Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:31:10 01/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 2000 at 14:49:08, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 15, 2000 at 02:45:29, James Robertson wrote: >>On January 14, 2000 at 22:32:43, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On January 14, 2000 at 22:06:31, James Robertson wrote: >>>>On January 14, 2000 at 22:01:34, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>On January 14, 2000 at 21:42:48, James B. Shearer wrote: >>>>>[snip] >>>>>> I agree with Robertson. I don't see much evidence that Hsu has any >>>>>>extremely rare skills. >>>>> >>>>>Only person on earth ever to design a deep-blue chess machine capable of 200M >>>>>NPS (about 1000 times faster than the next best thing at the time). >>>> >>>>Only person on earth to be hired and provided with enough money to do it. >>> >>>Why wasn't someone else hired and provided with enough money to do it? Why >>>hasn't someone else been given the job since then? It's been 3 years. >>> >>>I really don't believe that Hsu's skills are so miniscule that just anyone could >> >>__Please__ stop quoting and implying that I said "anyone" could have done it. I >>_know_ it takes a very special person to do this. I just hold that there are >>_many_ special people who could have produced Deep Blue. >Who? > >>>have done it or they would have. Why hasn't Hitachi in Japan come up with a >>>better machine? If it were easy, they surely would have (or someone else with >>a >>>desire for enormous publicity). I think the bar is set so high that everyone >>>else is afraid even to try. >>> >>>IOW, if it isn't so tough to do it, and there is enourmous publicity and benefit >>>for anyone who can accomplish it, why don't people do it? Perhaps they are >>>simply unable. >> >>Why didn't IBM have a second rematch? They already had a team, a computer, >>everything, and they didn't. The reason is that once Kasparov lost, a >>substantial amount of the financial reward for winning a second time is _gone_. >>There is nothing new to prove. There is only the risk of looking stupider than >>IBM; "Yes, we are a 21st century company that can't produce a computer as strong >>as a 20th century IBM!!!". IBM _did_ do a second match. They beat Kasparov in it. They didn't do a third match. (and they lost the first match of course.) >I think the incentive is gone from IBM for obvious reasons (including the one >that you state). However, the incentive would be just as strong or stronger for >other organizations. It seems that this might be a constructive way for >competition to enhance technology. I don't think it will happen. It will require a huge investment without Hsu's assistance, since it would require starting over from scratch. It would require Kasparov signing on early to try to capture some of that fantastic publicity that IBM grabbed with the first two matches. This last seems not likely, since he doesn't seem to want to play computers, period. Which means the whole thing is _very_ unlikely, IMHO.
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.