Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 09:51:36 01/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2000 at 12:11:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 14, 2000 at 09:32:35, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On January 14, 2000 at 09:04:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 14, 2000 at 06:43:27, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>> >>>>On January 14, 2000 at 06:39:02, Alvaro Polo wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 14, 2000 at 06:36:05, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 14, 2000 at 06:21:04, Alvaro Polo wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>It is my opinion that Kasparov should play Deep Blue. >>>>>> >>>>>>This is off track. Kasparov always wanted the rematch, but IBM dismantled Deep >>>>>>Blue. Hsu's new machine is not Deep Blue. >>>>> >>>>>Ok, Enrique. Deep Blue does not longer exists. But what counts is perception >>>>>more than reality, many times. >>>> >>>>But this is precisely the point. Hsu's new machine is not perceived as IBM's >>>>Deep Blue by anyone except the few people in computer chess. >>>> >>>>Enrique >>> >>>I'm not sure I agree... and offer "Seymour Cray" as an example. He left CDC >>>to design a new and faster machine. He had no problems getting financial >>>backing as everyone _knew_ he designed the CDC 6600/Cyber 176. He left Cray >>>Research to build the Cray-2/Cray-3. Again, he had no trouble getting financial >>>backers. Everyone knew it was the "man" and not the "company" that came up with >>>the design ideas. >>> >>>I think Hsu is exactly the same... >> >>From a programmer's point of view it may be the same, but the Kasparov-DB >>rematch has the whole world as an audience, and in this whole world everyone >>knows IBM Deep Blue as the machine that beat Kasparov, no one aside from >>computer chess people and academic circles know Hsu's project. How to justify to >>them that a new XXX "mystery box" plays the world champion? Put it this way: in >>this context, Kasparov has nothing to win, everything to lose and then no reason >>to play. >> >>Enrique >> > >"Kasparov knows" and that is all that counts. He demanded a rematch many >times. Then when he gets the opportunity to finally (perhaps) get his just >revenge, he walks away. > >That is his choice to do, of course. But _he_ knows that Hsu was "Deep Blue". I think we are talking from 2 different angles. You say that Hsu’s machine = Deep Blue, therefore Kasparov should accept the rematch. This is the programmer talking. My point is that for the world Deep Blue is IBM, while Hsu’s machine is perfectly unknown. Now, you have a world champion eager to play the rematch, which means by definition against the very same opponent he lost to. Kasparov may or may not know that Hsu can build a replica of DB, but what he knows for sure, and we all do, is that for the audience of millions all over the world his opponent would not be perceived as being the same, thus the rematch would not be a re-match but something else. Instead, if IBM would put together Deep Blue again, Kasparov would play. I would love to see Kasparov (and Anand and a long etcetera) play Hsu’s machine (and Tiger and another long etcetera), but that’s another issue. If I were in Kasparov’s skin I wouldn’t even consider playing an unknown for a stake as high as the world title or my own pride. He has absolutely nothing to win with it. Then, why should he do it? It is up to IBM and to Kasparov to make this re-match possible, not to anyone else’s. Enrique
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.