Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 04:09:43 01/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2000 at 03:08:11, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On January 10, 2000 at 10:52:12, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On January 09, 2000 at 22:21:25, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>You can read the letter at http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/feng.html >>> >>>Your comments? >>> >>>Dave >> >>Shay and I called Kasparov and asked him about it, and here's what he has to say >>(not an exact quote): >> >>There was one short letter from Hsu, which was answered by an even shorter >>letter, and that was the entire discussion. >> >>He felt that the question/proposition was not serious from the business point of >>view. >> >>The answer Hsu got was: Kasparov will play ANY computer, under suitable terms, >>provided the computer is a known entity that has a record against other >>opponents. He remembers that the conversation with Hsu ended after he received >>this answer. >> >>Kasparov told us that he reconfirms this commitment, and cited his agreement to >>play Deep Junior in the coming online tournament. Kasparov told us he will not >>agree to play against a mystery box as Deep Blue was before their match, and >>that the machine should have some public record before it plays him. >> >>Kasaprov also knew that Hsu has been talking to Microsoft about this. >> >>So far from Kasaprov. >> >>We tried to reach Owen Williams to clarify some more things, but couldn't reach >>him. There's some apparent contradiction in the number of messages passed and >>their content, which maybe Owen could clarify, but I don't think it's very >>important, because obviously both sides are telling the same story, but from >>their own point of view. >> >>Hsu bought permission from IBM to build his own version of Deep Blue. He needed >>to build a new chip, to develop new hardware and software, and get a new project >>going on. He needed funding for this project, and he could get it only if >>Kasparov gave prior commitment to play it. Kasparov, by his version, basically >>told him to come back when he has a working machine and a record to prove it. >>With this answer, Hsu could not make progress, and so folded his tent. >> >>I'm guessing that Hsu, a tech person, viewed the fact that he didn't have IBM >>with him, no funding, no project and no machine as temporary technicalities, and >>didn't see these as obstacles to planning a match. Kasparov probably saw it >>differently. >> >>IMO, if Kasparov indeed answered with "come back when you have a machine", >>that's a reasonable reply that does not break his former commitment. However Hsu >>didn't need Kasparov so much to play a match as he needed him to make the entire >>project possible. >> >>Amir > >I think this is all reasonable, and I dread to think about what everyone is >saying in the ten zillion other responses in this thread. > >Having attended a recent lecture by Hsu, it seems obvious that he's trying to >get a corporate sponsor for a PC program and card combination, and make the >thing's reputation by beating Kasparov. The commercial implications of this are >obvious. > >It seems kind of weird that the whole project succeeds or fails based upon the >ability to line up one match with one guy. I can't imagine having enough nerve >to declare that my program will only play the world champion, and that if he >won't commit to play it, I won't write it. > >bruce It isn't quite the same thing. If you work on Ferret, all it costs you is your time. But if you start fabbing chips, and building PCI card interfaces, it costs you real money. And not pocket change either for small production runs. I interpreted his letter as saying "Without a Kasparov match and the publicity that comes along with that, no one is willing to sponsor/fund the hardware development costs. Designing the thing as a mass-market chess machine is also probably going to lose a lot of money, as I have no idea what the potential market for it is, in terms of number of machines sold. But a few thousand isn't going to be enough to drive this to a reasonable price-point. I assume that he is being realistic about the probable cost, the probable return, and decided that the best chance for success was to get outside funding in return for a _bunch_ of free P/R. And had Kasparov said "yes" I am pretty sure this could have been done. I imagine _everybody's_ P/R department noticed the press from the last match. Doing it with a PC-type machine would _really_ be news...
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.