Answers.Body: <p>This <a href="http://en.chessbase.com/post/deep-blue-s-cheating-move" rel="noreferrer">article from Chessbase</a> answers most of your questions.</p>
  
  <p>This was the position in which Kasparov had set a "computer chess" trap.</p>
  
  <pre><code> [fen "r1r1q1k1/6p1/p2b1p1p/1p1PpP2/PPp5/2P4P/R1B2QP1/R5K1 w - - 0 35"]
  [White "Deep Blue"]
  [Black "Gary Kasparov"]
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>He was expecting 
  36. Qb6 Rd8
  37. ab Rab8
  38. Qxa6 e4</p>
  
  <pre><code> [fen "1r1rq1k1/6p1/Q2b1p1p/1P1P1P2/1Pp1p3/2P4P/R1B3P1/R5K1 w - - 0 35"]
  [White "Deep Blue"]
  [Black "Gary Kasparov"]
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>when, for the cost of 2 pawns he has generated dangerous counterplay based on the idea of Qe5 possibly followed by e3.</p>
  
  <p>Instead Deep Blue played the immediate ab followed by Be4 thereby nipping in the bud any chances of counterplay via ... e4 and ... Qe5 for black.</p>
  
  <p>According to the article -</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>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:</p>
    
    <p>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</p>
    
    <p>+/- (0.84) Depth: 29 00:02:15 686MN, tb=57</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>So, nothing to see here (2 min 15 sec for the computer) ;-) Move on!</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-09T21:49:07.710Z
Answers.Text: I wasn't aware of that article, of course (they took a while to write about that!) - but I had this question for a while now and thought it would be interesting for the community. There's some good discussion happening there - even Joel Benjamin decided to join in. Even though I think everyone will agree there was no cheating involved, I guess most people won't ever forgive IBM for its lack of touch. Great answer, btw.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Daniel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-10T06:39:33.213Z
Answers.Text: @DanielGomes I think Kasparov's mistake in this match was a very natural one, one which most of us make. Instead of playing the position he became distracted by trying to play the man/computer. When he thought he was playing more man than computer this disturbed his equilibrium to such an extent that he started playing bad moves. It is part of the human condition and one which none of us can escape completely, even Kasparov.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-08T17:14:42.883Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-08-08T17:20:03.923Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2015-08-08T17:20:03.923Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Body: <p>Kasparov said, in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379296/" rel="nofollow">Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine</a>, that Deep Blue "sank into deep thinking" and took like 15 minutes to make a move.</p>
  
  <p>The movie tells the story of their match, in 1997.</p>
  
  <p>At a certain position, in the second game, Deep Blue could have taken two pawns, but did not, aiming for a win in the long run.</p>
  
  <p>Do modern computers agree with Deep Blue on that, and, if they do, how long does it take them to find the correct winning move?</p>
  
  <p>That part of the movie can be watched <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDe-uHsEMn8&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=34m" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-08-07T12:00:43.267Z
Comments.Text: This is the second game of the 1997 match: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070913
  
  Is this the game you are referring to? Deep Blue did not give up any material in this game.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ken Wei
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-08-07T14:20:05.133Z
Comments.Text: I see a question in the title and a question in the actual text, but I see no connection between them. Which one is the question you want to ask?
Comments.UserDisplayName: JiK
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-08-07T18:19:09.950Z
Comments.Text: @JiK Well, the title is a concise description of what I'm asking. The text explains further what I meant. They should be seen as complementary, as most texts and their titles are. Also, did you miss the third question?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Daniel
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-08-07T18:34:58.657Z
Comments.Text: Basically imo Kasparov just made up lots of stuff about Deep Blue playing human moves on the basis that computers didn't normally play like that. Without realising that it is subroutines which run computer programs, which may be vastly different. It's like saying Windows 95 is suspicious as an operating system because it's nothing like Windows 3.1.
Comments.UserDisplayName: magd
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-08-07T20:23:19.453Z
Comments.Text: @magd Yes, but there are some other points involved. By "sank into deep thinking", Kasparov implies the computer never spent that long time on any other move. It was also said that the computer _"should"_ capitalize on the pawns, instead of doing what it did. He said that someone might have told the computer to drop the original "grab the free pawns" line.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Daniel
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-08-07T20:29:49.927Z
Comments.Text: Kasparov implies a lot of things! You would have to give a reference to the actual move to have a better idea. It is often programmed into computers different 'personalities'. I have no source on this yet but have seen it in a few programs.
Comments.UserDisplayName: magd
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-08-07T21:18:25.887Z
Comments.Text: @magd It's part of the question. A two pawn advantage should be easy to spot. That's why I ask for comparison with modern computer analysis.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Daniel
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-08-07T22:06:57.623Z
Comments.Text: @DanielGomes Sorry I don't know what you mean by 'It's part of the question'. In any case as I am unable that's why I have commented on and not answered your question. If finding a two pawn advantage is so easy why don't you do it? Generally questions where some research has already been done are looked on more kindly than where little or no research has been done.
Comments.UserDisplayName: magd
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-08-08T03:38:20.267Z
Comments.Text: On which move did Deep Blue have the opportunity to take two pawns?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ken Wei
Tags: <analysis><computer-chess><kasparov><human-versus-machine>
Title: Did Deep Blue play like a human?
ThreadText: # Did Deep Blue play like a human?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2015-08-07)
  
  Kasparov said, in [Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379296/), that Deep Blue "sank into deep thinking" and took like 15 minutes to make a move.
  
  The movie tells the story of their match, in 1997.
  
  At a certain position, in the second game, Deep Blue could have taken two pawns, but did not, aiming for a win in the long run.
  
  Do modern computers agree with Deep Blue on that, and, if they do, how long does it take them to find the correct winning move?
  
  That part of the movie can be watched [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDe-uHsEMn8&feature=youtu.be&t=34m).
  
  **Tags:** analysis, computer-chess, kasparov, human-versus-machine
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: This is the second game of the 1997 match: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070913  Is this the game you are referring to? Deep Blue did not give up any material in this game.  
  > **username_2**: I see a question in the title and a question in the actual text, but I see no connection between them. Which one is the question you want to ask?  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 Well, the title is a concise description of what I'm asking. The text explains further what I meant. They should be seen as complementary, as most texts and their titles are. Also, did you miss the third question?  
  > **username_3**: Basically imo Kasparov just made up lots of stuff about Deep Blue playing human moves on the basis that computers didn't normally play like that. Without realising that it is subroutines which run computer programs, which may be vastly different. It's like saying Windows 95 is suspicious as an operating system because it's nothing like Windows 3.1.  
  > **username_0**: @username_3 Yes, but there are some other points involved. By "sank into deep thinking", Kasparov implies the computer never spent that long time on any other move. It was also said that the computer _"should"_ capitalize on the pawns, instead of doing what it did. He said that someone might have told the computer to drop the original "grab the free pawns" line.  
  > **username_3**: Kasparov implies a lot of things! You would have to give a reference to the actual move to have a better idea. It is often programmed into computers different 'personalities'. I have no source on this yet but have seen it in a few programs.  
  > **username_0**: @username_3 It's part of the question. A two pawn advantage should be easy to spot. That's why I ask for comparison with modern computer analysis.  
  > **username_3**: @DanielGomes Sorry I don't know what you mean by 'It's part of the question'. In any case as I am unable that's why I have commented on and not answered your question. If finding a two pawn advantage is so easy why don't you do it? Generally questions where some research has already been done are looked on more kindly than where little or no research has been done.  
  > **username_1**: On which move did Deep Blue have the opportunity to take two pawns?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2015-08-08. Score: 7 | Accepted answer
  
  This [article from Chessbase](http://en.chessbase.com/post/deep-blue-s-cheating-move) answers most of your questions.
  
  This was the position in which Kasparov had set a "computer chess" trap.
  
  ```
   [fen "r1r1q1k1/6p1/p2b1p1p/1p1PpP2/PPp5/2P4P/R1B2QP1/R5K1 w - - 0 35"]
  [White "Deep Blue"]
  [Black "Gary Kasparov"]
  
  ```
  
  He was expecting
  36. Qb6 Rd8
  37. ab Rab8
  38. Qxa6 e4
  
  ```
   [fen "1r1rq1k1/6p1/Q2b1p1p/1P1P1P2/1Pp1p3/2P4P/R1B3P1/R5K1 w - - 0 35"]
  [White "Deep Blue"]
  [Black "Gary Kasparov"]
  
  ```
  
  when, for the cost of 2 pawns he has generated dangerous counterplay based on the idea of Qe5 possibly followed by e3.
  
  Instead Deep Blue played the immediate ab followed by Be4 thereby nipping in the bud any chances of counterplay via ... e4 and ... Qe5 for black.
  
  According to the article -
  
  > 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
  
  So, nothing to see here (2 min 15 sec for the computer) ;-) Move on!
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: I wasn't aware of that article, of course (they took a while to write about that!) - but I had this question for a while now and thought it would be interesting for the community. There's some good discussion happening there - even Joel Benjamin decided to join in. Even though I think everyone will agree there was no cheating involved, I guess most people won't ever forgive IBM for its lack of touch. Great answer, btw.  
  > **username_4**: @DanielGomes I think Kasparov's mistake in this match was a very natural one, one which most of us make. Instead of playing the position he became distracted by trying to play the man/computer. When he thought he was playing more man than computer this disturbed his equilibrium to such an extent that he started playing bad moves. It is part of the human condition and one which none of us can escape completely, even Kasparov.  
  
  ---
  
  