Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 01:49:05 03/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 30, 2001 at 09:51:47, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: [snip] >But let's approach it from how IBM will approach it. It will be >a business decision, and those decisions are usually taken by managers >who probably never heart of the 'en passant' rule (i'm not implying >that most readers of CCC therefore know the rule). > >Managers think in terms of numbers. The number is quite convincing >to NEVER ever again let Deep Blue live when it is interesting to let it >play. It's obvious that in 2001 programs are hell better now as in 1997. > >Like any commercial program of today will beat the hell out of this deep >blue thing. If it's not book, then it's because of pawn structure, if it's >not because of that, then it'll be exchanging some crucial pieces in the >middlegame etcetera. > >However this is all of no concern of business men. They see a 37 billion >dollar risk. It's not a 37 billion dollar risk; that's complete lunacy. What they got out of DB was the impression in a lot of people's minds that IBM had created a machine that was stronger than the best human on earth. This impression has some value. It's a nebulous sort of value. It's the idea that people might be more likely to have a warm fuzzy feeling about IBM and buy their stuff over someone else's. The value is not equal to 20% of the value of the company (the market cap is $169B). That's just insane. If they lose another match, to either a computer or a human, they will lose the prestige value. If they win, they will retain it. It's stupid from a financial viewpoint to risk a lot without having anything to gain. So I agree with your conclusions about why it won't play, I just think your math is crazy. bruce
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.