Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:25:19 06/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 07, 2001 at 12:13:38, Albert Silver wrote: >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. >> >>The situation here is similiar and the claim that Fritz beated Deep blue when >>Deep blue was young is not a lie. > >Was young? I understand what you mean, but I think you are mistaken. The article >states, "Not just any computer, mind you, but one that has trounced "Deep Blue," >the computer that beat the then-reigning human world champion, Garry Kasparov, >in 1997." Perhaps I should also claim to have beaten Deep Blue, because I beat >some old Chess Challenger, which can be construed to be a >great-great-great-grandfather of a sort of Deep Blue. At least by conception. > >Deep Thought is not Deep Blue. I also think that IBM's lawyers have got nothing >better to do, and that IBM really will fight this claim if they think it can >tarnish in any way Deep Blue's image. > >> >>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 > >It's possible you are correct, but could you provide some reference to this? I >recall it being called Deep Thought in Europe Echecs, but truly my memory could >be faulty here. > > Albert It was at one time called "Deep Blue Prototype". _never_ "deep blue". > > >>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.