Author: GuyHaworth
Date: 07:20:19 10/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
Whether or not 'Fritz played Deep Blue' is an issue of 'language and reality'. ***** Language The official name in the WCCC, Hong Kong, 1995 was 'Deep Blue Prototype'. This was shortened, no doubt for typesetting reasons and because it didn't seem to matter, to 'Deep Blue' in the final standings (and in the listings of games). So far, Ingo is correct. 'Behind Deep Blue', p148, gives some background to this 'naming of parts'. Hsu claims that he wanted to reserved the name 'Deep Blue' for the real thing, and not confuse what he considered to be, in effect, Deep Thought II with a future Deep Blue. This is background but does not affect the facts. My feeling is that it is not reasonable, on the basis of 'names' alone, to claim that Fritz played Deep Blue. However, I suspect that IBM, with a better crystal ball, would have protected their brand more carefully and stayed well away from both 'Deep' and 'Blue'. ***** Reality It is clear that considerable work - hardware, software, data ... search, evaluation, openings - went into Deep Blue I that did not go into the Hong Kong machine. Similarly, there was major work to build Deep Blue II after the results with Deep Blue I. Equally, one should recognise that Fritz has moved on in 7 years to more and bigger processors and in terms of its approach to the game. For all of the reasons above, it is not correct to say that "Fritz played Deep Blue which beat Kasparov." The name issue opens the door, but is the least thing to worry about. However, this will not prevent mistakes being made in translation, or Reuters reporting what they are told - and that being replicated in the media. guy
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.