Author: leonid
Date: 19:17:37 01/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2000 at 11:25:41, Amir Ban wrote:
>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.
If we could have some money there will be no need to be angry. Next best chess
computer could be created from scrach and be accessible to everybody.
Leonid.
>
>Amir
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.