Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 03:54:07 01/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2000 at 01:52:35, george petty wrote: >On January 10, 2000 at 21:18:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 10, 2000 at 17:01:32, Lonnie Cook wrote: >> >>>On January 10, 2000 at 16:08:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On January 10, 2000 at 14:37:14, pavesyles wrote: >>>> >>>>>say it has to be ths answer that fischer i mean Kasparov wont ever play deep >>>>>fear again .i submit kasparov is a scared chicken bakbakabkabk bleak >>>> >>>> >>>>I don't think it is fear as you are proposing it. I think it is fear for >>>>having to put forth the incredible mental effort he had to use to avoid >>>>the tactical teeth of Deep Blue. The game he won in round 1 could have >>>>_easily_ been lost... and probably would have been lost by any but the top >>>>couple of players in the world. White had some interesting tactical problems >>>>to solve, and he did. But at a great cost of concentration-type energy. >>>> >>>>IE Hsu said he doubt he could be motivated to re-design the chip without some >>>>sort of sponsorship and another Kasparov match to motivate him. I can understand >>>>that. When I did Crafty's parallel search, I did _not_ want to expend the >>>>amount of time I did in Cray Blitz. I wasn't up to that level of long-term >>>>concentration of effort... >>>> >>>>I think that is his problem with another match.. the dreading of expending that >>>>much mental effort again... >>> >>> >>>Bob, >>>I pretty agree with your assessment of GK not wanting to play BUT GK is the one >>>who wanted a rematch. He has mentioned it numerous X's >> >> >>When you were young, did you ever say something like "come outside and I'll kick >>your butt for saying that"?? all the time hoping (and being pretty sure) that >>your adversary would _not_ come outside for some reason? IE it is easy to issue >>a challenge when you don't think it will be accepted... and then start making >>demands (IE NY-2 revisited) in an effort to bollux things up and get the thing >>cancelled that way... >> >>I think that was the 'bottom line'... > > READ THE BOOK "BIG BLUE" BY RICHARD THOMAS DELAMARTER. > > IT TELLS OF IBM'S USE AND ABUSE OF POWER, HOW IBM BEAT AMONG OTHERS, CONTROL > DATA CORPORATION (CDC). HOW IBM MAKES THE RULES- A GAME OF POWER. THE WAY > IBM BEAT CONTROL DATA WHICH AT THE TIME WAS DELIVERING THE 6600, THE FASTEST > COMPUTER THAT SCIENTIFIC CUSTOMERS HAD EVER SEEN, THE TACTIC'S THAT THEY USED > AND WORKED PARTICULARLY WELL AGAINST CONTROL DATA. A LOT MORE COULD BE SAID > ABOUT WHAT IBM DOES ABOUT WINNING AT ANY COST. > GEORGE First, please get your capslock key fixed. ALL CAPS are hard to read. Second, IBM didn't do CDC or Univac in. At one point in the early 60's, Univac had close to 80% of the computer market. They blundered it away by sitting on an old architecture rather than doing something new. IBM didn't sit on the 1620 and 7090 type architectures, but went on to better approaches. CDC did themselves in by attacking the scientific market, which they pretty well owned. IBM attacked the business market, which the CDC machines were poorly suited for. Unfortunately for CDC, the business market was _far_ bigger. Seymour Cray left CDC after designing the Cyber 176 and formed his own company to cater to the scientific market. And Cray has done well there ever since, but they knew up front that their market was much smaller than the business data processing market. What does this all have to do with the deep blue project?
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.