Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:49:31 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 17:42:15, Scott Gasch wrote: >To me the point is moot. It's like arguing about precisely how fast a dinosaur >could run. Since they are extinct, who really cares? You're not going to meet >one on the street tomorrow. > >Deep(er) Blue was a good chess program / machine. As for exactly how fast it >ran, how good it was, how deep it searched... why do you care? It's dead, >extinct. > >I wonder if we're going to be seeing questions about deep blue for the next 30 >years. I suspect yes. If so, IBM did the world of computer chess a true >disservice with their PR-motivated deep blue matches. I think we will hear questions about it for the next century. That only demonstrates what a service IBM did to computer chess. I will bet that at least half of the computer chess programmers got interested in the idea during the first or second IBM match. The fact that something is so keenly interesting that we are talking about it 5 years later shows it has great value, rather than the converse. What other chess match stirs up such spirited debate? Clearly none of them. The disservice done was the decommissioning of the machine. Now that was a tragedy. The match itself was the single most fascinating thing that has ever happened in the game since its inception many centuries ago.
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.