Author: Albert Silver
Date: 12:27:51 05/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2000 at 14:13:31, blass uri wrote:
>On May 27, 2000 at 13:31:47, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>
>>On May 26, 2000 at 22:02:57, William Bryant wrote:
>>
>>>On May 26, 2000 at 13:10:33, Albert Silver wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/061931.htm
>>>>
>>>> Albert Silver
>>>
>>>In reading the hype of this article, it is quite clear just how much IBM won
>>>when Deep Blue beat Kasparov.
>>>
>>>William
>>>wbryant@ix.netcom.com
>>
>>No kidding. For the next ten years the speed of every computer they release
>>will be express in integer multiples of Deep Blue.
>>
>>And the wire services will continue to pick up their produce announcements,
>>because they perceive that the public is interested in Deep Blue. They would
>>not be interested in the dry technical details that would comprise these
>>announcements if Deep Blue hadn't existed.
>>
>>bruce
>
>The question is not what the public is interested in but what very rich people
>are interested.
>
Not quite. The people who hold the money are rarely those who will be using the
machine, so that when convincing them to loosen the strings to their purse (now
there's an antiquated metaphor!), analogies they can appreciate, such as factors
of DB (this computer is 550 times the speed of Deep Blue), are important and do
weigh in. Professors and researchers are very rarely the ones who sign the
checks after all.
Albert Silver
>I believe that the buyers of their super computer will not buy it because of the
>deep blue information but because they find that the super computer can help
>them in other subjects and the knowledge that deeper blue won kasparov in chess
>gives no information if the machine can help them for their needs.
>
>The number of calculation per second is clearly more relevant.
>
>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.