Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:18:10 10/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2002 at 05:55:12, Ingo Althofer wrote: >On October 19, 2002 at 04:15:48, Walter Faxon wrote: > >>On October 19, 2002 at 03:20:12, Ingo Althofer wrote: >> >>>Feng Hsiung Hsu [=CrazyBird] edited his ICC session. >>>Amongst other things he wrote: >>> >>>>CrazyBird: [the assertion that Deep Blue played Fritz in 1995 is a] false >>>>advertisement. deep blue does not exist until 1996. >>>>CrazyBird: the new chip was not completed until january 1996... >>>>CrazyBird: they [commercial vendors] relabeled the machine [Deep Thought II] >>>>they played to take advantage of the publicity. >>> >>>This is not true. >>>Deep Thought II did not participate in a 1995 tournament. >>> >>>In the World Computer Chess Championship 1995 in Hong Kong >>>IBM started exactly with the name "Deep Blue Prototype". >>>Deep Blue Prototype lost against Fritz in the final round. >>>Fritz became World Champion. Deep Blue Prototype ended on >>>a shared third rank (with the best tie-breaking points). >>> >>>Don't try to change history! The whole Deep Blue project was >>>an impressive and successful endeavour. Don't try to steal >>>the (smaller) fruits the competitors have earnt. >>> >>>Ingo Althofer. >> >>----------- >> >>Actually, Hsu deals with that issue on page 148 of his book. The computer that >>played at the WCCC in 1985 was actually Deep Thought II. It was the IBM >>communications person, Jerry Present, who insisted on use of the name "Deep Blue >>Prototype", so that IBM could later claim that Deep Blue was the successor to >>the reigning World Computer Chess Champion. After losing, of course, that move >>was shown to be a mistake. But Present probably wasn't worried about confusing >>computer chess historians. > > >I can fully imagine that it was not Hsu's idea to use the >name "Deep Blue Prototype" in Hong Kong 1995. > >However, the Deep Blue project was not the project of a single person. >Especially, IBM as the big money-giver and Hsu's employer was a key >part of the project. > >The whole team behind Deep Blue celebrated the success, but the whole team >also has to carry those parts which were not so successful. > >Ingo Althofer. Are we talking about mathematics or history here? Please respect the difference between a label and the historical entity of some kind, ok?! That you don't understand the difference doesn't mean that it didn't exist! The fact that John Nash did not accept his first son, John Stier, and that he therefore called his second son also John, does not change the fact that it was John's son! I wouldlike to add that even in maths the definition of one thing doesn't change that thing itself. More so if the definition was false. I mean, have you eyes to read? Hyatt and Hsu both explained that the thing itself was not something of Deep Blue. No matter how the company or some PR guys may have called it. Is that too difficult to understand? Do you want to insist that we hould accept that that "thing" was Deep Blue whatever if it wasn't in reality? Mathematicians! If you pay me 1 million dollars I will say the opposite for a couple of days! Rolf Tueschen
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.