Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 13:27:27 11/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 1998 at 08:32:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I asked you a point-blank question... you have refused to answer or even touch >on the issue. I'll ask again, and let *you* derail this again: > >How do you justify the insane statement by Shay in the last paragraph, that >specifically states that DB "carefully avoided any computer vs computer games >after losing to Fritz in 1995"? I've asked you three times before, *exactly* >which computer vs computer events did they avoid after 1995. I also answered >this by saying *none* becuase there were *no* computer vs computer events held >*after* 1995 except for the WMCCC where DB is not eligible to compete. > >Now, how about an answer to that? What part of that statement by Shay is >defensible? And if you can't find any part, then what is the "motive" for >making such a gross journalistic error? And *then* you see why I would propose >that there is an ulterior agenda here, because no one in their right mind would >write something so blatantly false and misleading. > >*still* waiting for an explanation as I'd *really* like to be shown that this >was just a simple error or whatever, rather than something "deeper." I don't >have any dislike for either of you... but I *don't* like shoddy journalism. If >his "article" made it into a public document, and *I* wrote it, I would consider >running and hiding so the lawyers couldn't find me... This is the Shay quote in full, with my comments interspersed that show what I read directly and between the lines. | 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: This is the thesis statement here, the thesis is that they achieved amazing financial gain. This may be true. The arguments given do not support this and imply a gain that it something beyond fantastic. | 1. Its stock jumped up 20% This is not backed up by facts or common sense. | 2. It had planted the notion of supremacy in computing | 3. Its sales of super computers grew as it branded the name "Deep Blue" | in its product line. This needs to be documented. | 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. | Kasparov, shattered by his loss, has never played a computer since then. I think this is a fair speculation, I haven't argued otherwise. | 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. Another thesis statement. The thesis is that Deep Blue may not even be that strong. First argument given is that DB isn't the 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. I can't understand why "lo and behold" is in here unless as a way of indicating a sarcastic tone, which is not good, to start with. This evidence is being used to support the thesis, which is, once again, that Deep Blue isn't very strong. There are two things wrong with this: 1) Losing a 5-round tournament is weak evidence. Does any top player win every tournament he enters? 2) It has been explained to me that the thing that played Kasparov the first time was 100 times faster than the thing that played Fritz. That's a lot. It also wasn't referred to at the time as "Deep Blue". I gather they were going to call it "Deep Blue Prototype", but they didn't get the chips done in time, so they called it "Deep Thought II". This is contrary to what I've said in here previously. | 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. The thesis is still that DB isn't very strong. The evidence is that they didn't play against any other programs officially, following that tournament. The stated implication is that they were afraid they would lose. The way this was stated, via use of the phrase "avoided any more 'embarrassments'" is sarcastic. There were no other major open hardware events that they could have entered, and it is a real stretch to say that avoiding events like the Paderborn event had anything to do with careful avoidance of embarassment. Reducing the field to Kasparov himself sounds true to me, but the foundation for this makes this seem sinister as well. Earlier I called this article a "hatchet job". The American Heritage Dictionary defines this term as, "A crude or ruthless effort usually ending in destruction." There are two charges, both could be seen as damning. One charge is supported inadequately, the other is supported not at all in my opinion, possibly even maliciously, and the tone of the article is sarcastic. I think my use of this term is justified. bruce
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.