Author: Peter Fendrich
Date: 13:20:41 02/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 1999 at 15:42:02, blass uri wrote: > >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 It doesn't have to do with stupidity at all. It's just the way it works wether you like it or not... All trademarks are handled like this. From a business point of view, it would be stupid by IBM to develop a chess playing machine just to play chess. Of cource it is marketing - maybe some part of it is research but I doubt it. A third match against Kasparov would be a mistake, from a business point of view. I wish I was wrong, but I'm sure I'm not... :-) IMHO, the only way to get a new match is with a new world champion that badly beats K. Do we have someone in the near future? I'm afraid not... //Peter
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.