Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 01:34:06 11/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 1998 at 04:15:13, blass uri wrote: >I think that IBM does a mistake when they do not play with deeper blue against >top programs. > >If they can have more than 90% against top programs they should play against top >programs only to prove it because many people do not believe that they can do >it. > >I read in the newspaper after the match that people claimed that kasparov played >in the match like IM and in the last game even worse (the logical result is that >they play like an IM) > >everyone agree that an IM cannot win top programs 9:1 so if they can do it then >it will be a proof that they are not close to be weak like some people think. > >Uri If Deep Blue and IBM has lost for a second time then it would still be around, but once they won against Kasparov they did a runner. Unfortunately people who play chess know, yes Deep Blue is very strong, but the best, I think not. But allot of people who watch the TV and read the newspaper know very little about chess or more so, computer chess. So all they hear and see it that IBM's Deep Blue beat the worlds number one player. All the publicity they need. And soon as Kasparov come out and tried to say what went wrong and how he should have won, they call it sour grapes. Well Kasparov is right, he should have won, Deep Blue should not have even been in the race. Deep Blue with its very few games against quality opponents is not king, very far from it.
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.