Interview with Yasser Seirawan

Yasser Seirawan, one of three commentators for the Kasparov-Deep Blue rematch (along with Michael Valvo and Maurice Ashley), is an International Grandmaster and three-time U.S. Champion. He spoke with our reporter following Game 4.

How do you think this year's match differs from last year's match in Philadelphia?
It differs on many different fronts, and yet, history seems to be repeating itself because we have an identical score and identical results from the first match. But there are lots of differences too. I think we see a smarter Deep Blue this year. This match is a greater test for Garry and he's taking it much more seriously this time. Garry is having more of a struggle than he had in the first one. In a way, he almost seems to be imploding. He's worried about why the computer played so well in Game 2 and his confidence has been shaken.

We certainly noticed his concern about the computer's capabilities during the press conference after Game 3.
Wow! When he stomped off that stage, he left a vacuum behind. I was on the 49th floor watching and I could even feel that vacuum! I mean the pleasantries that they exchanged before the game, the great admiration and mutual respect both sides exhibited for each other all kind of got put aside as Garry said some very sharp things. I think that C.J. Tan did a good job of deflecting when he invited Kasparov back to IBM to continue the experiment after the match. I though that C.J. was very diplomatic, and he did his best to mollify Garry.

Kasparov has chosen to play with a more passive strategy against Deep Blue than he normally uses in tournaments. As a grandmaster, would you choose the same strategy against Deep Blue?
No. Stylistically, Garry matches up very, very badly against Deep Blue. To use a boxing analogy, Deep Blue has two very powerful weapons, and he's a big, big bully. When Joe Frazier met George Foreman, Frazier was tailor-made for Foreman. George was a big puncher, and Frazier came in head first. Bad news! Garry Kasparov is a big puncher, he's a very big puncher. He's an awesome attacker and he's an awesome tactician. But Deep Blue has exactly the same strengths. In an exchange of blows, he could knock out the computer as just easily as he himself could be knocked out. So he has to say "Well, I've got to become a little more skilled as a boxer, I've got to become more of a counter-puncher, I've got to bob and weave, and I've got to run." But Garry doesn't run from anybody. He is the ultimate intimidating force on the chessboard. So in this match he's suddenly on his bicycle running around the ring, making little moves, toying over here, toying over there. Well guess what? There are a lot of boxers in the chess world who do exactly that. They're not going to knock you out. But they're going to score on a lot of little jabs, they're going to win a decision, and they're perfectly happy campers... The greatest positional players in the world, including Anatoly Karpov and Ulf Anderson, would box the ears off Deep Blue.

Have Deep Blue's abilities been specifically tailored to cancel out Garry's strengths?
No. Virtually all computers think alike, just as all planes fly alike. There's not that big of a difference. The development team can polish it here and there on the opening, add a little bit of sophistication in the endgame, and so on. They're making facets better, but under the hood it's still this raw, calculating ability that's going on.

Who's going to win the match?
Garry is. The difference is still far too great. Garry has some emotional problems at the moment that he must temper, but he'll keep his cool. He's great and he knows so much about chess. He made some great adjustments after three games, and I feel that he's seen enough about the computer to realize what he has to do. If Deep Blue were to tie the match, I would be shocked. In my wildest dreams I can't see Deep Blue winning. But then again, I have pretty wild dreams.