Author: Amir Ban
Date: 08:25:41 01/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2000 at 08:11:13, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On January 28, 2000 at 06:09:13, Chris Carson wrote:
>
>>On January 28, 2000 at 03:22:28, Ed Schröder wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>>
>>
>>Ed, that is my frustration, although I understand why
>>they limited play before the match, I am confused about not using
>>DBjr after the match with the SSDF or Computer tournament. There
>>is a financial conponent, as well as a reputation component. :)
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>Chris Carson
>
>
>There is also this pretty important person with the title "Vice president of
>marketing." _HE_ makes all the decisions about P/R activities.
It does indeed seems true that the way the Deep Blue project carried on was a
result of narrow commercial reasons.
This may be an explanation, but not a vindication. A pioneering project that was
supposed to done in the name of science, and in a sense our entire 40-year old
field of computer chess, was made hostage to the short-lived, almost trivial,
interests of IBM Corporation. If we believe this to be true, then we should be
VERY angry.
Amir
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.