Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 00:22:28 01/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2000 at 22:17:53, Albert Silver wrote:
>On January 27, 2000 at 21:32:07, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On January 27, 2000 at 21:18:05, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>[snip]
>>{regarding DB support}:
>>>This is an unforgivable sin here or anywhere else. I think it quite funny
>>>that (a) folks wonder why Hsu doesn't post here; and then (b) attack anything
>>>they do as inferior.
>>>
>>>I have said this before... They are far better than anybody (other than maybe
>>>myself and a couple of others) give them credit for. Just continue to watch
>>>the analysis of the DB logs. We suddenly discover that (a) they are searching
>>>a lot deeper than some kept thinking; (b) their branching factor is actually
>>>not much worse than the rest of us; (c) etc.
>>>
>>>Best to wait and watch. Lots more will come out over time... But the
>>>naysayers will _never_ be silenced...
>>
>>I find it very puzzling the huge amount of absolute hostility towards Deep Blue
>>[and HERE of all places]!
>>
>>The last match was 1997. That's about 3 years ago, and we still talk about it
>>almost daily. Nothing comes even remotely close to being as interesting as the
>>Deep Blue match. Nothing has ever generated the publicity for computer chess
>>like the Deep Blue match.
>>
>>And yet people are clearly *angry* at the Deep Blue team. Is there some sort of
>>history that would explain it? I keep feeling that I have walked late into a
>>movie and everyone is panning the hero, who seems like such a nice guy.
>>
>>Most amazing of all are the sort of persons who are irate. Almost always
>>incredibly intelligent computer science types.
>>
>>*boggle*
>
>It's human nature. Remember that the last DB news wasn't three years ago but 3
>weeks ago. Until this news, there had been at least two hopes, however remote:
>
>- DB would somehow and somewhen be taken off the shelf and play another titanic
>match against Kasparov (or anyone)
>
>- DB would be made available to all as a PC card.
>
>DB was by far the strongest chess playing machine ever built. Nothing came
>remotely close (except for its own predecessors). And now we are told clearly
>that neither will ever happen and Hsu has gone off to greener pastures. Nothing
>wrong with this, EXCEPT that Hyatt has made it clear that it is his belief that
>NO ONE will reach that level for another decade because all of its secrets are
>locked away. Everyone, including the programmers, feels deeply cheated. NO DB
>and much worse: no way to build on DB so to get there you have to start from
>scratch. This is simply terrible. It wasn't destroyed, the designers didn't die,
>and the blueprints still exist; they are just locked away, and since Hsu has the
>key, he is the butt of the anger. So the reaction is understandable: rather than
>accept this, many would prefer to tear it down so the pain is lessened. If you
>can believe it will only take 5 years to get there, it seems less tragic. That's
>what I believe this is all about.
Maybe the fact that they don't play is part of the game?
Ed
> Albert Silver
This page took 0.01 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.