Author: Slater Wold
Date: 00:28:40 11/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2001 at 22:43:07, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On November 14, 2001 at 19:52:12, Slater Wold wrote: > >>I would venture to say that IBM tested that theory. "Deep Blue" the micro chess >>program would outsell Chessmaster if it had a strong enough, and pretty enough >>interface. And I think everyone on this board would probably try to get a copy. >> >>Obviously they felt it either 1.) wasn't worth the work or 2.) realized that >>without a super computer pushing it, it was weak. > >They put a lot of hype into DB, and if DB/PC came out and was "only" as good as >the top programs, or marginally weaker, it would have been a disappointment to >some (many?) people. > >I expect that IBM is not interested in going into the commercial chess program >business and they want to keep the mystique of DB alive. Notice that whenever >they build a new supercomputer, they declare how many thousands of times faster >than DB it is. (How they get these numbers is beyond me; I assume they're just >cheating and not factoring in the chess ASICs.) They probably think this is more >valuable than the relatively insignificant amount of money they would get from >selling the program commercially. IBM's new commercial says something about a home PC being able to "..beat a Russian grandmaster.." So yea, the marketing aspect will always be alive. >I believe Hsu bought the rights to the chip design from IBM, and presumably that >includes the evaluation algorithms. It's a shame that he hasn't redone these in >software (or made them publicly available, if he has). It would be nice if he >wrote a paper detailing the thing. Me too. Hopefully he doesn't take that to the grave with him. >-Tom
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.