Author: Omid David
Date: 15:23:57 10/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2002 at 17:48:49, martin fierz wrote: >On October 08, 2002 at 14:21:07, Omid David wrote: > >>On October 08, 2002 at 13:45:29, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On October 08, 2002 at 13:09:11, Omid David wrote: >>> >>>>On October 08, 2002 at 12:38:34, Knut Bjørnar Wålberg wrote: >>>> >>>>>If Kramnik mops the floor with Deep Fritz, a rather odd situation might arise: >>>>>What will most strengthen the belief that the top human(s) is in fact better >>>>>than any machine/program ever created? >>>>> >>>>>That Kasparov later crushes Deep Junior, or that he loses? >>>>> >>>>>If Kasparov wins without problems, it could be argued that the Chessbase >>>>>products are clearly not up to the standard of Deep Blue. However, if Kasparov >>>>>loses, then DF and DJ should at least be on par with DB2, and therefore Kramnik >>>>>is even stronger, and it's just Kasparov that doesn't know how to play >>>>>computers. >>>>> >>>>>I know there are other factors that come into play (especially the way the >>>>>players were able to prepare), but how do you all think the world in general >>>>>will perceive these different scenarios? What is the ideal score in the two >>>>>matches when it comes to creating interest in chess and computer chess? >>>>> >>>>>As a final note, it seems to me that Deep Blue might end up as a sort of Bobby >>>>>Fischer of computer chess; Perceived by many as the greatest ever, a statement >>>>>that one can neither prove nor disprove at the moment. Any comments on that? ;) >>>>> >>>>>Knut Bjørnar Wålberg >>>> >>>>Arguing against Junior or Fritz, saying Deep Blue was better, is ridiculous. >>>>It's exactly like saying Fischer is better than Kasparov or Kramnik. Deep Blue >>>>was the strongest at its time, so was Fischer at his time, they both retired, >>>>and so they're both irrelevant. >>>> >>>>The cheating poker player [IBM] swiftly took the money [the credit] and left the >>>>town [dismantled the machine]. >>> >>>where did ibm cheat, omid? i thought conspiracy theories were the domain of >>>americans only :-) >>> >>>seriously, for IBM DB was a publicity stunt. i was at a talk given by the IBM >>>manager responsible for DB. he told us that DB had generated so much publicity >>>for IBM that if they had had to pay for it in form of ads, it would have been a >>>truly ridiculous sum (something like a billion dollars). after they beat >>>kasparov (or he beat himself), there was no reason to go on for the publicity. >>>besides, kasparov behaved like a complete fool and started claiming that they >>>had been cheating. when i sit down with a stranger in a park and play blitz for >>>money, beat him and then he accuses me of cheating, i get up and walk away >>>too... >>> >>>aloha >>> martin >> >> >>Whenever someone breaks the 100 meter sprint record, he passes a drug >>test, to prove he hasn't cheated. When a computer beaks such a so-called >>"AI milestone", it has to pass its drug test, which in this case it's >>publishing the logs (to prove that it has found the move by itself). IBM >>refused to publish the logs long after the match was over, and finally >>after a considerable time, published only a few logs. (It's like >>conducting a drug test a few days after the race!). So no one can disprove the >>allegations of IBM's cheating (the most funny version of which, claims Karpov >>was seating in a hotel close to the match event, and was helping Deep Blue in >>its decisions!!!). > >IBM did this for PUBLICITY. not for AI. And so they should not be given any credit from the AI community. I was especially surprised by the title of Newborn's new book "Deep Blue: An Artificial Intelligence Milestone". >once you grasp this idea, you will >understand that they don't have to do anything. they got their publicity, which >is all they wanted. they were not looking for recognition from the computer >chess community.... > But many within the computer chess community have unfortunately given them that undeserved recognition...
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.