(2 of 3)
This machine is not invincible, however, and I still believe that I had a chance of winning, especially if I had prepared myself properly for the match, which was very different in spirit from the match in Philadelphia.
From the opening press conference, I realized that for IBM, this was much more than a scientific experiment. Competition had overshadowed science. It had become a contest about winning and losing. The IBM team was at once a player, organizer, arbitrator and sponsor of the event, which left me at a terrible disadvantage. Whether they intended to or not, they created a hostile atmosphere that was very difficult for me to bear. There was something negative in the air. It was a Deep Blue show, and Deep Blue had to win.
IBM's total control of the site and the playing conditions underscored the vulnerability of the human player. I was the only player in this competition influenced by any sort of negative or hostile atmosphere. I think IBM's unwillingness to cooperate or give printouts of the computer's thought processes harmed that atmosphere. (As of today, I still have not received the complete printouts that I requested.) There were also many minor incidents, starting with the fact that the venue was created for the convenience of the machine--with all these air-conditioning systems and dozens of people serving the machine--not the human player.
I don't want anybody to look at this as an excuse. It's my fault. I accepted the conditions.
Now I would like to look to the future. I think we have to separate science and sport. I believe the IBM team owes the world of chess, and the world of science, a full explanation of how such a flexible machine was developed. They have to make all the scientific data available to allow others to judge their accomplishment.
I also think IBM owes me, and all mankind, a rematch. I hereby challenge IBM to a match of 10 games, 20 days long, to play every second day. I would like to have access in advance to the log of 10 Deep Blue games played with a neutral player or another computer in the presence of my representative. I would like to play it this fall, when I can be in my best form after a summer of vacation and preparation. And I'm ready to play for all or nothing, winner take all, just to show that it's not about money. Moreover, I think it would be advisable if IBM would step down as an organizer of the match. It should be organized independently.
I think IBM was the big winner of this match. It scored many points in advertising and in the stock market. I also think the company owes something to chess. I think it would be great if IBM contributed to chess development; specifically, it could create a scholarship to help talented kids study chess.
I think this match proved that there should be no special anticomputer strategy. To beat this machine, I just have to play great chess. I need comprehensive, bullet-proof opening preparation that checks all sharp lines of play to avoid any flaws--which can be deadly when playing Deep Blue. I need physical and psychological stability, a great level of concentration and a mind free of other distractions to calculate, calculate and calculate.
I think something great is happening. I'm proud to be part of that. But I don't want to be a loser because I'm playing only at 50% of my capacity and 50% of my psychological stability.