Deep Blue wasn't sprung on Kasparov as an unknown ringer in the middle of a tournament. IBM approached Kasparov and offered to pay him to play against their computer. A set of rules was decided upon. Kasparov agreed and he lost. He knew going in exactly what the conditions and terms were. And he got paid as promised.
During a series of games each player will make adjustments to their play to better reflect their opponents strengths and weaknesses. How is the IBM team making adjustments "unfair"? Didn't Kasparov make changes to his play in order to take advantage to the weaknesses that Deep Blue showed? He had a team of advisors to suggest to him changes in his style, strategies and tactics. The IBM team making adjustments to the evaluation function isn't "unfair", it's just doing for the machine what Kasparovs coaches did for him.
Deep Blue certainly is a general chess playing computer. Any player could (assuming you had the hardware available to you) go against it and play a game of chess. Except for perhaps half a dozen players, Deep Blue would not only win, but win easily. In the general sense it is perfectly reasonable that between to any two players, each player will attempt to style their play to better defeat their opponent. But that doesn't mean that those players aren't "general" chess players.
The match was not completely meaningless. It showed that it was possible to build a machine that played a game, chess, better than the best human. That is what was done.
The observation that Deep Junior or Fritz use better evaluation doesn't indicate a lack of knowledge about chess programs. It just shows that the current collection of computer chess theory has advanced. Deep Blue is/was a strong player regardless of how cutting edge it's software is/was.
It approaches stupidity to say that computer programs have a long way to go before they are "equal" to humans re. chess. The points you bring up, ie. reduce move evaluation speed and depth, are non starters. Computer chess researches are not trying to make a human out of a computer, they are making computers that play chess. It is just as irrelevant to say that humans are not as good at chess as computers because they would play less ably than a four year old of they were restricted to evaluating moves based upon a series of static evaluations, and because they aren't able to look up moves in an opening book as rapidly, and because they can't quickly jump into transposition tables, and to handily use an endgame database.
Let's move your argument to some other field of endevour. Compare a dump truck to a human laborer. Of course the dump truck has a long way to go before it can be considered "equal" to humans at moving materials from one place to another. Reduce it's capacity to a five gallon bucket and only allow it to move by lifting it's wheels and placing them down one in front of another.... See, it makes no sense. The point isn't to make a better human, it's to make a machine that moves stuff from here to there as efficiently as possible and the only intelligent way to do that is to use the strengths of the machine, not to try and make a stronger/faster person.
In some sense, it's valid to say that computers are already equal to humans. Considering that the difference between human players is how they choose their moves. One player may have a bias towards using his gut instinct, whereas another may be more prone to following a strict methodology based upon study of opening books and board position. So it doesn't make sense to say that because a player uses a different method of deciding upon moves they aren't "equal" to other player, you say they aren't "equal" if they win or lose. If you want to compare how good two things are, you look at what the goal is and how well that goal is achieved. Taking the average human chess player and comparing their ability to solve the problem, ie. play chess, the average chess program is better at solving that problem.
It also doesn't follow that changing the initial layout of the pieces (Fischer Random Chess) will result in computers being terrible at the game. It just means that you've changed the problem and the solutions need to be changed as well. However, even if you chose not to adjust your solution, programs such as Deep Blue would still do very well at the game. Deep Blue's primary strength was it's speed. Programs such as Deep Junior and Fritz, most likely would be less capable than they are now because their opening books would be destroyed. Programs such as Cray Blitz and Deep Blue wouldn't be as affected by such variations, since they are based heavily upon the premise that they can evaluate an enormous number of positions. The only thing that FRC would do is kill the opening book. This exact same effect would happen to human players as well.
I don't know much about Kasparov, so I won't make any comment about his ego or personality. However if you want to disagree with points that are being made, you would be better served by sticking with arguments that are logical and have some connection between point A and point B.
The whole argument about who is better at chess, computers or humans, is stilly. It's obvious that, given an economic incentive, a computer can be built that will crush handily the best human players. It's purely a matter of money. The same engineering principles that led to Deep Blue, ie. massive parallelization, can be extrapolated to a machine that is hundreds if not thousands of times faster than Deep Blue. Add in the very large data storage capabilities that have arisen in the last few years (increased RAM density, hard drive space, database searching techniques) and you have a combination that couldn't be beat by human methods.
It's a foregone conclusion that we are able to build tools that solve problems better than we solve those problems unaided.