I think IBM did several things that weren't fair to Kasparov, changing the code between games being only one. I would actually say the more important piece was that he wasn't able to practice against Deep Blue or study its games against other players.
We tend to romanticize Chess as being a hyper-intellectual game where if you are good enough, you should be able to beat anyone worse than you 100% of the time. The truth is a lot more subtle. Chess is indeed a perfect-information game, so there isn't true luck involved, but due to the fact that we can't just search the entire game tree, we introduce several elements of uncertainty. Namely, that past a certain point, you must play your opponent as much as the board. Players (and AIs) naturally have certain strengths and weaknesses, and the ability to steer the game into positions that play to your strengths and opponents weaknesses is often just as important as your overall game strength. Some of the best players in the world are known for how intensely they prepare for specific opponents.
In short, Deep Blue had 'preparation' against Kasparov from all his game histories, while Kasparov did not have the same benefit. While switching the code could be considered analogous to switching to a whole new opponent (though likely only a small change in practice), the overall unpreparedness was probably the larger factor. In my opinion Kasparov was a stronger player than 1997 Deep Blue, but this asymmetry probably cost him the series.
In short, Deep Blue had 'preparation' against Kasparov from all his game histories, while Kasparov did not have the same benefit.
Kasparov had the benefit of playing all those games as well. ;)
As for your allegations of unfairness, code tweaks were allowed between games. It was part of the rules. Just not during games. And if Kasparov didn't think the rules were fair he could have declined the match.
>Kasparov had the benefit of playing all those games as well. ;)
You missed his point, its not about practice. The top chess players often study their opponents to understand what types of moves they make and in what situations they make those moves. If Kasparov were to play any other player in highly ranked matched both players would go and study their opponents move to get an insight in the way they think.
The "unfairness" in the Deep Blue match (or what made the Deep Blue match unlike other top-level play Chess), is that Deep Blue had a deep understanding of Kasparov's moves, but Kasparov had no information about Deep Blue's moves. And to make matters worse, any information he had built up in the previous games were erased once they tweaked the code.
We tend to romanticize Chess as being a hyper-intellectual game where if you are good enough, you should be able to beat anyone worse than you 100% of the time. The truth is a lot more subtle. Chess is indeed a perfect-information game, so there isn't true luck involved, but due to the fact that we can't just search the entire game tree, we introduce several elements of uncertainty. Namely, that past a certain point, you must play your opponent as much as the board. Players (and AIs) naturally have certain strengths and weaknesses, and the ability to steer the game into positions that play to your strengths and opponents weaknesses is often just as important as your overall game strength. Some of the best players in the world are known for how intensely they prepare for specific opponents.
In short, Deep Blue had 'preparation' against Kasparov from all his game histories, while Kasparov did not have the same benefit. While switching the code could be considered analogous to switching to a whole new opponent (though likely only a small change in practice), the overall unpreparedness was probably the larger factor. In my opinion Kasparov was a stronger player than 1997 Deep Blue, but this asymmetry probably cost him the series.