Author: blass uri
Date: 12:42:02 02/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 1999 at 14:58:44, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On February 02, 1999 at 13:53:29, Terry Presgrove wrote: > >>IBM unveils fastest supercomputer > >This is marketing puff, IMHO. > >During these matches, it was very obvious that IBM was trying to use Deep Blue >to sell computers. It is an obvious tie-in. People use car races to sell cars, >after all, even though the car in the race is mechanically very dissimilar to >the one you'd buy from the dealer. > >After the disassembly of Deep Blue they have continued doing this. They are >going to compare every new computer to the one that played against Kasparov. > >Merely mentioning that match gets a routine new product upgrade announcement >mentioned on the radio and in the newspaper. > >They are not going to put Deep Blue back together. If they put it back >together, using a faster computer, and they lose a match, maybe their computer >sucks? I do not understand it. Do they think that we are stupid?. I do not think that I can learn about the ability of a computer by the result of a chess match. Genius3 on a pentium90 won kasparov 1.5:0.5 in active chess Genius3 on faster pentium lost later to kasparov 1.5:0.5 in active chess Does someone thinks that it proves something about the hardware? Does someone thinks that Pentium90 is better than the faster pentium because of these results? > And if they win, they won on a slower computer already, so who cares? I care because the win was not convincing I am interested to see another match with better conditions for kasparov (He should have 48 hours between games and they should play some games before the match against other strong GM's) > >They aren't in this for the science or the chess or the computer chess. No way. > The team almost certainly is, but they aren't the ones calling the shots. > >The public thinks that chess has been conquered by these new powerful *IBM* >computers. IBM would be stupid to do anything to undermine this opinion, and >from a business point of view they are right to try to capitalize on it. I think that the public of intelligent no chess players is not impressed by winning kasparov and the public of chess players can see that deeper blue is not close to perfect. Do they want to impress only stupid people? Uri
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.