Author: martin fierz
Date: 18:24:49 10/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2002 at 18:23:57, Omid David wrote: >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... i think you can't deny them some kind of recognition. i mean, they did produce a strong program and they did beat kasparov. not that i think DB was in any way better than kasparov of course, on the contrary, but the result was in DBs favor. i guess if i were hsu i would be somewhat frustrated - you work so hard on DB and manage to beat kasparov, and then what happens? his "child" was "killed", and he isn't even allowed to give details as to how he did some things because of non-disclosure agreements. but well, i guess that's what you get for selling your first-born child to the devil :-) aloha martin
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.