Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:23:55 06/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 07, 2001 at 11:26:01, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 07, 2001 at 11:02:07, Albert Silver wrote: > >>On June 06, 2001 at 16:58:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 06, 2001 at 16:37:59, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >>> >>>>Nice article of the new reigning star ... please have a look in >>>>http://www.iht.com/articles/21874.html >>>> >>>>The article is by David Burgess (Copyright Intl. Herald Tribune 2001). >>> >>> >>>Based on reading the article, David Burgess couldn't find his butt with a >>>double-handfull of fish hooks. The first paragraph is the first thing that >>>is totally wrong. Fritz never beat the DB program that beat Kasparov. It >>>never even played it in a public game. >>> >>>I didn't read past that paragraph since it was so hideously wrong. >> >> >>Yes, that makes two of us. I'll probably go back and read the rest all the same. >>The thing is that I have trouble believing IBM will be quiet about this. I doubt >>very much they will just quietly let someone assert their number one marketing >>baby was beaten in a non-existent match. Perhaps the article was merely bait to >>see if IBM will want "to show them", but I think a forthcoming lawsuit is more >>likely than a match proposal. >> >> Albert > >I doubt if they have a chance to win a lawsuit. > >If someone who beated kramnik when kramnik was a child claims that he beated >kramnik(the player who beated kasparov) then I doubt if kramnik can go to court >against him. If IBM proves the statement is false... and they prove that they asked for a retraction and none was given... and they prove that the statement was used to enhance the public visibility of the upcoming match, which means money for ChessBase... then they can easily win. It is called "fraud". > >The situation here is similiar and the claim that Fritz beated Deep blue when >Deep blue was young is not a lie. No... re-read the statement. They claimed that fritz beat the DB program that beat kasparov. That is _clearly_ a lie. > >Bob hyatt can say that it was Deep thought and I understand that the hardware is >Deep thought's hardware but the media called it deep blue at the time it lost >against Fritz3 and they did not try to go to court against the media at that >time. > >The media did not hide the fact that the hardware against kasaprov was faster >but they stopped to use the name "deep thought" near 1992(I am not sure about >the exact year they started to use the words Deep blue but it was clearly before >the WCCC of 1995 because I remember previous tournaments with the word Deep blue >including one tournament when Bent lersab won the machine 2.5-1.5). > >Uri
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.