Author: Tina Long
Date: 18:57:50 03/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 29, 2000 at 20:56:41, Albert Silver wrote: >On February 29, 2000 at 13:45:43, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>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 do. If Deep Blue had been convincingly better than Kasparov, I would have no >problem swallowing the painful pill of reality, but as such I feel ripped off. >As a player I have to deal with the consequences of it and this is bad enough. >You wouldn't believe the amount of nonsense I still hear on this from people who >only know that a computer beat the World Champion end of story. Even Kasparov >has been paying a heavy price for this. I work at times with someone who >organizes events, and has already brought the big K to Brazil, but nowadays, the >market has pretty much dried up. Do you really think his image is untarnished >despite his spectacular run in 1999 (of which the rest of the worl remains >blissfully oblivious)? As long as one believed computers were still a step >behind in chess, it was easier to attract corporate sponsors; as it is, the >beliefe is that all that remains to be seen is when PCs will be able to >replicate DB's feat. I don't believe that that is the situation, but I am a >small minority so it doesn't matter. > > Albert Silver Hi guys, Yes IBM "used" computer chess to bolster it's image, & then cast computer chess aside when it was of no more value. Horrid actions yes, but from the shareholders viewpoint, brutally efficient. I personally despise & admire the IBM executives for this (& of course for the rest of what they do - I bet they clear rainforests & put salt in their computers as well). The Deep Blue win over GK was both good and bad for computer chess, both side's comments above are quite right & reasonable. But whose fault was the win by Deep Blue? I believe 40% DB & 60% GK. Garry got stressed & uncomfortabe, he discovered his apriori plans wern't optimal & had no time to replan, he got weary, & in the end he played really badly, walking into a "simple" "well known" opening trap. I think most "Good" chess players who have looked at the games, understand that GK played well below his best, and I think they believe GK is better than Deep Blue. The "General Public" can't recognise (& arn't interested) how badly Garry played, and both he & general chess sponsorship will suffer forever after for his failure. Yes he's great, maybe the greatest ever, clearly the best in the 90's & now, but he failed miserably in that one match & the consequences are extreme & lasting. IBM executives have been quite predictable in their Marketing Based actions, their "Real" (if money-trading can really be considered real) game of Chess has been played with the excellence that they must show to keep their ultra$ jobs. We may despise them for their actions, but they're only "doing what they do do well" (boy, do what you do do well.) Even the Great GK was suckered & then beaten by them. Money over Mind!! (& that's disregarding any conspiracy or "go down in the sixth" theories) IBM would be silly to play again & maybe lose (1-1 is lousy). GK would be silly to play again & maybe lose (2 losses in a row "proves" it). Just my ponderings, See Ya's Tina Long
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.