Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:19:39 10/14/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 1999 at 22:11:04, Micheal Cummings wrote: > >I want nothing to do with Hsu in anyway, shape or form. I just find it >unaccpetable that after beating kasparov they decide to retire on top. They >played a Kasparov who played some of the worst chess I have seem in a few games. >They do not deserve to go out on top. Because it gives the impression that they >are the best in the world at chess. And that is FALSE. > before you go any further, some food for thought. Are you a student or do you work for a big company? If you work for a company, do you _really_ think you could force your company to do something that the marketing guys say is a bad idea? Any experience in that kind of big-company decision- making? I thought not. If you knew Hsu, Campbell, etc, you would _know_ they want to participate with DB. _IF_ you knew them. For your last sentence, let me give you a small challenge. They participated in almost every computer chess event from 1987 to present. They won all but one, losing that game to fritz in 1995. Who else has come _close_ to that? answer: nobody. Second, who else has challenged Kasparov 2 matches and won one of them? Answer: nobody. Who competed with everyone for the Fredkin 2 prize, which required a performance rating of > 2500 for 25 consecutive games? Who won that prize? Hsu and company. So how about some concrete data to support your ridiculous statement that "they aren't the best"??? How about _any_ data to support it? Data, not uninformed opinion... >And that is what I a pissed off with. Someone who spends forever trying to beat >someone and when they finally do it for whatever reason they run away yelling, I >am No1, what CRAP !!!! they didn't "run away". They had the decision to not do a rematch made by folks _way_ over their head. Of course, Kasparov didn't deserve a rematch with them after his rather stupid remarks and actions since the match. > >I have no time for people like that, I am not saying DB is a piece of crap or DB >Jr from what I hear is also strong. But I do not like the actions nor the people >behind DB. there are two sets of people. You just don't want to understand that. There is the project team. There is IBM marketing. Marketing has _all_ the authority inside IBM. That is how they make their money. > >And if this machine is still around, and as I think you said in some other post, >that vanishing was alway for advertising. If they really cared about chess then >if this machine is still around I would be using, then if it is so strong then >they could develope it more and try to get funding. who would pay for it? Would _you_ cough up a couple of million bucks to keep the project alive? The federal government won't/can't. Private business won't touch it because there is nothing in it for them, after IBM got all the press for being the first to ever beat the world champion in a match. It is easy to wave your hands and say "they ought to do this or they ought to do that..." It is something completely different to actually go out and _do_ something. They haven't been 'talkers' for 15 years.. they have been 'doers'. > >As for Hsu posting on here, if he did, you would not see me post any replies to >him. He could post all he wants, I am giving my opinion to this and I would only >post a reply if that is what he was asking for. > >I am not going to go searching the net for imformation on DB or this guy, and as >for those plublications or internet sites names you gave saying this is where >the information was shown, well I have no idea what you are talking about. I >live in Australia and chess publications are very little. All my info comes >from the net mainly in chess. To me that name you gave me means very little I >have never seen nor heard of it. IEEE Micro is not a "chess publication". It is a well-known and widely circulated journal of the IEEE. And saying you have never heard of it _really_ lends credibility to your statements. If you don't have access to the literature of computing, what are you basing your opinions on? Cosmopolitan? The National Inquirer? The Sunday paper? Not good enough... > >And I will still not change my view from that unless I see it I do not believe >it, and I will give my opinion on what I think untill I am proved wrong. I read >so many rubbish articles in papers and magazines and on the net and newspapers >and TV. When in most countries you hear that 75% of what you read in newpapers >and especially tabliod magazines have been altered, fabricated, or just plain >got wrong, you can forgive me from being sceptical. > >It not the first time someone high profile or a high profile toipic has been >changed or added to to progress the interest. I am still waiting for many things >to come true after reading and seeing stated in science magazines that they >could do this and that. Even now 10 years later. Marvelous... to see the proof, you have to first open your eyes. I don't see any evidence of that, yet. The proof is there for those that want to see it. If you like the ostrich way of life, maybe that works for you...
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.