Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:45:47 11/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 1998 at 03:41:13, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>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 - you really blew that response badly... based on one word: "respect". Why would IBM have any "respect" for Kasparov now? He called them cheaters at a press conference... Personally, my "respect" for Kasparov is down to zero, and still falling. I'd certainly consider Karpov, whom I have a *bunch* of respect for however...
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.