Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 20:13:20 03/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2001 at 21:56:55, Dann Corbit wrote: >On March 15, 2001 at 21:26:27, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On March 15, 2001 at 19:59:08, Sonja Tiede wrote: >> >>>On March 15, 2001 at 06:31:52, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> >>>>On March 15, 2001 at 04:47:29, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 14, 2001 at 19:46:11, Sonja Tiede wrote: >>>>> >>>>>2800 +/- 600 >>>>That absolutly makes _No_ sense whatsoever. It was Never as low >>>>2200 and never as High as 3400. >>>> >>>>Deep Blue was close to 2700 +/- _50_ FIDE and that was about it. No great swings >>>>in it's play like you suggest. Deep Blues' play was fairly balanced >>>>and was about 2700 FIDE. It did of course have amazing tactical albility >>>>based on search wich would _appear_ to make it look 3000+ in some situations >>>>and much less in very strategic positions, which closely combined strategy >>>>and tactics. Game One was a good example, and Kasparov _crushed_ it. >>>>While Game Six was _worthless_ as GK mixed up his move order on move 7 while >>>>in book. He for some reason thought he had played 7...Bd6, and on move 8 Black >>>>plays h6. >>>> >>>>T.M. >>> >>> >>>I agree with your opinion. (2700+- 50) >>> >>>DB has played 12 games against Kasparov (2 matches) and its total score >>>was less than kasp. (the improvements from J.Benj. were small, because you >>>cannot impove the strength of a program easily by putting >>>a GM in front of the machine, telling him to make changes on some parameters) >>> >>>Sonja >> >>Thanks Sonja, and I concur with your view as well. IBM took their _fortunate_ >>win of the second match and ran! > >I see the opposite. Kasparov whined like a petulant child. In hindsight, I am >sure we can find mistakes by anyone, including both Kasparov and Deep Blue. But >under the tournament conditions, he was clearly beaten both OTB and mentally as >well. > >>Truly it was a " Sad Day " for chess, chessplayers, and chesscomputers! > >It was a banner day for AI. It was the most famous day in the history of >mankind for chess -- far more famous than (for instance) Kasparov verses the >world. I agree there:) It was the finest day in history for chess computers. >AI? I don't think DB had anything to do with _True_ AI, at present it does'nt exists. IMO. >>IBM made excuses for packing up the 8 year project, saying they were done >>and moving on to other horizons. > >That's because they were done, and moving on to other horizons. Was anyone >really so foolish as to believe they spent millions of dollars for something >other than a return on their investment? No I'm not saying that! But yes it would cost but in may still have paved the way to bigger and better things. They could have set it up for GM's or anyone to some degree to play for a price. Although that may have to many problems? > >They have nothing whatsoever to gain from another match and everything to lose. Possible, but that's part and parcel for true research, science. >Of course we won't see another like it -- nor would any reasonable person expect to see one. Maybe not from IBM but I hope we do see it someday by some big firm, like Intel etc. > >>This should have been an ongoing scientific project but they just pulled the >>plug. > >You are welcome to fund a similar project. If you offered Hsu a few million, he might be interested. I wish I could! > >>It's 4 years later and still no one has picked up where IBM left off, and I >>don't expect anything close to the Deep Blue Project anytime soon. > >Cost/benefit analysis shows it would be silly to do so. Nevertheless, in 3 >years, a 64 CPU Alpha machine using next generation chips will be able to do in >software what Deep Blue did in hardware. In ten years, maybe your desktop >computer will. In any case, we are talking about multi-million dollar machines >here, where CPU time is very expensive and it takes a large team to operate it. >I agree, but it may have moved technology and science further. >>Poor science, but good marketing from IBM. Yes in 10 yrs. time we will be using machines as fast and faster and chess will continue to evolove. > >Poor science? They beat the best player in the world in 1997. Nothing else on >the planet at the time had a prayer of doing so. Then you're saying DB was a SGM, a fact? >Yes poor science, as 6 games are not alot to go on and for the record GK is still up on DB. Well it plays great, what more do we need? Not enough IMO. >>Still that is dabatable as well, >>there was money still to be had with the DB but IBM just did'nt have the right >>plan after their serendipitous success. > >They had the most sensible imagineable plan. It is exactly what everyone should have expected. If they expected otherwise, all I can say is: >"What in the world could they possibly have been thinking?" Well if Kasparov held it together won, which IMO should have happened, IBM would have continued and would have even reaped greater rewards in the long term analysis. Too much too soon! Or is it a fact that DB is a GM or even a WCC from such a short match before it was scrapped? We both agree it is'nt! > >They got tremendous publicity/PR/exposure/etc. They are still selling that >image now four years later -- and quite successfully. True, and I own an IBM but not for those reasons:) > >>Terry McCracken > >IMO Deep Blue is one of the modern wonders of the world. It is yes. >IBM did nothing wrong. Maybe not, but it would not surprise me if they did!;) > >To imagine that they have some sort of duty to entertain us is a fairy-land >vision completely disconnected from any sort of reality. No not a duty of course not! Unless they wanted the science more than money! But today who does? Dan I agree in part but not in whole. I see it more in an opposite light. I don't believe this is a proper conclusion to a very very advanced scientific project. It reminds me of the Apollo Project cut off as it was just getting interesting. It still will take many more years before we go back, let alone to Mars. Yes I agree to a point with many of your points!;) But much more needs to be done to bring chess to a true GM and WCC level. This was not accomplished and I'm not in a dream world I assure you. Facts about Deep Blue and strength and how far it could be taken have been left to debate, which means far more work needs to be done to make this "Science" rather than fancy "Technology" with a large array of tricks to succeed in beating Kasparov. Yes Kasparov behaved poorly and that truly was a shame, a " Dark Day " for Kasparov and the rest of the chess world. He's the main culprit! Sigh.... He's suppose to be an example after all! But he's human and caved in to suspicions, conjecture etc. He lost due to psychological factors not that Deep Blue could out play him in _normal_ match settings. Regards, Terry McCracken
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.