Re:Why did he offer a draw? (Score 1)

Actually, Kasparov's move may have been the best one. Some may say he psyched himself out, but remember, just 3 games before, in game 3, Kasparov was in a similar situation -- tactically superior board position, late in the game. Most agreed the win would be his, but Junior found a clever combination the humans didn't see, and stole the win. While a draw is less dramatic, Kasparov wanted to avoid loosing in game 6 against a computer for the second time after his original Deep Blue match up 6 years ago.

Speaking of which, some might ask why if a computer could beat Kasparov 6 years ago, why didn't it thrash him this time, when computers are over 10 times faster since then, the answer lies in the building of the computer. The original deep blue was built on highly specialized hardware just for rapid calculation of chess moves. Such specialized machines were all the rage when computers were trying to beat humans, but after Deep Blue Sr. beat Kasparov, the interest died out of the market, and the chess programs of today are loaded on normal hardware. In fact, you can buy a very similar version of Deep Blue Jr. for your home PC. Add a buncha processors and memory, and you've got Junior! For more on the computer change, check out Kurzweil's commentary: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/ar ticles/art0527.html

Last, many people asked why they didn't plan 7 matches instead of 6, so the result wouldn't be a draw. Two problems with this: first is that chess games can draw (no over time), and each side gets half a point, so with 7 games, they could still draw at 3.5 vs. 3.5. Secondly, the player who plays white moves first, which is an advantage, so it's impossible to have a fair match were one person plays white 4 times and the other plays white 3 times. It would be like letting a tennis match be decided on 7 games with one person serving for 4 of the games.

--Splart