Author: chris larson
Date: 23:29:58 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 19:49:31, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. I agree, and I wonder how that incredible machine compares in strength to these toned down, off the shelf hardware/software combinations that the Super-GM's are currently playing.
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.