Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:32:20 04/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 02, 2001 at 10:35:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 02, 2001 at 00:28:42, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On April 01, 2001 at 18:42:27, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On April 01, 2001 at 11:00:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On March 31, 2001 at 21:13:22, Torstein Hall wrote: >>>> >>>>>I do not think IBM stand to loose anytihing. The big public has forgotten that >>>>>Deep Blue ever existed! Anyway, I feel the marketing value of DB is low nopw, so >>>>>perhaps someone with a few extra bucks to spare can buy DB now? >>>>> >>>>>Torstein >>>>> >>>>>Was it really a monster playing chess named DB? >>>> >>>> >>>>I think you are _way_ wrong. I just got back from a visit to my home >>>>town with a population of about 1,500 people. I wore a T-shirt that Compaq >>>>sent me (they took Crafty + an alpha, to the Linux expo, and let anyone play >>>>it). The shirt had "I survive the compaq computer chess challenge" on the >>>>back. Several people asked me "hey, how would your program do against IBM's >>>>monster?" >>>> >>>>People remember deep blue. Because _I_ didn't mention it at all. If you ask >>>>100 random people about the best chess player, human or machine, more people >>>>will remember the name "deep blue" than "kasparov". >>> >>>Exactly. >>> >>>So if they lose a match they might lose a market share and a lot of >>>'deep blue' quotes. The possible market share they might lose is >>>worth 37 billion at wall street and it's worth a lot of PR too. >> >>I do not believe it. >>Bruce explained that your math is wrong. >> >>Uri > > >I don't believe IBM would _lose_ a thing. They would definitely gain more if >DB won a third match. They would not _lose_ if it didn't, they just would not >gain as much useful publicity. You hit the right word here Bob, IF they win such a match then they definitely will not lose a thing. Definitely true. Now we can discuss to great length the chance that they win, but there is obviously a big risk they lose. Personally i would think that also a match against the worst ambassador for chess in the world, Kasparov (as he played around 2300 level in that match in 1997 and we all know the result for the game of chess: "chess is solved say most AI papers"), will be a clear and chanceless victory for Kasparov. And definitely no game will get a 18 move win over Kasparov again, he'll not be that stupid again. Against Kramnik a 18 move lose would be imaginable (as bad chessplayers you play on a few moves with computer then till you get -5.0 or something), but a 18 move win is impossible forever. Kramnik can win without any preparement, whereas Kasparov needs to play his own game instead of playing something where he is an absolute beginner, even compared to my poor amateur rating (2280 FIDE now though climbing to IM level slowly). >A loss would definitely hurt when compared to a win, but it would not hurt >the company's stock value as of today one iota. IBM got a world of free (and As IBM manager who cares nothing for the game of chess, would you take the risk Bob? Playing the current world champion is a sure defeat. Kasparov as we know always played horrible against chessprogs and till 1997 he could get away with it. Definitely chessprograms are taken more serious now as in januari 1997, so the underestimation and carelessness of the past will get slowly away in matches, which means clear defeats of the programs against those who can play a game without giving away material. >very good) publicity from the second Kasparov match. But that was _all_ they >got, just a windfall of free publicity. Their stock prices might have inched >up a bit as a result, but only a tiny bit as new investors jumped aboard due to >all the publicity. To think they would lose billions by playing again and >losing is a wild stretch of the imagination. IMHO the publicity was indeed more likely to be the cause as the result was :) Who doesn't buy stocks/shares from a company that's on all TV stations world wide? The publicity drum started already weeks before the match till months after the match. Even if expectations nowadays will be less, it's obvious that the big win in those days will not be risked nowadays. >What they would lose is "reputation" in the eyes of the general public, and it >is not even clear how much "reputation" they would actually lose since they won >the last match. The 3rd match would not receive near the publicity of the first >or second. Reputation is one of the factors in the hectic stock markets. Greetings, Vincent
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.