Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:34:11 07/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 2000 at 16:38:45, blass uri wrote: >On July 21, 2000 at 15:29:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: > ><snipped> >>I could promise to let you use my quad xeon in a chess tournament, just as I >>have done for Vincent several times. And someone higher-up here at UAB could >>say "no" and "no" it would be. Beyond my control. > >If it is something that is not dependent only on you then you should not >promise. > >You can say that you will let Ed to use your quad xeon only if somebody higher >will not say no. Easy to say using 20-20 hindsight. If I say someone can use my machine, I don't have any worry that I will get overruled. And I have loaned it several times in the past. If I worked for a company like IBM, after having worked here for many years, I still might say "yes" and then be surprised when I am overruled. It happens. Remember that DT was developed and built by graduate CS students at CMU. They were in a grad student environment, in an academic environment where openness is everything. They then found themselves in a totally different world at IBM... a public corporation with profit motives. > ><snipped> >>>Whatever they say I don't believe this. When you do 7 million nodes per >>>second 16.c4?? should be refuted within half a second. When this is not >>>the case this says enough about the quality of the program. >> >>This _was_ deep thought. It was doing about 2M nodes per second in 1995, >>according to Hsu. Whether it overlooked the tactic, or the extensions >>made it think the move was not so bad at first, is impossible to say. > >I believe that lack of extensions made it think the move was not so bad. They were already using singular extensions and everything else then, as is explained in the JICCA article they wrote several years prior to 1995. > >It needed to extend a line with Qh4-h3 and Qh3xh2+ and probably it had a rule >not to extend wasting tempo lines so it could not see it. That is not a Hsu-like approach. > ><snipped> >>IBM might be hiding, to be sure. They did something no one else has done, and >>which no one else is likely to do in the near future. After beating Kasparov, >>what more _could_ they do? Any loss or draw of any kind would mar that >>marketing gem. > >I think that getting more than 80% against top programs in a serious match is >more impressive than beating kasparov. You aren't the general public. There is no comparison there. 99.9% of the people in the world have no idea what Rebel or Fritz or Crafty or whatever chess program is. Most know the name Kasparov, however, and understand the title "World Chess Champion". > >IBM lost the respect of many chess players because of the fact that they are >hiding. >If they can get more than 16:4 against Deep Junior in 20 games match then they >have a lot to earn. > >They will not lose nothing if they can beat Deep Junior only 15:5 >15:5 against Deep Junior is clearly better than the expected result of kasparov >against it based on Deep Junior's performance. > >Uri Has nothing to do with marketing. It is about the general public's impression of Deep Blue. It is _not_ about "techie impressions". We are such a tiny part of the potential customer base, we don't count. That is what the marketing bean-counters do for a living..
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.