
How a random bug in Deep Blue may ultimately have led to Kasparov's defeat - prajjwal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/26/nate-silvers-the-signal-and-the-noise/
======
kqr2
From the article:

    
    
      Kasparov had concluded that the counterintuitive play must 
      be a sign of superior intelligence. He had never considered
      that it was simply a bug.
    

Does anyone know the source for that? Game 2 was definitely pivotal, but I
couldn't find any reference to indicate that he gave up because of the random
move in Game 1.

Regarding Game 2, from [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/tech/analysis/kasparov/...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/tech/analysis/kasparov/kasparov.htm)

    
    
      In that game, Deep Blue made a series of brilliant moves 
      but then failed to anticipate one Kasparov could have made 
      -- but didn't -- to force a tie. Kasparov, who didn't 
      notice the possible move until it was pointed out to him 
      after the game, said: "I still don't understand how the 
      machine couldn't see that."

~~~
brindle
I read an article years back and I think it was in the Wall Street Journal. My
understanding was that an unexpected grandmaster-level move at a point where
Kasparov was expecting to see a different move occurred.

Kasparov suspected user intervention. Unfortunately the event was sponsored by
IBM, so ther was potential for a conflict of interest.

He requested to see the source code and the game logs which was denied by IBM.
IBM also disassembled the computer immediately after the match to re-purpose
the computer for protein folding.

I think this book is rewriting history. Kasparov was devastated.

~~~
T-hawk
I remember that incident as well; it was the next game after the random rook
move and Kasparov was already unsettled about the computer's capabilities. By
my memory, it went like this:

In a complicated midgame, Kasparov moved a pawn to a square under attack. He
intended to sacrifice it for positional gain, opening up his attack lines and
compromising the opponent's defensive structure. Kasparov expected that a
computational chess engine would seize the calculable material gain and not
see the deeper positional subtleties. (Deep Blue 'only' searched ahead about
10 to 15 moves, not nearly as deep as today's computers.) Deep Blue did in
fact decline the pawn sacrifice, causing Kasparov to accuse IBM of
intervention, that only a human grandmaster would see the response.

This Wikipedia article mentions Kasparov setting a trap that the computer did
not fall for, but it doesn't mention the details.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Over:_Kasparov_and_the_Mac...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Over:_Kasparov_and_the_Machine)

It happened in game 2 of the 1997 match, the moves of which are recorded here.
I haven't got the time at the moment to find the position in the game but
perhaps someone can.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_versus_Garry_Kasparov>

~~~
jc123
It was a little different from what you recall. 37. Be4 (instead of 37. Qb6)
is the move that really made Garry suspect human intervention. Be4 is a much
more positional move than Qb6.

------
derekp7
This story reminds me of an episode of the American TV show "Cheers", where
the bar tender (Sam) was playing against an experienced player. However, since
he wan't good at chess, he was cheating by having a computer play his moves,
and having someone in another room give him directions over an earpiece.
Inevitably, the computer crashed (or the earpiece failed, can't remember
which), so he made a random move. This threw off his opponent, who over-
analysed the situation, and ended up losing.

Now I'm wondering, which happened first -- that TV show episode, or the
Kasparov game?

~~~
philodespotos
Cheers ended in 1993. The first Kasparov v. Deep Blue match was in 1996.

------
fitandfunction
As learned in CLRS ... when you're stuck, randomize. That turned out to be a
great solution in way more problems than I had anticipated.

~~~
lloeki
Making a choice (any choice) is often better than making no choice at all,
although not choosing at all is itself an often _overlooked_ valid choice ("
_A strange game. The only winning move is not to play_ "). There's an
oxymoronic french expression reflecting that often overlooked possibility,
especially in dire situations: "Il est urgent d'attendre" which could be
translated as "it is most pressing to wait".

~~~
Robin_Message
There's also the phrase by Dr. Linda A. Lewis: "Don't just do something, stand
there!" to exhort careful consideration even in face of a crisis.

------
Tipzntrix
Man, Kasparov has been salty about that loss for decades. This is probably the
tenth article I've read about it. An interesting new theory though.

------
gxs
This reminds me of when veteran professional poker players play complete
novices. They often say that beating a brand new player is harder than beating
a mediocre player, since a novice player will do things that make no sense
seemingly randomly.

~~~
rograndom
Or they try to do things that work in their "normal" games: bet sizing, giving
off false tells, etc. that just go right over the head of the novice player.

There's a quote from probably Doyle Brunson or Amarillo Slim along the lines
of "It's like trying to show a dog a magic trick"

------
orjan
Amazon seems to have two different Kindle editions of this, with different
prices:

1\. For $19.54 you get this: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Signal-Noise-
Predictions-ebook/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Signal-Noise-Predictions-
ebook/dp/B007V65R54/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-
text&ie=UTF8&qid=1348729749&sr=1-1&keywords=the+signal+and+the+noise) (The
Penguin Press)

2\. And for $13.79, you get this: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Signal-Noise-
Prediction-ebook/dp/B...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Signal-Noise-Prediction-
ebook/dp/B0097JYVAU/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1348729820&sr=1-1)
(Allen Lane)

I have no idea if there is any difference in the editions besides the price.
Page numbers differs but that means nothing

EDIT: grammar.

~~~
Stratoscope
When I follow your links I see the Penguin edition for $14.99 and the other
edition "not available".

~~~
orjan
Might be an Amazon territory thing, then. I'm in Europe.

~~~
DanBC
I'm in the UK and I get "pricing information unavailable) for both of them.

EDIT: Using UK amazon I get this ([http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Signal-Noise-
Prediction-ebook/dp...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Signal-Noise-Prediction-
ebook/dp/B0097JYVAU/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1348738888&sr=1-1))
which shows £14.99 for me.

This is what pisses me off about ebooks. I understand that they can't be dirt
cheap because you still need editors and proofreaders and setters and authors,
and all those people need paying, but $15 = £9. (£15 = $24).

Amazon UK charges a 20% sales tax (VAT) for UK ebooks. (I have no idea if
Amazon actually pay their tax or if they're the type of company using vigorous
avoidance schemes.)

~~~
pmjordan
_I have no idea if Amazon actually pay their tax or if they're the type of
company using vigorous avoidance schemes._

My understanding is that for eBooks and other digital downloads, they do. They
get around VAT for DVDs and similar items by subbing out to companies on the
Channel Islands, which are not in the EU VAT zone, and shipments below a
certain value are not subject to import VAT. This is why if you buy 10 DVDs on
Amazon, you get 10 distinct shipments and invoices (and your bank might block
your credit card because of 10 separate transactions happening simultaneously…
I speak from experience).

As far as I know, it would be highly illegal for them to charge VAT and not
actually pass it on to HMRC.

------
squirrel
The game itself, replayable online:
<http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070912>

------
JackpotDen
There's an idea that richard garfield likes to bring up, which is that if a
player plays random moves, they have a chance (a very small chance) of beating
a grandmaster.

I wonder what would happen if you interjected very occasional random moves on
purpose to extremely advanced chess AI. How often would it make a top player
second guess themselves?

~~~
mcherm
Essentially never, if the top player knew it was a possibility.

------
hasenj
> Kasparov had concluded that the counterintuitive play must be a sign of
> superior intelligence. He had never considered that it was simply a bug.

I think this says quite a bit about chess as a game.

That a top player can't recognize a bad move near the final stage of the game.

In contrast, the game of Go is rich with examples where one player makes a bad
move and the opponent takes advantage of it; and I'm talking about top
players; not amateurs.

Following the opponent and/or always responding to his moves is considered a
typical sign of a weak player. One of the things you learn as you get better
is to never assume that the last move of your opponent is necessarily a good
move.

Imagining that your opponent has a threat you haven't yet figured out is one
of the bad habits that weak players must get rid of before they can become
stronger.

~~~
pessimist
I'm not aware of the move in question, but you are overinterpreting wildly. Of
course top chess players recognize obviously bad moves.

In this case though Kasparov was trying to defeat Deep Blue with an anti-
computer style, he had a particular model in mind for how the computer would
play and when it didnt, he thought it meant that the computer was more far-
sighted than it actually was.

~~~
hasenj
> Of course top chess players recognize obviously bad moves.

I'm not talking about obviously bad moves.

I'm not trying to imply that Kasparov is a bad player either.

But _why_ did he conclude the computer has seen a very complicated sequence
that Kasparov himself can't even begin to see?

It's because of the nature of the game.

Remember, we're talking about a completely random move here ..

~~~
kenjackson
_But why did he conclude the computer has seen a very complicated sequence
that Kasparov himself can't even begin to see?_

The reason is rather obvious, IMO. Kasparov assumed, with good reason, that a
computer is not likely to make tactical mistake. Especially in an end game the
computer can see x moves deep perfectly. Computers historically are far weaker
strategically -- doing things like creating good pawn structures.

So when Kasparov saw a move that appeared to be a tactical flaw his first
belief wasn't, "Oh, must be a bug in the program, that was a random move." He
thought, "There's an attack vector here I'm not familiar with."

It would be like sitting with John Carmack in a coding session and suddenly he
deletes a function that seems like it would be useful to you. Your first
thought would be, "Oh, John must have realized this function isn't useful.
He's smarter than me. I just don't know the whole story." You likely won't
think, "Must be a bug in John's brain that on occassion he will randomly
delete a function."

~~~
drbawb
The imagery of pair programming with Carmack was just too rich. Thank you for
the laughs, mate.

------
nicholassmith
So we can add this to the incredibly small list of "it's not a _bug_ it's a
_feature_ " where it's actually true.

------
wslh
I just sent a LinkedIn InMail to Kasparov (0 connections on LinkedIn) trying
to gain attention of this thread.

------
SagelyGuru
"Kasparov had concluded that the counterintuitive play must be a sign of
superior intelligence."

and that is how we humans come undone: we worry too much.

~~~
anthonyb
Except that this exact situation had happened in earlier games - see cube13's
link: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4583135>

------
Devilboy
44...Rd1 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8guNB96rVgw> See 3:10. Deep Blue
resigned at move 45.

------
fts89
Kindle version:
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007V65R54/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007V65R54/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&tag=asdfdsa-20&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B007V65R54&linkCode=as2)

