Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 11:59:12 12/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 2000 at 11:14:10, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On December 07, 2000 at 07:09:52, Harry Field wrote:
>
>>On December 06, 2000 at 16:26:20, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On December 06, 2000 at 13:30:05, Harry Field wrote:
>>>
>>>>On December 06, 2000 at 10:52:06, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On December 06, 2000 at 01:20:08, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On December 06, 2000 at 00:50:33, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Isn't this the latest fad? Can you say "deep junior", "deep fritz"? Care
>>>>>>>to guess where "deep" was first used? :) Ie what could be more confusing
>>>>>>>than "deep junior" after there is already a very famous program that went
>>>>>>>by "deep blue junior"???
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I wouldn't have dared to say it myself. I happen to be in perfect agreement with
>>>>>>you on this topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm a big boy. I don't mind stating the obvious.
>>>>
>>>>Except you happen to be wrong. Big boy.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nice opinion, no proof?
>>>
>>
>>Just read on. The proof is revealed.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>:)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Seems to me that borrowing from a "famous name" is quite acceptable,
>>>>>>>wouldn't you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I did not say it is not acceptable or illegal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's just a low commercial practice. And generally used by followers, that's why
>>>>>>I have been disappointed to see Stefan doing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christophe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I wouldn't begin to claim to know the motivation behind any of the look-alike
>>>>>names. I simply don't like the idea much. IE "crafty" is "crafty" whether it
>>>>>is a parallel searcher or a serial searcher. I don't like any of the following,
>>>>>personally:
>>>>>
>>>>>1. the name is a proper subset of the name of another program. IE there is
>>>>>already a program named x y z, and the new name is either x y, x z or y z.
>>>>>
>>>>>2. the name is an improper subset of the name of another program. ie there
>>>>>is a program named x y, and the new program is named x z or y z.
>>>>>
>>>>>1 certainly leads to mass confusion. 2 leads to some confusion. Both seem to
>>>>>be 'strange'...
>>>>>
>>>>>IE on ICC we have had a "deepblue", a "deeperblue". A "diepblue". Etc.
>>>>>I don't like any of them. Since none have Hsu/Campbell/Hoane/etc behind them.
>>>>
>>>>Hsu/Cambell ripped the name "Deep Thought" off from the Douglas Adams book
>>>>"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Deep Thought was a computer which was
>>>>supposed to be able to answer the question of life, the universe and everything,
>>>>taking seven million years and producing the answer "42".
>>>>
>>>>Also around at that time, as "big boys" will remember, was the Linda Lovelace
>>>>porn movie "Deep Throat", featuring a prolonged act of oral sex for the "first"
>>>>time on mass release in video porn stores. The name "Deep Throat" was then used
>>>>for the mole in the Nixon administration which was feeding inside informations
>>>>to Woodward/Berstein team reference the Watergate scandal. Whether Deep Thought
>>>>or Deep Throat came first (sic), I don't know. Both came before Hsu and co.
>>>>
>>>>Deep Thought was then renamed Deep Blue for IBM purposes. How your theory that a
>>>>ripped off name could then be 'owned' and further users of it castigated is
>>>>beyond me. Have you an agenda or case to prove?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't have anything to prove.
>>
>>
>>!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>> The _first_ chess program to use the name
>>>"deep anything" was deep thought. IBM then changed the name to deep blue.
>>>That is what I said. That is _all_ I said.
>>
>>
>>No it is not all you said. You call "Deep" a "look-alike" name, implying that
>>the original was Hsu and co's Deep Thought (you said first used) and the later
>>version names are confusing, look-alikes, of dubious motivation, strange, odd.
>>
>>All that I said was that the Hsu and co name was not original either and ripped
>>off Douglas Adams. The rip off was in more ways than one. DeepThought was a
>>hubristic attempt that didn't work, to solve life the universe and everything,
>>it was attended by high priest programmers who were in awe of it and eventually,
>>after an unexpected seven million years of processing it provided a useless
>>answer by a thinking process nobody could understand. DeepThought rip off
>>version was produced, hubristically, in total lack of understanding of the irony
>>of the original, to solve by deep search the problem of an 8x8 zero-sum game
>>(thought of by the computer chess fanatics as life, the universe and
>>everything), it is attended by high priest programmers and acoloytes in awe of
>>it and it provided a useless answer, before being taken to pieces for ever, by a
>>thinking process nobody could understand or wanted to use again.
>
>As I said, I don't _care_ about other names using "deep" as in "deep throat"
>and the like. The subject du jour is chess program names. And there, Hsu
>and Campbell _do_ have dibs on the name deep thought. And IBM has apparently
>registered "deep blue" as a trademark so they _definitely_ have dibs on that
>name.
>
>I don't think GM would care if someone produced a knife named "Impala". But
>I don't think they would stand for a BMW model with that name. Ditto for
>chess engines.
>
>
>>
>>Both machines were cheats, both were principally hardware, both couldn't do what
>>they were supposed to do, both required 7 million years to reach a useless
>>answer, both were scrapped, etc. etc. etc.
>
>
>That is an _incredibly_ stupid statement. "Both machines were cheats, ..."
>Total stupidity. Deep Blue was an incredible failure, after all it could
>only manage to beat the best human on the planet. Real "cheat" I would
>say...
Bob, obviously the guy is trolling.
I think he got us. Me with "Gambit", and you with "Deep Blue".
Maybe he is Chris? If it is so, congratulations Chris, you've got me! :)
Christophe
This page took 0.01 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.