Even in the first game of the match, Kasparov started to become distracted by second-guessing how capable the machine might be. Humans finally fell to computers in 1997, when IBMвЂ™s chess-playing computer. In reality, however, it was sitting idly by, knowing exactly what to play, just letting the clock tick down. On one side of the board, 1.5 kilograms of gray matter. 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. It seemed to confirm what Kasparov thought he knew that heвЂ™d successfully dragged the game into a position where the number of possibilities was so mind-bogglingly large that Deep Blue couldnвЂ™t make a sensible decision. 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. From KasparovвЂ™s end of the table, the delays made it look as if the machine was struggling, churning through more and more calculations. During their infamous six-game match, the machine would occasionally hold off from declaring its move once a calculation had finished, sometimes for several minutes. In order to beat Kasparov, Deep Blue had to understand him not simply as a highly efficient processor of brilliant chess moves, but as a human being.ДЇor a start, the IBM engineers made the brilliant decision to design Deep Blue to appear more uncertain than it was. That symbolic victory, of machine over man, which in many ways marked the start of the algorithmic age, was down to far more than sheer raw computing power. The outcome of the match is well known, but the story behind how Deep Blue secured its win is less widely appreciated.

But when IBMвЂ™s Deep Blue faced Kasparov in the famous match of May 1997, the machine was immune to such tactics.

Deep blue chess