Author: Pete R.
Date: 14:55:14 01/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2000 at 16:58:05, Amir Ban wrote: >On January 10, 2000 at 12:31:05, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>Words "I will treat you exactly as any other challenger" means that he backed >>off his own (Kasparov's) previous rematch challenge, made after 2nd DB match. >>And that is exactly what Hsu is saying. Or my interpretation is wrong? >> >>Eugene >> > >The challenge was made to IBM, and if I understand correctly, still stands. Hsu >is not IBM, though he seems to be unaware of the difference between the Deep >Blue project under IBM, and himself alone. Remember Kasparov said he regarded >the approach as not serious. I understand why. Hsu is not the first tech person >to confuse between his technical skills and the strength of his entire >organization, but nobody knows better than Kasparov that Deep Blue is not Hsu. >It's IBM. Hsu is valuable but replaceable. Hsu alone is nothing. If he didn't >understand this before, I think he understands it now. I don't know how replaceable Hsu is, but while it may be true, it's irrelevant if Kasparov were interested in being challenged by the best chess machine that current technology can build. To a sponsor, Kasparov has the credibility to get a huge crowd, and Hsu has the credibility to build the machine. What I read here is that Kasparov's only interest in such a match is to "get back" at IBM. I realize you don't speak for Kasparov, but if this is correct it's a shortsighted attitude. Besides which he is just throwing away money. A match with Anand is fine, but a match between the best human and the best machine generates more interest. Computers will one day rule chess absolutely anyway, in fact in the eyes of most of the public Kasparov lost to DB2 plain and simple. This is the way it is reported whenever Deep Blue is mentioned in the press, its second name is "the computer that defeated World Chess Champion Kasparov". Kasparov's complaints about fairness are largely ignored and unknown, so he isn't doing himself any favors to ignore a possible match with what the public will consider to be the successor machine, IBM or not. If he beats it, he can repair his man vs. machine record. It is in fact his *only* chance to ever get back in any way at IBM, even though IBM would not be involved. If he beats a successor machine his claims that DB2 had human help will sound less like conspiracy theory. But perhaps the real problem is that he doesn't believe he can win.
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.