Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 22:07:23 01/31/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2000 at 17:40:47, leonid wrote:
>On January 30, 2000 at 13:56:37, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On January 29, 2000 at 19:53:53, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>
>>>On January 28, 2000 at 17:32:22, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Amir
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I personally sensed a feeling of frustration in the DB guys when I talked with
>>>>them. Particularly in the last match, the _real_ DB team was pretty well put
>>>>in the background. The lawyers/marketing folks called the shots, made the
>>>>decisions, told Hsu/etc what to do, when to jump, how high to jump, etc.
>>>>Because it was a _BIG_ marketing deal to the folks at the top, and they wanted
>>>>to extract every bit they could from it.
>>>>
>>>>I can only imagine how frustrating that must have been. Since Hsu no longer
>>>>works at IBM, I can guess...
>>>
>>>Right we can't blame it on the programmers.
>>>I blame Kasparov incredible though. See how well he played and how well
>>>he kept positions a draw even with a pawn less in wijk aan zee 2000. Some
>>>games he CRUSHED the opponents pathetically from opening. Home prepared.
>>>
>>>With his openings preparing he wiped out the best of the world again
>>>previous week. All the pressure was on kasparov and he performed great again.
>>>Kasparov handles pressure great, always did that. See his most important
>>>matches against Karpov. Kasparov is born for pressure.
>>>
>>>Kasparov performs great in 2000.
>>>He played great before 97 too.
>>>
>>>Yet when playing the computer Kasparov plays a kind of : "i don't care chess,
>>>when it's too late i start playing some decent moves, still missing things".
>>>
>>>Like against deep blue he played without openingspreparement. Playing the
>>>caro-kann in game 6, though i can't remember he ever played that with black
>>>before.
>>>
>>>He doesn't fear the entire world top, but fears the openingspreparement
>>>of deep blue, done by a retired grandmaster, who kasparov sometimes
>>>at 20 boards at the same time beats in a simultaneous exhibition?
>>>
>>>Let's get real, the only one to blame is Kasparov, the
>>>behaviour of Hsu was logical, from IBM even more logical, but Kasparov
>>>didn't behave normal. It's hard to express in words that don't get
>>>censored directly here... ...if kasparov just had drawn that 6th game,
>>>or won that 6th game, then the whole deep blue affair would be completely
>>>different. We would hear about the new micron technology that the new
>>>chips were gonna use. We would hear about how many nodes a second the
>>>new cpus would gonna get (as in 1997 the only important thing was nodes a
>>>second for IBM, and Hsu sure did a great job in that respect). We would
>>>not have heart about deep blue anyway. No one would make it worth mentioning.
>>>People forget scores. People only remember who has won.
>>>
>>>Kasparov sucked in the only thing he is good at... ...winning chessgames.
>>>
>>>Vincent
>>
>>
>>I can think about this from another angle.
>>
>>Actually, Kasparov has completely KILLED Deep Blue by losing only a 6 games
>>match.
>>
>>If Kasparov had won, Deep Blue would still be alive, the team still working to
>>improve it.
>>
>>Kasparov KILLED the thing, definitely.
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>Also all this people that work now in the field of chess programming are the
>real killers of future chess game. Once all the programs will beat the human (we
>are almost there), human will drop the game for ever. Why play the game that
>humilate you all the time and indice you dealy feeling of unavoidable
>inferiority?
>
>Leonid.
That's what makes CAC (Computer Aided Chess) the future of the game.
Exactly in the same way that it is interesting to see MAR (Mechanically Aided
Racers = Cars) races.
In chess we will talk about the pilot and the engine. Familiar concepts.
Christophe
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.