Author: stuart taylor
Date: 03:04:00 11/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2003 at 03:22:14, Terry McCracken wrote: >On November 21, 2003 at 01:22:51, stuart taylor wrote: > >>It says on th news that there might be a rematch. But what is there "rematch" >>about it? >> As far as we know, the machine is champion, since he lost to DB, and since then >>there were two rematches in which he drew, and therefore failed to gain back the >>title. >> So what's going on? >> >>(If it's just a paid scientific research, in public, that's OK) >> >>S.Taylor > >Deep Blue isn't champion, six games and one overlooked draw and an opening >blunder in Game 6. Also Game 5 Kasparov could have won if he didn't take bad >advice and trade Qs. > >Moreover, Deep Blue doesn't exist anymore...only a part of it at the Smithsonian >Intstitute. Notice, only a part of Deep Blue resides there, the rest was >scrapped. > >The matches you see now are at the low end of scientific research, albiet there >is scientific value, it's low. > >In Deep Blues case, science took second stage when Kasparov lost a match by one >game. > >Overall, Kasparov has beaten publically Deep Blue more time than he lost, which >is only once in 1997. Kasparov has won more matches and games to all computers >than lost, by miles. Yes he's had several bad games, only to turn the tide and >win them all back and then some, more than making up for his paultry losses. > >When IBM got a lucky win, the company ran with it, then ran away! Hsu, was the >only guy (Kasparov Aside) who pushed IBM not to quit, as he's a scientist, and >did science, IBM were too busy counting money to hear him or care. > >Terry True, I hate IBM fo that. They deserve nothing! But speaking of championship, starting at 1997, based on the fact that Kasparov didn't win any of the two recent matches either, it gives more meaning to him having lost to DB in 1997. If he would have "won back" the title, on recent domestic machines, I would have put all my support behind the human, and strongly denounced DB with IBM. But now we don't really have much to talk about. I also thought that people like Uri Blass has shown that very low rated players (something like 2200) have also beaten top machines, having been trained against machines. So Kasparov should atleast win the match. He should atleast be fulfilling his promise to shred it to bits, with the home computers of today, and even if not, should atleast get half a point over the machine. That would be enough for me, then I would also scream out that IBM is worth nothing either, and that todays stuff is anyway stronger (which I think it is, indeed, but not that Kasparov shouldn't win a match) S.Taylor
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.