Author: Amir Ban
Date: 17:03:46 11/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 1998 at 14:00:32, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On November 10, 1998 at 04:08:17, Amir Ban wrote: > >>It so happens I have a draft Shay sent me of an article he's writing for some >>purpose, in which, in passing, he reviews the Deep-Blue affair. Here's the >>quote: >> >> ... >> Indeed, in May 1997, an IBM "monster" named Deep-Blue managed to >>beat Gary Kasparov, the reigning human world champion, in a six-game match >>3.5-2.5. IBM cleaned up, achieving an amazing financial gain: >> 1. Its stock jumped up 20% > >I think this part is crazy. > >http://quote.yahoo.com/q?s=IBM&d=2y > >Look at that chart and try to figure out where the DB spike was. The stock was >climbing for a month before the match and for two months after. > >This chart is nothing special. The stock market was going up during that >period, that is why all of you guys have your retirement money in mutual funds. > >http://quote.yahoo.com/q?s=F&d=2y > >That's the chart for Ford, the car guys. Looks like they went up about 25% >during this period as well. > >http://quote.yahoo.com/q?s=msft&d=2y > >That's Microsoft's. They went up like 40%. > >> 2. It had planted the notion of supremacy in computing > >Oh, yes, I'd never connected IBM with computing before :-) > >> 3. Its sales of super computers grew as it branded the name "Deep Blue" >>in its product line. > >I'm sure they did, since they tried to tie DB to their product line, and they >got a lot of hits on their web page, and they got a lot of press. If Shay wants >to write a real article rather than a series of allegations he should figure out >by how much they grew, and what lasting effect this had on their business. >Also, he should look to see what other events might have driven IBM's stock >during that period of time and whether analysts even mentioned this match as >being a factor. It may have been, but if this was the article and not just an >outline for the article, then Shay isn't realy showing anything. So please >consider this as constructive criticism. > >What's the contention here? That IBM made money off of this match, and that >this was their intent? I bet this is true, there were obviously some PR people >working here, but the degree to which it had a lasting affect on IBM it isn't >clear from what Shay says. > >Even if someone can say that they had two hundred million dollars in sales due >to this, which is a figure I remember seeing, they had 8.6 billion dollars in >hardware sales that quarter, and 18.8 billion dollars of revenue overall, so >this is like a one percent increase in total sales due to this. That is still >very impressive, and I bet these guys got some nice bonuses, but it's not going >to make the stock go up 20% by itself. If a stock goes up 20%, the implication >is that revenues will go up by 20%, forever, not just 1% for one quarter. My >personal expectation is that huge economic factors drove that stock and in fact >the whole stock market, not a chess match. > >http://sec.yahoo.com/e/l/i/ibm.html > >Anyone is absolutely free to argue with this, of course. It is very possible >that there was some lasting financial effect of that match, but it wasn't >presented in Shay's article and I don't know anything about it either. > This is interesting and maybe true, but is not the pivotal point in either my argument or Shay's, so I think it's a waste of your energy shooting it down. I was making the point related to this thread, that IBM will not play again because they got all they possibly could out of this, and a new match would only undermine what they've already achieve. Shay, if I understand why he put in this paragraph, is trying to tell his audience that this is something with big possible gains (in IBM's role) that is worth trying again. Sort of marketing pitch. I don't know if what you are saying is that what Shay states is merely not substantiated, or actually untrue. I guess the former. It's conventional wisdom that the Deep Blue match is one of the greatest PR coups of all time, and I think this has substance behind it. Both Shay and I can concede your points without essentially changing our argument. I don't think you want us to argue the reverse, say like: IBM's have not been able to show anything but loss through their Kasaprov efforts, and therefore they are sure to play other matches soon just to try to recoup expenses, and besides this is a lesson to you all not to try to repeat IBM's costly mistake in launching the Deep Blue project. Fair enough ? >> By refusing to play a revenge match and dismantling the Deep Blue >>project, IBM ensured that its result would be perceived as an ultimate proof >>of supremacy and prolonged the public relations effect to the maximum. > >I do agree with this. The world thinks DB is better than Kasparov, and this is >in my opinion probably not true, and I think it also reduces long-term interest >in computer chess, since people won't be as interested in pushing this field if >they think that something better than they can ever do has already been done. > >>Kasparov, shattered by his loss, has never played a computer since then. >> A few facts regarding computers and the game of chess can cast some >>doubt about Deep-Blue's true strength. Few people know, for instance, >>that prior to its game against Kasparov, Deep-Blue with all its calculative >>might, was not even the official world computer champion. >> It lost this title, lo and behold, to a PC program named 'Fritz', from >>Germany, that managed to defeat it at the official world computer >>championships held in Hong-Kong 1995. >> Since then, the IBM team carefully avoided any more "embarrassments" >>and did not confront any other computer programs officially. In fact, it >>reduced its opponent field to just one person - Gary Kasparov. > >I don't recall seeing it miss any important tournaments during that time. If it >missed a computer versus computer event that it qualified for, I would like to >know which one, because I missed it too. > >I don't think it is fair to claim that someone is avoiding a confrontation, when >there are no events. > You are on weaker ground here. Obviously after Hong-Kong DB were looking to play only Kasparov and no one else, unless you think this is just a weird coincidence. They played several opponents including computers in the three years preceding Hong-Kong, but in the three years after somehow things didn't work out ? How come Socrates/Cilkchess and Zugzwang did not suffer the same fate ? They could come to the Harvard Cup 95, Aegon 96 & 97, Dutch championship, Paderborn, whatever. Or they could play humans, like join a tournament, invite someone like Judith Polgar to drop over for a game or two, or just publish one or two of those Benjamin games, or just play against Rebel & Genius in their basement and not lose the game scores. Or come to Paderborn 1999 (they won't), or give Kasparov a rematch. By an unlucky coincidence through no fault of theirs none of this happened. Come on. Amir
This page took 0.03 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.