Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 00:04:51 03/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2001 at 00:26:27, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On March 16, 2001 at 23:03:57, Terry McCracken wrote:
>
>>On March 16, 2001 at 14:07:43, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>
On March 15, 2001 at 23:13:20, Terry McCracken wrote:
[snip]
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.
FWIW, I think the Hubble project is a trillion times more interesting than a bag
of rocks from the moon. And the next generation space telescope even more so.
On the other hand, I do think space exploration is interesting. Is it
interesting enough to send someone to Mars for another bag of rocks at a cost of
100 billion dollars? I also think that a mission to Mars is something that
could possibly exterminate the human race, so I'm not entirely convinced it is a
great idea to go there and carry stuff back. If there are Martian microbes, we
certainly would not have any immunity against them.
The Hubble would'nt exist if there had been no Space Race, No Man on the Moon,
and his bag of about 660lbs. of moon rocks in total if I'm not mistaken.
Telescopes are great and are important but don't replace space exploration,
not even the Hubble or the ISS. Although the ISS may help put us back on the
moon and finally Mars. The Hubble is great don't get me wrong, it teaches us
much and compliments space exploration, but it does not fill that void which
only persuing true hands on space travel can do.
JPL has done much with robotics and probes but it cannot and will not replace
man in space. It can do much and we can learn from these manless excursions
through the solar system, but in the final analysis it really opens doors and
paves the way to Manned Space Flight.
Yes, going to Mars is worth 100 billion dollars, even a 1 trillion if that's
what it takes!
One trillion dollars is the entire GNP of the US for a year. There is no
scientific experiment, no matter how worthy, that is worth that sort of dough.
Yes it's alot of cash, but going to Mars will have to be an international
undertaking to make it feasible.
As far as microbes from mars wiping us out of existance, that is very very
unlikely. First there is little chance that any life exists on mars today,
maybe 2 billion years ago life lived in shallow seas on mars but that is long
gone. If there is any life at all left on mars it would likely be underground
and if we brought samples back and it had life do you think that we would go
unprepared for such an event? That would be a great bonus to find and return
any extraterestial life, and microbes from the red planet would gives us data
for many decades to come on our solar system, and our own home world to examine.
I agree that the danger is remote. What data will Mars microbes give us? We
have at least 50 million species of living things on earth, and only 5 million
have been cataloged. It would be a lot more interesting to count up and label
some of those. Quite frankly, I think sending probes to Mars and taking
pictures is great. I think bringing back a sack of rocks is not worth the
expense (either via manned probe or by the planned remote missions). I also
have qualms about sending up probes with 70 pounds of Plutonium in them. It's
bad planetary hygene. While living in Florida, I saw three launches explode. A
reentering probe with 70 pounds of plutonium would be -- uhh -- very very bad
for the planet. One microgram of plutonium is almost always fatal.
Yes we need to catalog _all_ species on earth but that should not keep us
from exploration and the study of anykind of extraterrestrial life.
BTW many of our bacteria, viruses, and fungi may be extraterrestrial in origin!
It is known many very primative lifeforms can withstand the rigors of space.
Remeber that the next time you see some mold on decaying vegetable matter:)
Oh, an incidently if life did indeed once live on Mars, it may have already
reached us and spawned in our primordial seas, via asteroids!
We could be Martians!;-)
Mars microbes may explain alot about life on this planet, the solar system,
and the possibility of life even outside our very small vacuole in space.
But NASA's record of of preventing leaks of plutonium on the planet have
been exemplary. It's well encased and not very likely to spill it's contents.
However, yes it's still a possible danger it could and might happen someday.
There would be stringent protocols to follow and it would be most unlikely these
microbes, if they exist and we return them will get into our ecosystem.
If they did I agree it could spell great trouble, but this is remote.
Russian roulette with one million chambers and only one bullet does not sound
too dangerous. But the bullet is the equivalent of a Sol supernova.
I think the odds are much less than that. I'm more concerned about the MIR
reentry, with it's " Mutated Glass Eating Bacteria on board. What if this
bacteria survives? That could be extremly dangerous, even if the odds are
still remote it will.
But few seem concerned, odd don't you think?
I'm more concerned on what man is doing to the ecosystem from pollution, to
high-tech genetic engineering, which is a far greater threat to our survival.
Got me there. But I would rather not add to the problems.
I agree but we have to deal with some risk, yes? In this case the risk is very
improbable to do us harm. Exotic viruses from remote parts of the planet may
pose a far greater risk to our survival!
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.
I have no arguments with this point. But creating 10 million dollar machines is
not the answer. We are talking about a game, after all. We're not solving one
of the deeper problems of mankind by coming up with an engine that can beat
Kasparov and Anand.
According to IBM that is _exactly_ what they are trying to prove!
Machines that can solve problems too complex for most of us, and to a degree
all of us in the future.
From new tailored made drugs the total understanding of DNA in man, to resolving
complex theorms to building spaceships, and the list goes on.
Marketing hype is not to be believed. Well, too a point it was completely true.
But the experiment HAD to end once the money was made.
Maybe...but IBM tried to enter an FIDE tournament, but IBM was turned down by
the FIDE. Again a shame. I also blame the FIDE! Actually have many quarrels
with the FIDE!:)
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.
That might even be the best part of it. Here it is, 4 years after the fact and
it still comes up in conversation on a daily basis. If we had a certain answer
to all the questions would is still be like that? I doubt it. On the other
hand, I want to know the answers, even if knowing them is not going to promote
interest in more research.
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.
I am harsh towards Kasparov, but (on the other hand) I suspect that many, many
great chess players might have reacted similarly. I don't think that anyone on
the planet can imagine the tremendous pressure he was under. It was a sort of
"John Henry" thing with literally billions of eyes watching.
He lost due to psychological factors not that Deep Blue could out play him in
_normal_ match settings.
I don't think anyone knows for sure why he lost. Maybe purely outplayed. Maybe
purely freaked out. Maybe some wild combination of factors. At any rate, both
Kasparov matches are without question the most famous chess matches ever to have
occurred on the planet. They were the most interesting chess matches ever.
Yes for man vs machine, but not let us forget Fischer vs Spassky 1972!:)
Actually most only remeber the re-match and Deep Blue won. History only
remebers the winners for the most part.
Fischer/Spassky was probably only interesting to the US and to Russia. Sort of
like Miles/Anand would galvanize India and England. Sure, others will watch,
but not with the riveted attention of a cliff-hanger.
Maybe this is true, but Fischer did more for chess when active in his prime
than anyone else in the 20th century.
It caused Russia to open a new Chess School! Also more people learned to play
chess after that event then at any other time. Not so with GK vs DB.
GK vs DB actually tarnished the image of chess amongst the general populous.
So no, I would not say this was the greatest chess event of _All Time_, just
the most watched, and with some negative impacts, unfortunately.
Also, Deep Blue did'nt contribute much to chess theory.
However, Ken Thompson's computer work has.
It *would* be wonderful to have Deep Blue to play with and do whatever
experiments we would like. But, from a business standpoint, it really does not
make sense for IBM to do that. Remember why they did it in the first place.
IBM is a business, and they are in the business of making money. They have
stockholders who want to see a return on their investment. Here at CCC, we
might not mind if we held $100,000 of IBM stock and they spent millions of
dollars fiddling with chess games. But 99.99% of the world's population would
not think that way if they held IBM stock. If IBM spends a big plug of money on
something, the stockholders (justifiably) want to see some kind of a return. In
other words, the board of IBM owes it to those who pay the bills to react in
exactly the way that they did.
Well it would have been different if Kasparov won would it not? Do you think
they would have pulled the plug? Of course not!
I am in 100% agreement here. They would keep trying until they won.
But they did win and yes they did stand a great chance of losing money with
a third re-match.
Very unfortunate. Still this article says maybe not?
September 2, 1997 IBM announces improved chess-playing supercomputer.
After its Deep Blue chess-playing computer defeated human world chess champion
Gary Kasparov in a closely watched match in May, the pioneering computer company
decided to make the machine even faster and stronger. On September 2, IBM
announced that its RS/6000 SP model, a parallel supercomputer, was now 58
percent faster thanks to a new microprocessor and some software refinements.
Kasparov was not available for comment.
I wish I knew more than that but I don't.
Here's the source.
http://www.computerhistory.org/tdih/september/02/index.page
We'll never see another rematch. I wish someone would prove me wrong, but I
think the martian germs are more likely. ;-)
Maybe...but I doubt it, the germs I mean;o)
I agree we will not in all likelyhood see GK vs DB or Deepest Blue, I think
that's a given, and it's a shame. And as I said previously history only remebers
the winners. With few exceptions.
However, a WCC will play someone's supercomputer someday!:)
Regards,
Terry McCracken
P.S. I'm beat so I'm not really up to the task of responding, but I did!
I'm compulsive sometimes!;o)
Oh, and I still say DB was about 2700 and I feel that is a safe estimate.
Is'nt the elo of Deep Blue the _real_ issue of this thread?;o)
If Deep Blue were less than 2700 then how weak is our chess software on
our meager PC's?:^)
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.