Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:27:27 11/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 1998 at 19:53:32, James B. Shearer wrote: >On November 14, 1998 at 10:11:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>So you think the original post by Amir (written by Shay) was "ok"??? And >>didn't deserve any sort of response? > > I think the original post contained some debatable statements. I think >Bruce Moreland in his first responses made some effective counterpoints. My >memory of your posts is that you basically repeated Bruce's arguments in a more >aggressive way. I do not think this contributed much to the discussion. If >someone feels compelled to post but doesn't have anything original to say, I >would prefer a simple I agree with Bruce (or whoever). > I also think Bruce's counterpoints applied more to the details of the >original post than to the overall thrust. I believe it is fair to say that: > 1. The victory over Kasparov was a tremendous PR coup for IBM. > 2. IBM has been reluctant to have Deep Blue demonstrate its strength by >taking on all comers. >Was the original post so different as to justify vitriolic attacks? > James B. Shearer I would have to look back, but I believe that I posted something before Bruce did on that issue... I ignored the stock business as that was silly but not insulting in any way. But the *rest* of the "article" was outright insulting to the DB guys... And I pointed out exactly why... And asked for some sort of explanation about how the "evaded further competition" statement could possibly be made and justified... I haven't seen an answer to that yet, since there were no computer events they could have participated in... As far as deep blue "playing a lot" I'd simply remind everyone that it is very easy to "think small". Most of you haven't *been there*. I, on the other hand have, year after year. It is *not* easy to arrange to use a multi-million dollar computer to play whenever an event is available. Cray Research sponsored me for many years (and probably still would if I asked again) but getting machine time was *always* difficult. And I did good to get dedicated machine time once a year for an ACM or WCCC event (if you look back in history you will notice we *never* played in both the ACM and the WCCC if both were held in the same year... Not because we didn't want to, but be- cause we couldn't get a 60 million dollar computer dedicated for enough time to play...) I'd suspect that IBM *never* gave the DB guys a full SP2 machine for months on end, to test and play with. They probably could break out with DB junior, but if you had a quad-xeon to run crafty, would you want to do exhibitions using a pentium-90? So it is easy to say they should have participated more, but in reality, it would be *very* difficult to justify sticking a 32 node SP over in the corner for months when it could be sold for something way over a million dollars, just as it was difficult for us. Thinking of micros is one thing, and that's why Crafty is now a micro-based program... but getting time on a multi-million dollar computer is something else... and don't be mislead by the huge PR bonus IBM received... They would *still* think a long time about allocating that kind of resource for the amount of time needed to really "break DB out and let it play." Ed mentioned they had declined many one-on-one challenges, including one from Rebel. Again, same reasoning. Cray Blitz would have *had* to decline such challenges, because why in the world would Cray give us a 60 million dollar computer to compete against a microcomputer? IE *what* would they get in return for that? If we won, zilch... wouldn't be news. If we lost, it would be big news and it would be all bad from their perspective. Ditto for IBM.
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.