Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:21:30 06/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 29, 2005 at 19:12:01, K. Burcham wrote: > > >Robert why do you think that the Hydra vs Adams match was a promotional flop >compared to Deep Blue vs Kasparov? >Why has the press and public not picked up on the Hydra match like they did on >the Deep Blue match? >If you say advertising, then also why the difference in spending? > >kburcham If you are talking to me, perhaps one of several reasons. 1. IBM was the US sponsor. A huge world-wide and world-known company. Hydra doesn't have that luxury. 2. "Chess is solved" is the general public perception. Deep Blue did it, and the interest will _never_ be the same again... Even when a micro repeats what DB did (and that will happen). 3. The ACM was still involved in computer chess back then, which kept a fair amount of publicity going about computer chess in general. After the 1996 match, the ACM basically stopped the normal computer chess tournaments, and interest in the US waned a bit. The ICCA/ICGA has done a horrible job of publicizing computer chess. They've turned it into a mainly European activity, and they apparently don't give a lot of thought to publicity since most of the ICGA "management" are not actively involved in computer chess in any way.
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.