Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 22:55:22 10/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 1999 at 22:17:23, Bruce Moreland wrote: >So what this means is that IBM would have to be induced to take part in such a >match. The inducement would have to be huge, I bet Ed could offer IBM a million >dollars and they wouldn't do it. > >Everything I have heard indicates that *they* think they would do great against >any micro, so I don't think it is a matter of fear, I think it is a matter of >having nothing to gain and something significant to lose. > >There is no rational reason to play against a micro, setting yourself up as the >bad guy in a David versus Goliath contest, when you've already beaten the human >world champion at standard time controls. > >bruce They have nothing to gain or lose now anyway. DB had not been around for quite a long time, programs have advanced as too technology. I would be interested in seeing Shredder and your program ferret play DB using WCCC99 hardware. The point I am trying to put across is that DB does not beat humans players clearly. I think that the top 5 programs at WCCC99 can beat DB, maybe not on a regular basis. But with technology, expecially computers advancing ever single day, DB will be old hat. If Hsu and his team ever make statements, then they will have to back them up, escpecially these days. I think the way computer chess should go is in developing and making programs and hardware in which we can all have access to on the market that can be at the level of GM's and hopefully beat them regularly. Plus what good is DB apart from putting it in freak shows games against humans, It is not like many could use it to analyse. The thing with having a machine like DB is when Kasparov states that he thought humans were involved in some of the moves, well who knows, there is no other DB to test this. DB could be a bunch of GM's sitting in a room relaying moves via computer to the DB team playing Kasparov. These kinds of things have happened in the past going back to the turn of the century. DB is dead, unless it comes back and proves itself again then who cares about it. It took them long enough to beat a top chess player, and even looking at those games, do you think Kasparov played his best. I am not a top player and there are some moves that even confuse me, and when you see that Kasparov resigns a few moves later, I know why.
This page took 0.03 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.