Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:45:43 02/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 29, 2000 at 04:21:13, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On February 28, 2000 at 16:27:13, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On February 28, 2000 at 16:13:28, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>[snip] >> >>>Unfortunately, IBM also managed to bash the computer chess field on the head >>>repeatedly with a big rock. >> >>I am curious about this statement. In what way has this occurred? > >The average person thinks that a computer is better than the world champion now. > This is probably not true, but there is no way to disprove the statement. So >if some program plays a strong human and loses, it's because it's not as good as >DB, and if it wins, well, DB beat a stronger player, and if it beats the >strongest player, the accomplishment is diminished because DB did it first. Sounds like one of their problems was that they did too well. ;-) >I have personal respect for Hsu and Campbell, but IBM (the corporation) is a >carpet-bagger. By this I mean that they entered our field for completely >self-interested reasons, took everything that they were able to take, then when >they decided that they had nothing left to gain by remaining, they left >permanently. Well, IBM had the goal to make money. In that, they succeeded admirably. I think that it also gave their entire corporation a big boost in image. They certainly got their money's worth. They did exactly what I expected them to do. I rather suspect that you thought the same, along with everyone else. It was a business decision. Money making corporations are out to defend their stockholders, rather than the world in general. In fact, they embellish the wealth of their stockholders by sucking profits from the world, so in a sense, they are at odds. >That wasn't a scientific project, it was an attempt to create an advertising >vehicle more efficient than a 30-second Super Bowl commercial. The whole thing >had to have been driven by marketing weasels right out of some Dilbert cartoon. I think the truth in this instance is half-way in between. It was a scientific experiment for those conducting the experiment (Hsu, Campbell, et. al.) but it was a marketing ploy for those controlling the project. I think it succeeded in both. Does anyone really believe that we would all be better off had Kasparov won again? I don't think we would see a ton of money pouring into the private sector trying to pump up PC programs to challenge Kasparov or Anand. I don't think anyone was injured. And I think computer chess got a gigantic boost. I will bet if you look at total volume of sales of computer chess programs before and after Deep Blue, you will see a monumental rise after. (No proof, just guessing). The perception that computers are super-GM players can do nothing but bolster sales of the products.
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.