Author: george petty
Date: 15:06:30 01/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2000 at 17:55:14, Pete R. wrote:
>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.
NONSENSE!
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.