Author: blass uri
Date: 23:50:08 05/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2000 at 01:01:36, Pete Galati wrote: >On May 08, 2000 at 00:29:15, blass uri wrote: > >>On May 07, 2000 at 21:47:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On May 07, 2000 at 17:14:25, Hans Gerber wrote: >>> >>>>On May 07, 2000 at 16:16:07, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>There are 2 kinds of science, the one about money and the orginal one >>>>>which is about complete openness. Guess about which one I was talking :) >>>>> >>>>>Ed >>>> >>>>I think you both are talking about different things. Let's take a look. It was a >>>>test for the strength of the machine. It was not about the question if the >>>>machine _and_ its helpers could outplay Kasparov psychologically. >>> >>> >>>No it wasn't. The question, clearly asked, was: >>> >>> "Can a computer beat the world champion in a match at tournament time >>> controls?" >>> >>>Nothing more, nothing less. Not "Can the machine work its way thru the >>>candidates matches first?" Not "can the machine beat the world champion >>>after playing a few hundred public games?" >>> >>>It was _all_ about beating the world champion. No-holds-barred. That is all >>>that was _ever_ asked. If you want to ask a different question, feel free. >>>Perhaps someone will try to answer it. But for Deep Blue, the question that >>>was being asked was as given above. Not with all the qualifiers that Kasparov >>>wanted to add after the fact. (I want program output. I want more games. etc.) >>> >>>> >>>>Scientists constructed the machine. As I said they forgot the question of the >>>>control of the output of the machine. >>> >>>What you ask for is _impossible_ to provide. That is the very nature of >>>computer software. It is very easy to change. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Scientists have a certain reputation no matter if they act in science, in a test >>>>or in a match. >>>> >>>>By upsetting Kasparov they violated their own standards. It was not just the >>>>denial to provide Kasparov with the prints of the output, it was the way this >>>>has been done. Very unusual behavior for decent scientists. >>> >>>Hmmm.. did you _see_ the press conference after game 6? Would that make _you_ >>>want to cooperate with your opponent? After he called you a cheater? After >>>he implied DB had 'help'? >>> >>>They didn't violate any standard. They were trying to answer one specific >>>question, which they did. Not trying to answer other questions that people >>>want to get the answers to. Just the one question at the top of this post. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>It was said that the IBM officials and not Hsu et al. were responsible for that >>>>indecent behavior. >>> >>> >>>Who was responsible for Kasparov's indecent behavior? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Anyway, the scientists and chess experts around Hsu should then have protested >>>>against such a method. Because the results of the match would no longer be >>>>valid. They should have explained that IBM had invested so much money for >>>>nothing if they treated Kasparov in such an unfriendly way. >>>> >>> >>>After the way he acted, IBM responded _exactly_ in the same way I would have >>>responded. I would not have said "no". I would have said "hell, no" to his >>>request to see the output. >>> >>>I don't think IBM was unfriendly at all. They refused a ridiculous request, >>>made in an insulting way. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>I don't understand why these scientists gave their consent to the destruction of >>>>their own experiment and probably their own reputation. >>> >>> >>> >>>Their reputation is doing just fine. DB wasn't destroyed. The chess processors >>>are sitting on a shelf. Newer SP machines are rolling off the assembly line. >>>But if I were them, I wouldn't play Kasparov again. He acted like a jackass. >>>Let 'im stew in his own juice after the antics at the various press conferences, >>>and the public statements he has made since the event. He doesn't deserve a >>>'rubber match' with them. >>> >>>I don't even think he really wants one. He refused an offer from Hsu already. >> >>The problem is that Hsu only wants to play with Kasparov. >> >>I believe that he can sell many deep blue chips if it can beat one of the >2700 >>players that is not Kasparov in a 6 games tournament time control match. >> >>Uri > >I would like to see Deep Blue go up against some of the other high rated GMs, >but not just one, I'd like to see more than one match that is. On the other >hand, I don't believe it carries as much weight and selling power to face the >other >2700 players as it does to play Kasparov. I think that's unfortunate. > >Pete I think that if Deeper blue can get performance of more than 2800 in a match against one of the best 10 players in the world then the name of the GM is not very important for selling the progam. I think that most of the buyers of chess programs like Fritz and Junior will buy Deep blue for 200$ if it can beat players like anand 4:2 at tournament time control games or if it can beat programs like Fritz and Deep Junior 90:10 in a tournament time control match. I may be wrong because I do not know what other people think. Uri
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.