Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:44:12 06/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 30, 2005 at 05:26:51, Madhavan wrote: >On June 29, 2005 at 20:21:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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). > >Are you implying Deep Blue did solve the game of chess? No. Just that the "public perception" is that happened... >What happened to Deep Blue?IBM had lost interest in chess years back?issit? >Chess is solved by Deep Blue doesnt stand true,as there will never be a computer >to solve chess,Hydra still makes minor mistakes in its evaluation,Deep Blue has >made a heck lot of mistakes against kasparov,when did DB nearly solve he >game?Did it play against any other program?Who is the programmer? Deep thought played against plenty of other programs and basically murdered them. I can count only two losses against microcomputers in a 10 year playing span. Pretty remarkable. And if you look at all the ACM / ICCA tournaments they played in, and how many of those they won, that is also a remarkable list.
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.