Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:29:35 05/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 1998 at 10:47:17, Guido Schimmels wrote: >On May 11, 1998 at 15:11:14, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: [snip] about hashtables. >Nor I'm happy about the way IBM has behaved since then. >I don't want to be naive, but the way IBM is exploiting their success >upsets >me a lot. >When I read in computer-magazines: >'Deep Blue is currently doing some molecular engineering', >I don't know how I should call this. They are fooling the public. Yes, in fact this ain't new in the chessworld. aroun 1800 there was this machine called "the Turk". A chessplaying automaton. It took 60 years before the big audience found out that they got fooled. Inside the machine one of the strongest chessplayers on earth was hided. Now i'm not claiming IBM is fooling the audience, because in contradiction to kasparov i'm very sure that all these silly moves are produced by a machine and not by man. IBM is leaving the audience in the opinion that the machine plays the best chess in the world, which is far from true, when looking to the average number of bad moves a game, and the poor quality of chess which has been played by Kasparov. So in fact IBM is not the only guilty person. Kasparov is most guilty, he did not much effort to prevent 2.5-2.5. In fact it looks like Kasparov didn't mind 2.5-2.5 We can be sure that he made a mistake in the 6th game, he underestimated the machine terribly, or overestimated his own level, we never will know. The interesting thing of "the turk" is that a scientist talked to it. The conversion (year: 1784) went like this (translating German quoted in v/d Heriks dutch big book): question: "How old are you?" answer: "192 Months" question: "Are you married?" answer: "I have many wifes" If you're a scientist and talking to a machine which gives this kind of info back, then it's laughable that it took another 50 years after this conversation before it got revealed that "The Turk" was fooling the audience. It was not a chessplaying automaton, but a mechanic machine with a person in it operating it and moving the pieces. So it was a human. Even today intelligent talking computer is not possible! >What is the sence of life, the universe and all the rest ? >Deep Thought: 42 ! > >What is the sequence of a protein katalyzing the synthesis of alcohol ? >Deep Blue: e4 ! > > >'You may call this cheating, but I can impossibly comment on that' >(Francis Urquart, 'House of Cards' (freely citated)) >Guido
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.