|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 16 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-12-05 | | patzer2: <lexandrovm> My understanding is IBM was using the chess program as a selling point to advertise the hardware. Once the software had served its purpose, it's feasible IBM (not being a software company) scuttled the software project to cut expenses and focus on sales of hardware (less expenses + more revenue = more income). Perhaps an argument might have been made for saving the program and marketing it. However, I assume they determined the income potential from hardware sales was much greater than trying to get into the relatively small computer software market and so they abondoned the project. Also selling the program to another software company, and having lesser players and programs beating it could have hurt their reputation, cut sales and reduced income and stock prices. |
|
| Sep-12-05 | | patzer2: <If they had such a great machine, keeping it working might have been better. More income> No! Not more income. Revenue - expenses = income. Higher expenses from maintaining a software program no longer needed reduces income. Keeping a program for which a rival company will eventually develop a better computer program would reduce sales revenue and income. Still an argument might have been made for keeping the computer hardware and program for historical purposes, but not competing for so many years in order to avoid the above mentioned disadvantages. However, I assume IBM executives with little appreciation for Chess and Chess history decided against this option. Too bad they were so short sighted. |
|
| Sep-13-05 | | you vs yourself: After extensive study, I decided to finally give my analysis on this game. But just when I finished my analysis, my computer lost all my analysis. Then I did extensive research and found out that this is a pre-arranged miniature. As usual, I lost that analysis, but this time, it was the storage facility that robbed my data and auctioned it off. Big jewish conspiracy. Finally, my extensive research concluded that Deep Blue is a computer cheat because its moves matched to that of a computer's throughout the game. All the above conclusions made me quit the "old chess." Now, I'm only playing chess960 which prevents any controversy as to which way the knight should be pointed to. |
|
| Sep-13-05 | | khense: Last. |
|
| Sep-13-05 | | RookFile: You guys understand that if IBM gets annoyed enough, they could build a machine at least 32 times more powerful then Deep Blue, in a matter of weeks, don't you? This is based
on the speed at which computer processing doubles. |
|
| Sep-13-05 | | EmperorAtahualpa: LOL khense |
|
| Sep-13-05 | | alexandrovm: <Now, I'm only playing chess960 which prevents any controversy as to which way the knight should be pointed to.> not for long pal, machines will win that too, it's the power of calculation combined with artificial intelligence. |
|
| Sep-13-05 | | patzer2: <RookFile>< You guys understand that if IBM gets annoyed enough, they could build a machine at least 32 times more powerful then Deep Blue...> I don't think that's the issue. Hydra, today, after defeating Adams may be able to beat any human player. The point is did IBM have a computer and program available on May 11, 1997 that could beat the world champion human player in a fair contest? If it was a fair contest, then it was a legitimate and important turning point in the history of both chess and computers. If it was not a fair contest, it would be a reprehensible and deplorable act on the part of IBM's Big Blue Team. At the very least, Kasparov has a point in that IBM's Big Blue Team was able to prepare for him, but he was not able to prepare for Big Blue. For any other human GM Kasparov faced, he had a record of games to probe playing styles, opening preferences and weaknesses. Big Blue's team had that advantage against him. He did not have that advantage against the new and improved Big Blue program. I don't believe IBM would have ever condoned deliberate cheating by allowing a GM to force feed moves to the computer during a game, and that Big Blue won the contest fairly. However, the fact IBM took the good publicity and ran (i.e. dismantled their program and refused Kasparov a rematch) says something to me as a chess fan about IBM's sense of fair play and lack of appreciation for the importance of preserving an important piece of computer software and chess history. |
|
| Sep-13-05 | | ThomYorke: For people who know all the facts around this match it´s clear IBM cheated. |
|
| Sep-13-05 | | dhotts: IBM is company out to make money by increasing its stock value. In times of old, IBM was its only competitor with lots of research projects. IBM didn't have to do anything until the wave of PC's took over and undermined mainframe growth. During the 90's IBM stock was tanking and research projects like Deep Blue were scrapped for more practical endeavors. IBM does not care about Chess, they want they're stock to go up. I used to work at IBM and saw Deep Blue playing chess once. This machine took a lot of effort, money and drive to build and perfect. Unfortunately, times changed and huge vector processors were built to solve nuclear fusion equations not chess problems. IBM could build a computer that is 1000 times more powerful than Deep Blue in one year. |
|
| Sep-13-05 | | patzer2: <Thom Yorke> What proof do you have to support your allegation that <IBM cheated>? |
|
| Sep-13-05 | | patzer2: <dhotts> <IBM is company out to make money by increasing its stock value...IBM does not care about Chess...Deep Blue...took a lot of effort, money and drive to build and perfect...> As an IBM insider, appreciate you confirming my conclusion that IBM was simply a corporation acting in its own best interest. IBM used Big Blue and Kasparov to increase sales and stock value. When they had served their purpose, they discarded both of them. Yet, I don't wish to be overly critical of IBM. Increasing income by cutting expenses, increasing revenue and raising stock value is the purpose of a corporation. It's just unfortunate that someone didn't make an effort to preserve this bit of Chess and computer history. Seems to me they could have donated the program and hardware to a museum or other nonprofit as a tax write off with little or no cost to the corporation. |
|
| Sep-13-05 | | ThomYorke: <patzer2> IBM didn´t give the log files. It took DB much more time than usual to make 'critical moves' in the second game. IBM didn´t allow a rematch. IBM desactivated DB. It´s more than enough |
|
| Sep-13-05 | | dhotts: You guys are way to serious about this. Put it in perspective, the DB project was a pimple on IBM's elephants ass, nothing more than that. Obviously, the people working on the project knew it was going to be shut down and this was a last ditch effort to prove something from nothing! IBM has already developed internal machines 10-100 times more powerful than DB by 1997 and were using them to solve real world problems. It never ceases to amaze me how caught up chess geeks are in chess and forget there is a real world. If IBM got some good publicity out of DB, they certainly paid for it. This project probably cost them over $20M/yr over 7yrs to run! By the way, that was nothing to IBM when they were on top having themselves as their own competitor. IBM spent Billions of $ on Josephson Junction technology from the 1960's to the 1980's and scrapped the project. DB was nothing and was never meant to be. It was just one more stride for technology. In ten years, we'll all have chess programs that play 3000+ plus chess. |
|
| Sep-13-05 | | patzer2: <Thom Yorke>
1. Was IBM under any legal obligation to provide the log file? If not,
IBM's initial refusal is a perfectly understandable response to Kasparov's cry of "foul play."2. Taking longer to find a critical move might be enough to raise a suspicion but proves nothing. 3. After winning, IBM had nothing to gain from a rematch and much to lose. 4. Deactivating an expensive program no longer serving its purpose only proves IBM was making a reasonable business decision. P.S. I don't enjoy defending IBM, and have no association with the company. I just don't see any solid evidence to prove the IBM Big Blue team cheated. |
|
| Sep-13-05 | | patzer2: <dhotts> By your estimate IBM spent $140 million over 7 years to claim a victory by Big Blue over the world Chess Champion. In giving the company highlights for the year 1997, the Annual Financial Report for IBM, which can be found at http://students.mba.wfu.edu/Researc..., States: <Deep Blue - a specially programmed RS/6000 SP supercomputer redefined
the way humanity understands its relationship to both machines and
thinking itself. It also showed the world an IBM energized by tackling
"grand" challenges-beginning with taking on the greatest grandmaster
in chess history, and now moving on to pharmaceuticals, financial
modeling and weather forecasting.>
Seems to me that IBM was <serious about this,> and considered it more than a <pimple on IBM's...>. Sports fans take allegations of cheating seriously in soccer, football, baseball, basketball etc.
Why should Chess fans be any different?
That being said, I don't think those making such allegations have any convincing proof. If I'm on the jury, I vote IBM not guilty as the accusers have not proven their case. |
|
| Sep-13-05 | | Hesam7: <patzer2> The cheating argument can be used against Kasparov as well. He could have bought IBM shares by a third party lost on purpose and sold them for a much higher price. |
|
| Sep-14-05 | | patzer2: <Hesam7> If there's one crime I'm certain Kasparov has never committed, it's insider trading of IBM stock. But you make a good point in suggesting unproven allegations can work both ways. |
|
| Sep-16-05 | | blingice: <kvcs> is silent. |
|
| Sep-16-05 | | BishopofBlunder: <blingice> <<kvcs> is silent.> That comment belongs on the Odd Lie page. |
|
| Sep-24-05 | | kvcs: <EVERYONE>
<kvcs> will be drafting a response at a later date. Thank you to all that have posted their thoughts. IBM is out to make money; more power to this corporation. But, where is this money coming from? More importantly, where is this money going? Questions, answers, theories abound everywhere. Please allow more time for one of our members to do research on this. For more reading you may consult this URL: http://forum.cowplay.com/viewtopic.... Full URL citation:
http://forum.cowplay.com/
viewtopic.php?t=96
This is the FORUM for CowPlay.com. Since forum.cowplay.com is an OPEN/RESTRICTED site, anyone with Internet access may read posts [OPEN]. To comment by posting, you must be a member [RESTRICTED]. |
|
| Oct-01-05 | | rjsolcruz: with this demolition job, we must prepare for the rise of the machines - the terminators. |
|
| Oct-13-05 | | AlexanderMorphy: LoL nice tagline...tangled up in the blue...LOL |
|
| Oct-13-05 | | kvcs: <KVCS> reponse from our Founder, Ancr, to detractors, here and elsewhere! After much thought, I have decided not to continue an association between
<KVCS> and <Chessgames.com> [CGc]. The report on the 1st Questionnaire was the breaking point for me. While <KVCS> will remain a Premium Member of CGc, my group will no longer make wholesale sharing of Chess information available to Kibitzing areas of CGc. The reasons for this are quite clear. Here's how it usually plays out [just like a bad Chessgame]: <KVCS> shares info or an opinion; rather than contribute, some 'poster' uses ad hominem attack, puts <KVCS> on IGNORE; later, this 'poster' takes <KVCS> off ignore long enough to gripe, etc, ad nauseum...I am sick of it. No more. I have said enough in this DEEP BLUE forum and at Forum.Cowplay.com to pique the interests of ANYONE truly interested in finding answers and contributing to a constructive Chess conversation. Any updates to this message will be made at The Kibitzer's Café. When two more threads are closed, Zsusza Polgar and Mir Sultan Khan, <KVCS> will no longer post to any Kibitzing areas of CGc. This thread is closed now for <KVCS>. |
|
| Nov-20-05 | | Chopin: If you want to know the facts surrounding this match, I suggest watching "Game Over". Kasparov made some valid points about IBM cheating; but you be the judge. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 16 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 9.O-O