Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 00:41:13 11/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
>>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 ? >Yes, I'd just heard that argument about the short-term stock market effect >enough, and felt like stomping on it. I think that it helped them, but you have >to admit that claiming that the value of the company increased by 20% due to >this is a stretch. >[snip] >>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. >The reference was to games with other computers. The Harvard Cup and Aegon >don't involve humans, and I thought there was some need to be Dutch in order to >play in the Dutch championship, although I remember someone corrected me about >one of these events in the last year or so, and it may have been this one. They >could have gone to Paderborn but I think that failure to go to this one event is >hardly hiding. Not going to Paderborn or some national championship shouldn't >be described as "carefully avoided more 'embarassments'" against other >computers. >> 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. >This is drifting away from the notion of hiding from other programs. The point >Shay was trying to make, as I read it, is that they got spanked by Fritz and >avoided other programs as a result, and it appeared to me that he made this >point in an effort to undermine the notion that DB is actually strong. >Regarding not playing anybody in public except Garry, yes, that is a shame. I'd >like to see them be more open. >I don't think they'll play again, for reasons we could probably agree about. >I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. >bruce IMO you simply give a guy like Garry Kasparov a re-match out of respect. He asked for it so you give it to him. Shame on IBM! Note that's some different than shame on Deep Blue. They did a fantastic job. - Ed -
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.