Author: Albert Silver
Date: 05:56:17 01/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2000 at 07:33:10, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>On January 11, 2000 at 07:17:15, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On January 11, 2000 at 05:11:51, Amir Ban wrote:
>>
>>>On January 10, 2000 at 21:30:52, Eugene Nalimov wrote:
>>>
>>>>Here we disagree:
>>>>
>>>>(1) I believe DB is Hsu and others, not IBM - exactly as Junior is Amir Ban, not
>>>>Chessbase.
>>>
>>>It's not a question of what you believe in. Hsu may have been Deep Thought, but
>>>he certainly wan't Deep Blue. Deep Blue is the multi-million dollar project.
>>>Deep Blue is the PR machine. Deep Blue is the three grandmasters we got after
>>>those students showed they can deliver speed but not results. Deep Blue is a
>>>trademark of IBM. Deep Blue is C.J.Tan. Deep Blue is one of IBM's 700 lawyers I
>>>got bumped to when I tried talking to them about using the name DB Junior. Deep
>>>Blue is Garry Kasaprov.
>>>
>>
>>
>>That makes no sense. Hsu designed the hardware. And wrote most of the
>>software. Without him, DB is "dead". As someone else said, it is equivalent
>>to saying that Ed is not Rebel, or you are not Junior, or I am not Crafty. UAB
>>pays my salary. They provide the machine I use. They encourage me to do
>>various things. They aren't "Crafty" however.
>
>To you, to me, to people in computer chess, DB is Hsu and his team. To the rest
>of mankind, which is the immense majority, DB is IBM. Probably they never heard
>of Hsu. It was IBM and not Hsu who saw their shares sky rocketing after the
>DB-Kasparov match. Another example, we know that Chessmaster is Johan de Koenig,
>but the buyers of Chessmaster have no idea of who is this guy.
>
>With this I mean that it is not the same for the public and therefore for
>Kasparov to play a machine built by Hsu than playing IBM in the rematch. Once
>IBM stepped out, it is an entirely different ball game. In fact, it wouldn't be
>seen as rematch at all. Now, why would Kasparov play a XXX computer program in
>an official match?
>
>Enrique
I think it would be a rather simple matter, once the ball started rolling, to
show that this was simply the DB that had been gathering dust on IBM's shelves,
improved on by its creators. Toss in the fact that it might be running from a
PC, and publicity would not be found wanting, I am sure. A couple of statements
by Hsu showing he (and his team of programmers - not lawyers) were what DB was
about, and then showing what this new DB would be about, would be ample. Throw
in numbers and you've made your case. People LOVE numbers.
"The OLD DB was about the size of a medium sized piece of furniture, calculated
50 gazillion positions a second while preparing a wicked expresso, whereas the
NEW DB fits in a PCI slot, calculates 200 gazillion positions a second and can
do a cappucino!"
This part would be fairly easy IMO, but the point is you need an opponent up to
par. If the World Champ lost to the original DB, who cares if the new and
improved DB beats players 2 to 9 on the ranking list? I can see why Kasparov was
a necessary cog in the story, at least if you need a match to get the project
moving. I'm also sure he could invent more rationalizations for his decision,
but the real trick I think would be to get him on the inside. In other words, he
needs to benefit too, and not just in some match prize-money. He certainly got
paid the last time, but it was quite meagre compared to the blow his reputation
took. It is most CERTAINLY on his mind, and I doubt he'd want to repeat the
experience, particularly on something running on a PC. Besides, if the
convincing has to start from Kasparov, then I don't think this is the issue. I'm
sure Kasparov doesn't need to be convinced that DB has to have IBM behind it to
be DB.
Albert Silver
Albert Silver
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.