Author: Don Dailey
Date: 13:02:52 01/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 1998 at 10:38:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 11, 1998 at 03:57:55, Rob Fatland wrote: > >>Apologies in advance if my perceptions or facts are wrong. The >>following is a statement of my perspective on public perception of >>chess, particularly with regard to Deep Blue and what seems to me to be >>a great opportunity going to waste. Here goes: >> >>After the Kasparov match I was hugely disappointed in IBM when I >>understood that the Deep Blue project was being mothballed. I felt this >>was largely due to all the stereotypical bad things one hears about >>large companies and IBM in particular. However, a recent interview with >>Joel Benjamin (maybe Chess Life? or somewhere on the net) cast a >>different light on the issue for me. Here IBM was acknowledged by >>Benjamin as having its own financially-motivated agenda, but Kasparov's >>behavior after the match was also cited as a strong influence in the >>decision to mothball the computer. This picture seems to me to be >>reasonable, at least on the surface; that is, that the Deep Blue team >>felt that they had taken much more abuse than they deserved and with >>hurt feelings along with other reasons they packed up their toys and >>went home. While I applauded the computer victory over Kasparov at the >>time I believe that the current state of affairs is bad for chess. >> >>Now speaking of agendas, here in brief is mine: My main soap-box issue >>is education, and I believe chess is a powerful educational tool in many >>ways. I would like to see chess become increasingly popular for >>school-age kids and I think that this can happen in a number of ways. >>For example, we can take it on ourselves to promote chess on a >>grass-roots level by walking into the local elementary school and seeing >>if they need a volunteer. And USCF seems to be doing what it can >>promoting youth chess. Another way that chess can become interesting is >>to have the mainstream media take an interest, covering developments in >>the chess world thus bringing chess into popular culture. This is where >>chess is in Russian popular culture. Unfortunately it seems to me that >>right now the top levels of chess competition are in a shambles, and >>this means that worse than appearing merely muddled and disorganized, >>top-level chess is just boring. A brief litany (or perhaps eulogy): >> >> - We have a FIDE human world champion determined by grossly unfair >> conditions and to make it more ridiculous, blitz chess. Truly >> a format which should have included Fritz, Hiarcs, and CM5500. >> - We have the second-highest rated human player not even bothering >> to show up for the FIDE championship. >> - We have the generally acknowledged best human player in the >> world also not participating in the FIDE tournament, a guy >> who has been playing well but *lost* to a computer, who >> furthermore has such enormous behavioral problems that he has >> turned himself into something of a pariah. >> - We have a computer that is ostensibly the best chess-playing >> entity on the planet now hidden away doing a Bobby Fischer >> impersonation. >> >>I think this situation is not good for the public perception of chess. >>Even though it doesn't particularly dent my enthusiasm for the game, it >>does smell pretty bad. On the other hand, we are experiencing a boom in >>personal computers so computer chess is more ubiquitous. (Pardon my >>US-centric perspective.) And finally our current pair of human >>champions are starting to be overtaken by a younger set of players, >>Lausanne notwithstanding. So eventually perhaps top level chess will >>recover from the current squalor it seems to be in. But finally, having >>made my rather uninformed and rambling observations, I will get to my >>question: >> >> How do we get IBM to plug Deep Blue back in? >> >>Having said this much, I suppose the least I can do is write them a >>letter. Thanks for your time. > > >I haven't talked with Hsu in a month or two, but here is a paraphrased >quote from him: "The news of DB's retirement has been grossly >exaggerated." > >Here's what I know about this: > >1. DB is "dismantled" after every match. The IBM SP-2 machine is quite >expensive and is used for many things. They also get "sold" from time >to >time. The DB "part" is simply a bunch of circuit boards that plug into >slots in the SP processors. So this news of it being taken apart is not >anything new at all. > >2. DB Junior is still going to be active and play chess, and they are >supposedly going to continue development, although at a reduced level. >Hsu's >comment was "there is a world out there" and I assume he and the others >are tired of spending 100% of their time developing a Kasparov-killer >box. > >3. DB itself still exists, but the boards are in boxes. They can put >it >together and be ready to play in an hour or so, although I suspect >restoring >all the endgame databases from tape might take several hours... > >In short, it's not dead, nor has it been "retired". That was retracted >within days of it being announced... I agree with Rob's observations. I am also relieved to hear Deep Blue is not retired. I would like to see them at the 1998 world computer chess championship. This will simultaneously be a great opportunity for them to earn the title world computer chess champion and also give others the same opportunity. Without them there, no one REALLY wins the title except on paper. I also wish the title was more like the human title. The current title-holder, in my opinion should play a match with the challenger who could be selected by a tournament like this one. In this case Deep Blue, the likely winner of such a tournament would play Fritz in a match. There are those who say such a match would be a big farce. But this is completely missing the point. The possibility of a mis-match is always there in any kind of competitive game or sport, but it is the process that is important. This would certainly add tremendously to the prestige and interest generated by computer chess. Even though I think this would be better method of choosing the computer world champion, I am not being critical of the current method. There are many logistical problems involved and such a process is much more complicated than the current method. But if a more involved path to the world championship of computers could be managed this could be very good for computer chess and the prestige of the title. The next championship will involve more rounds and this is definitely a step forward. But I understand they are having a hard time getting sponsorship. It seems no one is interested in this any more. - Don
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.