And, the final nail: Why shouldn't IBM cheat? To IBM, it's nothing but a marketing stunt, nothing else.

Also when they won (no rematch, no further research, dismantling of Deep Blue) doesn't look like honest behavior (first truly artificial intelligence? Who would NOT follow through with research?), but like a cheater who won and now has to skip town before he's discovered.

Also IBM,s attitude, while could be attributed to psyching out Kasparov (fueling his paranoia), looked totally like a cheater's conduct. But that's a human strategy, not a machine's (the computer only knows the game in front of it, doesn't know there are six games total, so it would NEVER sacrifice one to try to surprise Kasparov in the next one). Maybe losing the first game was intended to lower Kasparov's defenses so he would try a play like that, and there Deep Blue would surprise him, psyche him out and steamroll. Arguments for it: Kasparov won fist game easy, but lost second when Deep Blue didn't take a bait a compute would've taken. no one can blame him), since chess is also psychologic warfare, IBM surely did it's best to psyche out Kasparov and play his paranoid assumptions. And he's a paranoid (coming from the U.R.S.S. Anything is possible Arguments against it: Kasparov could've taken for granted Deep Blue's playing antics as the one of a normal computer, and since IBM had a grandmaster chess player advising the programmers, it's not so wild to conceive that they managed to program Deep Blue to be able to spot traps like the one Kasparov set up that wouldv'e nailed any other computer. Like the documentary say, Kasparov would be the worst poker player in the world. And when he was losing and crumbling, you could see it too. Whenever he felt good and winning, you could see it. Kasparov could surely be a fine actor, since the guy is very expressive and charismatic. I saw the documentary, and saw the actual games in 1997.

Kasparov chess games torrent