The best chess player in the world, Garry Kasparov, who held the championship title continuously for 15 years to lose it to his student (who was still rated lower than Kasparov, overall) played a computer engine in 1997 and supposedly lost.

Why supposedly? Because a lot of retards used the fact that he lost the 5 game series of matches where he played for about a week against Deep Blue with the overall result. In reality, Kasparov won one of these games, drawn 3 and lost 2.

Okay, so why am I saying this? People are apparently using these facts in the wrong context which makes it seem that Deep Blue beat Kasparov and a human couldn't defeat the machine. Which wasn't true. Kasparov did beat Deep Blue in one of the matches.

Also, this was the second attempt of the Deep Blue team at this shit. Namely, in 1996, Kasparov defeated the Deep Blue team. So this was a rematch.

A bunch of facts about the 1997 game:

The Deep Blue team re-programmed their computer between matches to adjust its playing strategy

Deep Blue is a machine, so it doesn't get tired; Kasparov is a human being and played for hours long daily for around a week

The Deep Blue team have studied Kasparov's games for their program to come up with the best methods to defeat him. They didn't give a chance to test Deep Blue's strategy in a few matches before the tournament.

So, did Deep Blue actually win? I'd say it's the same kind of win where you'd put a robot against Mike Tyson, that would know all his flaws in technique, lose by points in the first round, to wear him out in the next ones.