Talk:Deep Blue (chess computer)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 6 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): The Tanner B. Peer reviewers: Bobaylobor.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Down the Rabbit hole Due Weight
Is the fact that a youtube video was made about this really important to understand this event? Like, good for the guy who made it, but it seems somewhat out of place. Unless it leads to some larger discussion the match with Kasperov, I, at the moment, think it should be removed from the article. Argis113 (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems more like advertisement. It should be enough if the video author's own wiki page links to the Deep Blue article, should he have one. Ludens123 (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Also, you can just delete things like this yourself per WP:BRD. Rolf H Nelson (talk)

Reference for "In the opening book there were over 4,000 positions and 700,000 grandmaster games"?
The claim that Deep Blue contained 700,000 grandmaster games (back in the day!) sounded surprising to me, and does not have an explicit citation. Initially I was sceptical, but having looked through a bunch of the references to the article, I found a claim in the Hsu--Campbell "Deep Blue System Overview" (1995) paper (note date: this was presumably before the upgrade which got it beating Kasparov) that it had "an opening book created from a chess game database with 300,000 games". The paper does not seem to claim that they're grandmaster games, however if you're going to digitise games in 1995 then you may as well digitise grandmaster games, and note also that they are not claiming that all the games themselves are in the system, just that the 300,000 games were used to generate the opening book. Ultimately then, I am not suggesting that the claim is false, but I'd like to use this claim in a talk and I am a bit wary of citing it right now (I'll use the quote in the system overview pdf). Kevin Buzzard.

Easily too dump and unexperienced or even on low energy
Was the Prozessor too simple or even in Power Saving mode 2A00:20:3001:91E4:E8C3:6BCC:5765:A6C0 (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Future direction worth mentioning?
I just noticed this article... It doesn't have direct bearing, but might be worth a mention regarding what direction things have taken since the time of Deep Blue... What direction that work has sent us. Bill Woodcock (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Full circle on describing Deep Blue as an "expert system"
I restored the longstanding lede description of Deep Blue as a supercomputer instead of the unhelpful relatively recent change to characterize it as an expert system. Chess playing computers have occasionally been described as expert systems, but that isn't especially common. The expert system article does not mention Deep Blue or chess playing computers or even any games playing computers at all. The link to the expert systems page didn't help the reader learn anything about Deep Blue at all. By contrast, the supercomputer article does mention Deep Blue specifically. The lede is supposed to summarize the important points in the body of the article, but "expert system" was mentioned nowhere except the lede. Quale (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You just created self-reflexive nonsense. "Deep Blue was a chess-playing supercomputer run on a unique purpose-built IBM supercomputer." A computer is the hardware. An expert system is the software.  Software runs on hardware.  Hardware doesn't run on hardware.  And hardware doesn't magically do anything without software.  And appeals to antiquity are just a logical fallacy, not a supporting argument.  Reverted. EVhotrodder (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Bug in 44th move
In the article it says on the 44th move in the first game of the second match there was a bug. The source is also talking about 1997, first game: "[...]referred to an incident that had occurred toward the end of the first game in their 1997 match with Kasparov". This is the first game of the 1997 match: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070915

44. Rb1 is the only valid move in this position. There is no other move. Where is the bug? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.250.206.130 (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It makes no sense to me that Kasparov would be surprised when Deep Blue played the only possible move in this poition. Like, There are no other legal moves, so why should Kasparov be surprised. This makes no sense at all, something is not right here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.250.206.130 (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 44.Rb1 is in game 4 of the 1997 match. The 'bug' is 44...Rd1 in game 1 of that match. Your Chessgames.com link is game 4, not game 1. --IHTS (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Software types of Compare
the remark " The opening book encapsulated more than 4,000 positions and 700,000 grandmaster games " sets foot on a big compare that is impossible for a human being. is there any REAL information about the REAL software used? how many moved where result of a giant COMPARE function and how many maove were realy CALCUlated... instead of "holding up to the light and look for that one open pinchhole" but then very, very, very(etc) quick and are references or links to those computer routines ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.149.83.125 (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

"The system derived its playing strength mainly from brute force computing power"
I don't get the trend of classifying everything that has Alpha Beta search as brute force. Sure there is a large search and the speed (averaged) of 200 M positions per seconds is impressive but it is negligible compared to the search space. There is a great deal of smart pruning, I wouldn't call it mainly brute force.

Sources: IBM’S DEEP BLUE CHESS GRANDMASTER CHIPS

Behind Deep Blue, Feng-hsiung Hsu

And related articles to 1. Pier4r (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 June 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Deep Blue (supercomputer) can be discussed separately. (closed by non-admin page mover) C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 01:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

– Clear primary topic, by both page views and long term significance. Reviews of page views suggests the computer receives ten times the page views of all other Deep Blue's put together, and the long term significance of the others is negligible, while the long term significance of the computer - which revitalized optimism in the AI field - is significant. BilledMammal (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Deep Blue (chess computer) → Deep Blue
 * Deep Blue → Deep Blue (disambiguation)
 * Weak support as primary topic just based on my quick review of the rest of the disambiguation page, although surprisingly Deep Blue (great white shark) is pretty competitive in terms of |Deep_Blue_(great_white_shark) page views (even surpassing it one month). –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 14:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The great white shark by the name of Deep Blue is not so obviously less notable that the computer is the primary topic by views or longterm significance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The page views are inconclusive even without considering Shades of blue. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A note from the revision history: the chess computer was at until 2007, when a disambiguation page was created. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It doesn't seem accurate that the computer receives ten times the page views; it is not much more than the shark. Maybe you can argue the computer is by far the most important in a more general sense of human knowledge, but while I agree it is the most important of the entries, I don't think it is so important in the history of the computing as to justify that. I also wonder if "Deep Blue (computer)" would be less of a mouthful and still sufficiently clear. Jmill1806 (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would prefer Deep Blue (supercomputer), as that its predominant defining trait. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Deep_Blue indicates there were 458 or 418 incoming views of "Deep Blue" in May '23, and in turn 319 to the computer (~70% or ~76%), followed by a non-trivial amount of traffic to the shark and a few other topics. This kind of a ratio is typically not indicative of a conclusive primary topic by usage, but it's certainly possible to argue about it :) --Joy (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That may be because the first Wikipedia result from search engines like Google and Bing for Deep Blue is the computer, not the dab page. BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Reviewing all page results (I had not expected the shark to have a significant number of views) we see that in the past year the computer has received 70% more views than all other articles put together (263,426 views to 153,231), and 150% more views than the next most viewed article, the shark (263,426 to 106,120). I believe this meets the requirement of "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined".
 * I also don't see any reasonable claim for the shark to have similar long term significance to the computer. This can be seen by search for sources; the shark has news coverage and passing mentions in a couple of scholarly sources, while the computer has hundreds of scholarly articles and books written solely on it. It can also be seen in how the sources describe the two; sources describe the computer as a technological milestone; sources have made no such claims of significance about the shark or, I would bet, any other topic on this list. BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 150% more views is hardly a typical threshold to make something a primary topic. I would think more like 1000% more views or close to it. And dismissing "One of the largest great white sharks recorded" and an icon for shark conservation as a mere triviality indicates some bias towards the computer. I simply don't see an obvious primary topic here. Despite Deep Blue arguably being a bit more important, it's not enough to make it "obviously" the article that should take precedence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The threshold is "much more likely"; 150% more would appear to meet that. I'm also not seeing any claim that the shark is an icon for shark conversation; such a claim isn't included in the article and it isn't in any of the sources in the article. I would contrast that with the computer, which reliable sources regularly describe as a milestone and a major accomplishment, and I would also contrast that with the depth of coverage received in reliable sources; compared to the computer, the shark has received very little coverage. This tells us that sources accord the computer far greater significance; we should follow the sources. BilledMammal (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I was also surprised by the page-views for the shark. Clearly, no topic other than the chess computer could be the primary topic.  But, overall, I see the evidence as people viewing it as more "historical trivia" than "a transformational impact to computing".  (The separate issue of considering the primary topic separately for Deep Blue v. Deep blue is complicated, and I am happy to avoid commenting on it.) Walt Yoder (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.