Author: Baldomero Garcia, Jr.
Date: 01:37:37 04/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 1998 at 18:39:29, Rob Fatland wrote: >, or if you think IBM is a nifty company. before I start with my opinions, no, I don't necessarily think IBM is a nifty company. >1. The Borg analogy is correct: IBM *used* you, me, the entire chess >community, the entire computer community, their collective public >credibility, together with that of the DB research team, Joel Benjamin, >Garry Kasparov, David Robinson, and anyone else they could suck in >entirely for the purpose of making money. The historical value of the >project has escaped their notice, and the result is a disgrace. IBM put up the prize money for the match. It also provided the DB team. My cut on this is that IBM wanted big publicity. It was paying big bucks for it. There is no disgrace in trying to make a profit if you're a business organization. The match also provided a lot of visibility to the chess community. Just ask your regular non-chess fan if they know who played in the last world chess championship, and they probably wouldn't know. Ask them about the match between the computer and Kasparov, and they are more likely to know that answer. So, I don't think it's a disgrace for the chess community either. I don't feel used or betrayed by IBM. Whatever IBM wants to do with the results is their business and has nothing to do with chess any more. >2. The disgrace is twofold: First, that IBM did not then support the >Deep Blue project after the Kasparov match so that we could really >observe the machine and the chess play it would produce. Instead, they >chopped it up and abandoned the project like a bunch of petulant >children. No doubt Kasparov's immaturity contributed, but this was not >the deciding factor. The deciding factor was greed. IBM built a team to produce a very specific goal: to beat the world chess champion in a match. Once it met its goal, it has not obligation towards the team. The team was hired. I'm assuming they got paid for what they did. Any company can form a team for anything they want. And once they achieve what they need, then it's over. >3. The second disgrace is that nobody seems to object to being used in >this way. This recent CCC opinion poll asks this nice hypothetical >question about Deep Blue's playing strength as if there were some match >pending against Fritz in a couple of weeks. Let's face it: IBM has >killed Deep Blue. Deep Blue is not a real thing; it is nothing more >than an advertising gimmick, like the words `New and Improved' or the >Tidy Bowl Man. If no one objects, it's because those of us who don't object think it's ok. It was just a business deal. IBM does not love chess. It does not seek its improvement. It wants to make money. I see no problem with that. >5. Therefore, I suggest we bury Deep Blue and forget about it (as we >avoid discussing the Tidy Bowl Man) and concentrate on what IBM was >pretending to do: Make a legitimate computer chess program that is >capable of playing with the world's best. I agree. I forgot about the DB match long ago. I looked at the quality of the games, and I thought they were terrible. I forgot about that match the same as the Fischer-Spassky rematch in Sveti Stefan. I just don't think they were that significant. Baldo.
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.