Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 20:55:06 04/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 01, 2001 at 13:58:06, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On April 01, 2001 at 11:05:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>What IBM got out of the match was _lots_ of free publicity on every TV/Radio/ >>newspaper/magazine/etc in the world. It was simply "good exposure". There is >>no way to "take that exposure back". The previous result could be "tainted" by >>a loss of course. But I agree that all that would be lost is a bit of mystical >>aura... not part of the company. People buy (today) from IBM because they are >>IBM with a strong service and support reputation. Not because they beat Deep >>Blue. Deep Blue just got their name in front of a _lot_ more people. >> >>They decided to "quit while they were ahead". There is little we can do about >>it except to wish it had not happened... I would almost be willing to bet that >>if they played a 3rd match, that just playing the match would generate enough >>publicity to offset any possible negative impression should they lose that >>match. > >I'm ready to agree with this, I think. They could do a series of matches, one >every few years, and if they lost a match they could just take it graciously and >promise that IBM will try harder next time. > >Instead, they went for the lasting impression -- DB is better than the best >human. > >bruce Your last sentence says it all! In the general public view and chess players below Expert level they see DB as invincible and man has ultimately been surpassed by the machine. This of course is erroneous and IBM has gotten away with " Deep Blue " is the " Best " years before this can be a _True_ statement! Dann felt this was a great day for computers and computer chess, it is for this reason which I wrote above makes me come to the opposite conclusion. 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.