-and-the-machine/

How much better would Kasparov have done if IBM had supplied him with sample games? This is a legit question, I'm not trying to imply anything here and would like to see what others think.

Thank you for the comments everyone, I was always eluded by the part in the YouTube clip where the computer did not take the pawn and played a positional, out of character move instead. Sadly, I am no closer to discovering the truth. It's OK with me if you call me suspicious or untrustworthy, but if you keep denying a possibility you will never succeed at anything.

Keep an open mind.

that's your opinion. how do you think mankind discovered the earth was not flat? by questioning everything they believed before and having a open mind.

How do you know what's "out of character" for an entity that you have such a small dataset for that it's impossible to say what's in character.  Given that this move was played, I'd say that there's more evidence that it's in character than there is that it's out.

Joey, you need to open your mind to more than just evidence and logically drawn conclusions.  Is there no room for rumour, conjecture, speculation and unfounded conspiracy theories?

The earth, my little pancake, isn't flat? 

WAit a sec.  Did Omar lose the match totally?  I thought he won, just lost game six..  Help me out here please.

Kasparov did lose the match in 1997 but won the one in 1996, I think...

Joeydrive, please stop all the negative comments and personal attacks. We just are having a chat about this, there is no need to be so aggressive on my forum page or I will ask a moderator to remove you.

Even if it did cheat, what would that prove?
It still would mean that a machine with a little bit of human guidance can defeat the world's best player while a single humand can't.

It would mean that in 1998 a machine with a little bit of human guidance was able to defeat the world's best player while no other unassited human could.

Now machines need no human guidance at all for this, and while human assistance still gives them a boost, the only way to realize the benefits of this is in games against other unassisted engines.