Immediately after Garry Kasparov's elegant 73 move win in Game Two on Sunday, the champion entered the Hall, where the audience had followed the game, listening to the live commenatary of Maurice Ashley and Yasser Seirawan.

Mr. Ashley A very happy Garry Kasparov, by the way. We see him.

Mr. Seirawan He needed to know what the computer was capable of. He needed to see the computer on offense and defense. And I think that for the rest of the match Garry has got it. That's it. That's it.

Mr. Ashley You know, humans, we're so predictable. Yesterday we were thinking oh, God the guy is dead, poor Garry. And now he wins a game, yea, he's on top of the world now. He's going to win, no problem. Well, it did look very convincing. If Kasparov keeps this kind of idea, the idea of prophylaxis, don't give the computer any chances, make the position simple, keep it under control, then he's looking good. He's really looking good. And I think he's well aware of that. He's learned from his mistake, which is a fabulous, fabulous human characteristic to learn from our mistakes and he learned from his mistakes in yesterday's game and now he's played this game wonderfully, wonderfully. What technique. And I think this is really going to go down as one of the great games in chess because of his marvelous technique when using a very small chessboard.

Mr. Seirawan Exactly. And I just would add that that's one of the things that I said to start -- at the start of the match that, this was going to be a very, very legitimate match.

(Standing ovation.)

Mr. Ashley We were worried about you after yesterday.

Mr. Kasparov Yeah. Yesterday was not a good day. First I have to congratulate the IBM team for a tremendous, tremendous job they've just done. What I discovered yesterday probably is now clear to everyone. Now for the first time we see the computer at chess and quantity becomes quality because the number of the moves this monstrous machine can play in fact prevents it from making bad positional mistake within reach of its calculation. And yesterday I think the move D5 and B3 that was so human but what I realized that for machine it was simple because it never lost a pawn within the tree of its calculations.

Now for the first time we are playing not only with a computer but with something that has its own intelligence. The depth of the computer's calculation gives it certain positions understanding. Even as we saw today, machines don't understand many things. But only if it goes beyond the depth of its calculation.

Yesterday I was really amazed by the degree of [playing - ability] of the machine. At the end I tried very hard, the attack would have succeeded against any human and that's exactly what I told at any press conference. If I make threats the machine attacks. But if there are no threats the machine doesn't care and will continue [ developing without attacking]. It' business as usual. [e.g. development]

Yesterday, maybe I defend better without playing 19. ...Rdf8, and keep the knight on D5. Yesterday after the opening, it was the worst situation you can imagine in this match. The number of pieces was limited. Then the computer got the queen. This is unbelievable, queen and knight in computer hands. It's an unbeatable weapon because it attacks. It finds the short cut to any weakness in your position and doesn't hesitate, doesn't have any doubts, it's not scared by your illusory threats. And that's why my move was absolutely worse. And it was a massacre which was well deserved, because I probably had to get better position at the opening.

I would have to believe that the machine was making so many good moves, destroying my moves. That's a real masterpiece. But today in fact my idea was just to play, just to recover because it's difficult to sleep after such a game. And that's a real consequence, that I faced an opponent that has no emotions whatsoever. And in fact I just have a few ideas I believe in the future that will have to be taken into account because I just realized that in this match, it's a handicapped match because computer has much more time. It can't think while I'm thinking. And at the same time you know human brains need some rest. Now, probably, the time should be corrected a bit --

Mr. Ashley Garry Kasparov asking for a handicap?

Mr. Kasparov It's a handicap today because the machine can calculate. It eventually uses more time than you do because it goes on and on and on. And we don't have such a problem, electrical cable. Or maybe you should switch the machine while I'm thinking. And also I think there's a very important question, you know, which bothers me a bit. You know, when you ask mathematician to solve a problem, theoretical problem, you give him a calculator. He has something to use the knowledge that was collected by the previous mathematicians. Now, we cannot compete with computers memory. I mean our memory is not excellent. It's so tiny.

Now obviously we had problems preparing for the game. The question is why we do not have an access to an opening data base or ending data base. That is something the computer has not created. Now, it has a big advantage because it has unlimited memory. And that's why for the future matches I believe, you know, that we have to give certain advantages or certain access to human being just to equalize its chances to see how man plays against machine but not how machine plays the man having all the knowledge of us, the chess players.

Mr. Ashley Garry, you defeated the computer today in magnificent human style.

Mr. Kasparov Yeah. But, first of all, it took only 6 hours. And second, you know, it was very funny game because I -- first of all, I couldn't --

Mr. Seirawan Let's take a look.

Mr. Kasparov I couldn't figure out what was happening in my game. In '85 I played a match and that was a game that won the match. But I couldn't figure out what happened in that game because I wish I had an access to a data base to look what I did in '85 when I played. I think the crucial moment happened when Black played E5 queen B8. [game 2. move 17] And suddenly I realized it didn't care about White's weaknesses.

Now probably instead of B4, I mean definitely computer doen't want to take on B2, the pawn on B2 because, you know, then I wanted to play queen B8. Of course, it didn't take on B2 because then it's simply exchange and queen comes on B4 after exchange. Again the damage was within its calculation. That's why, you know, I didn't think it would do it.

Mr. Seirawan But I think that was very impressive of the computer to recognize that it's busted.

Mr. Kasparov After queen D7 it's losing material. And of course I could play B3. White is still slightly better because it's difficult for Black to play central pawns. But then I just wanted to check whether or not B4 is -- you know, whether the computer would take on D4 or not, you know, how good is positionally. Now we took on B4 without hesitation.

Mr. Seirawan Yes, it was tempted.

Mr. Kasparov It was tempted because again there was no damage, no real damage. Unfortunately now the threats are so old the computer had to give up A pawn. What I realized, just look at this -- it was working. I spent about 5 minutes to move queen D7 and it played queen C8 almost instantly. Then computer made another bad move rook B8 queen A4 and the bishop C3. Bishop C3 is a terrible move. Of course bishop D6 was a terrible move. Just having bishop on B8. Still White had an advantage. But after bishop C3 I think the advantage was almost decisive because now bishop C3 takes B8, queen C7. And here again I made a very human mistake, you know. I saw rook B1, and I would get similar end game with A pawn which is probably winning technically. But, you know, normally when you -- in our mind we play H6 because pawn is hanging, and then I play queen F3, queen should go H6, queen F3, queen should go on D7 or whatever it is, and then who comes on B1 with a decisive effect. And that's a decisive effect because we have the same position. But even rook is playing and Black, of course, is absolutely defensive. When I played queen D3, I mean I just saw -- and I think this position okay. This position should be drawn. White has some tiny chances, tiny chances. But obviously it's a draw because I don't think White has a serious -- you know, can make serious progress against a human player. And it's okay. Now I took pawn H7. What else I could do? Rook B2.

Mr. Ashley This position, someone suggested the move bishop to B1. Did that impress you at all as a chance?

Mr. Seirawan I was just wondering if you thought about it. Somebody in the audience had suggested it.

Mr. Kasparov You know, maybe it's a good idea, but what I calculate, for instance, if I played bishop B1, then put my queen on E4 after queen E6, for instance. Now it plays F5, and I understand that the end game is dead draw. But what happened later in this game, it took about 15 minutes for computer to agree to give up the pawn. It didn't want to give up a pawn, but probably it saw, you know, so many threats that it eventually gave up a pawn. Now for the human being it would take maybe a few seconds to give up a pawn because the end game would be dead draw. I hold that something could happen because clearly White has only one chance in this position. It's to bring Black's king to the center. Because then in the center then we can create certain threats.

Now, my hope was that for computer it should still be dead draw. And you know my plan worked for computer moved king, you know, to the center. And unfortunately once I repeated -- the second time I repeated the moves and, you know, computer won more time. Here, if I didn't repeat the moves, then computer had to solve the problem with sacrificing the pawn before time control. And I was not sure if it would do it. But anyway I still think Black had plenty of resources.

Now, it requires serious analysis when you know White could do something or Black could do something. I think the critical moment, the really critical moment, because I just outmaneuvered eventually, at that point the computer realized -- it didn't realize it. Probably calculated. I just felt it and it knew. It was really tough because the king was in the center and the reason that kept me in the game, I said, my God, if I play Black and computer won, it would kill me because it was queen and chance to attack and you know I decided fine. Let's try this. I think the mistake computer made was move queen D7 when I just won the pawn and Black got my bishop on E5. Here of course king D7 was a terrible move. King E7. Because after king D7 my bishop comes back. Instead of H5 it comes to C4, and now I just -- I realize because I could restore coordination of my pieces and I already saw the plan, you know, with two pieces -- my piece I paralyze its queen and I have to find a plan. Obviously Black cannot move pawns because with mate and threats I always have checks and I will take certain pawns. And you know after king E7 I think it was very difficult for White, very difficult to win eventually, if it's winning at all.

Mr. Seirawan I think that also the problem for the computer is it didn't realize its best defensive idea was to stay close to the king side.

Mr. Kasparov Exactly. You know at that time you know it's -- even if you run hundred millions a second, it doesn't help much because the number of pawns is big. That's why as soon as you get too many pawns off the board, you can calculate positions to the very end. It's really big. If computer sees the defensive line which would be proved better if human point of view, but it doesn't look better within its tree. It goes to another one, which better defense, but longer chances. Again probably the same happened in the game because it just -- the human being would play at 1 point D3 or F4, would do something dramatic and machine just waited. Because probably it saw it was losing. It was losing by force. You know, if it tried to push any pawn, but again the human being would do something because, otherwise, if you sit and wait --

Mr. Seirawan Garry, I think you played an absolute gem of a game and for me I always think that the player becomes very good when it loses well. The computer lost a good game. I mean you had to play very good. And that makes to my mind the computer a very legitimate opponent.

Did you expect before the match began that you would lose a single game against this computer at classical chess?

Mr. Kasparov No. I could imagine it was a game. But clearly I did not expect such a strength. As I said in the beginning, you know, we are facing now a new quality. And also we are all playing with little computers. It's on our laptops. And you know this morning I just realized that it probably works against you because you're used to certain mistakes that computer always makes. You play with the strongest chess playing programs on your laptop. Very good. But you know this computer is thousand times faster. I mean it's just -- it makes -- within 1 second it looks to the lines that the chess playing program that chess playing genius would spend ten to fifteen minutes. It's like you are trying, you know, just to play a five-year old kid and suddenly the big daddy comes. And it really creates a new, new challenge because first time you know we have to deal with something that understands chess. Not because it understands but because it sees too deep. The normal mistakes you see in the computer, just forget about them. Within its calculations you can hardly expect a different mistake.

Question from audience

Mr. Kasparov You know, human stamina counts as well, you know. I had the chance. I had a very good chance to win the game. I definitely made a couple of mistakes. I missed my best chance when the position was technically winning. But I had a chance, and this morning I realized that there would be not so many chances in this match. To be at this machine, you have to try extremely hard. You expect a mistake and you win technically. To win the game, you have to fight as many hours as it takes. If you have a chance, you have to go for it, and I was lucky, but I pressed my luck hard.

Question from audience

Mr. Ashley The question is did you know that the computer lost access to the opening book, or did the telephone go out?

Mr. Kasparov There was a wrong move C takes D4. I was so happy. And then, you know, it is quite annoying because when it just happens, I spent a minute or so. Your mind is working in other directions, and suddenly it is a mistake now. You come back to normal. Then I just didn't realize.

When it castled, I don't know whether it lost access or not, but I wouldn't tolerate a second change of the move because I spent already ten minutes calculating something because it is very difficult for me to come back, but it had a pretty normal at game.

But, again, I understand it is not easy for computer to anticipate or to evaluate the line which was not prepared for the game because there are many lines and from the computer's logic, highest logic, that we don't understand, maybe the position is not good. It has some other ideas than we have.

Question from audience

Mr. Seirawan The question is we have seen the first of a new generation of computers and the future is going to offer even stronger than what we are seeing, and your reaction, Garry.

Mr. Kasparov It will be very tough. Maybe it will be over one day, but as I said, I believe that for the fair match we will need an access to the data base during the game. It helps us from preparing, hours and hours preparing. You can come fresh and play the best chess you can.

No, I think that any match with super computer like that, it is as serious as the world championship because you have a real opponent, which in certain positions we have to admit it. And it is not one percent. In 10 or 20 or 30 percent of the positions it plays much better than we play, and in some positions it plays like God because it simply does not make mistakes

Question from audience

Mr. Seirawan Just in case everybody did not hear the question, the question was Garry took about 20 minutes, I think, Garry, 25 minutes on the move knight C6 when, boy, there was a wide variety of choices there.

Mr. Kasparov Can you make another offer?

Audience Question My question is after move 40 there was a problem with the computer. Do you know what happened there? Can you tell us about it?

Mr. Kasparov I think the main problem was computer was looking so deep to find out it had to sacrifice a point. Because for computer it is very painful decision because there was no -- the weaker machine that didn't make a hundred moves per second would never sacrifice a move. You can take maybe eight or ten moves, but it would create stress and only this machine to see the stress. It took some time, you know, and then it decided to give up a point, which is a very difficult decision. But I think that was the main problem. The machine was figuring out that it had to give up a point, and it didn't like it.

Audience Question Are you saying that it locked out kind of?

Mr. Kasparov You will have to ask the programmers. It definitely had some problems because presumably it was that draw from machine's point of view. And that's when it happens. It takes a lot of time for the machine to figure out that it had to give up a point because otherwise it was getting worse.

Audience Question Somewhere around 60 or so you put your watch back on. Did you know game won at that point?

Mr. Kasparov At that time I was quite happy. Time to go home. In fact, I was pretty sure that I'm winning when I put my bishop on C4. I saw that idea clearly, F4, you know, because that is crucial. With F4 the Black King is trapped. And when I saw it, just I saw the whole construction, and then what it took for me to place a piece on the correct squares is not to miss any tactics, but I know it's over.

Audience Question What do you expect the outcome as far as the score of the match will be?

Mr. Kasparov It will be very tough. I expect it will be very big fight because I clearly see the advantage of the machine. It doesn't make automatic mistakes, mistakes by hand that we very often do, and, you know, if it gets its shot, you can forget about me in that game. That's why I have to consider seriously how to play further because these next four games will be very tough.

Mr. Ashley We would like to thank world champion, Garry Kasparov.

(Proceedings concluded at 915 p.m.)

[ The Game | The Program | Commentary | Grandstand | Deep Blue ]

[ IBM home page | (C) | (TM) | IBM Small Planet Pavilion | Internet 1996 World Expo ]