Talk:Deep Blue (chess computer)

message: Was the Prozessor too simple or even in Power Saving mode 2A00:20:3001:91E4:E8C3:6BCC:5765:A6C0 (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easily too dump and unexperienced or even on low energy 

message: I just noticed this article... It doesn't have direct bearing, but might be worth a mention regarding what direction things have taken since the time of Deep Blue... What direction that work has sent us. Bill Woodcock (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future direction worth mentioning? 

message: I restored the longstanding lede description of Deep Blue as a supercomputer instead of the unhelpful relatively recent change to characterize it as an expert system.  Chess playing computers have occasionally been described as expert systems, but that isn't especially common.  The :expert system article does not mention Deep Blue or chess playing computers or even any games playing computers at all.  The link to the expert systems page didn't help the reader learn anything about Deep Blue at all.  By contrast, the :supercomputer article does mention Deep Blue specifically.  The lede is supposed to summarize the important points in the body of the article, but "expert system" was mentioned nowhere except the lede.  Quale (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You just created self-reflexive nonsense. "Deep Blue was a chess-playing supercomputer run on a unique purpose-built IBM supercomputer." A computer is the hardware.  An expert system is the software.  Software runs on hardware.  Hardware doesn't run on hardware.  And hardware doesn't magically do anything without software.  And appeals to antiquity are just a logical fallacy, not a supporting argument.  Reverted. EVhotrodder (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full circle on describing Deep Blue as an "expert system" 

message: In the article it says on the 44th move in the first game of the second match there was a bug. The source is also talking about 1997, first game: "[...]referred to an incident that had occurred toward the end of the first game in their 1997 match with Kasparov". This is the first game of the 1997 match: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070915
44. Rb1 is the only valid move in this position. There is no other move. Where is the bug?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.250.206.130 (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 44.Rb1 is in game 4 of the 1997 match. The 'bug' is 44...Rd1 in game 1 of that match. Your Chessgames.com link is game 4, not game 1. --IHTS (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug in 44th move 

message: the remark " The opening book encapsulated more than 4,000 positions and 700,000 grandmaster games " sets foot on a big compare that is impossible for a human being. is there any REAL information about the REAL software used? how many moved where result of a giant COMPARE function and how many maove were realy CALCUlated... instead of "holding up to the light and look for that one open pinchhole" but then very, very, very(etc) quick
and are references or links to those computer routines ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.149.83.125 (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software types of Compare 

message: I don't get the trend of classifying everything that has Alpha Beta search as brute force. Sure there is a large search and the speed (averaged) of 200 M positions per seconds is impressive but it is negligible compared to the search space. There is a great deal of smart pruning, I wouldn't call it mainly brute force.
Sources: 
IBM’S DEEP BLUE CHESS GRANDMASTER CHIPS 
Behind Deep Blue, Feng-hsiung Hsu 
And related articles to 1. Pier4r (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The system derived its playing strength mainly from brute force computing power" 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Deep Blue (supercomputer) can be discussed separately. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 01:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I also don't see any reasonable claim for the shark to have similar long term significance to the computer. This can be seen by search for sources; the shark has news coverage and passing mentions in a couple of scholarly sources, while the computer has hundreds of scholarly articles and books written solely on it. It can also be seen in how the sources describe the two; sources describe the computer as a technological milestone; sources have made no such claims of significance about the shark or, I would bet, any other topic on this list. BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 150% more views is hardly a typical threshold to make something a primary topic. I would think more like 1000% more views or close to it. And dismissing "One of the largest great white sharks recorded" and an icon for shark conservation as a mere triviality indicates some bias towards the computer. I simply don't see an obvious primary topic here. Despite Deep Blue arguably being a bit more important, it's not enough to make it "obviously" the article that should take precedence.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The threshold is "much more likely"; 150% more would appear to meet that. I'm also not seeing any claim that the shark is an icon for shark conversation; such a claim isn't included in the article and it isn't in any of the sources in the article. I would contrast that with the computer, which reliable sources regularly describe as a milestone and a major accomplishment, and I would also contrast that with the depth of coverage received in reliable sources; compared to the computer, the shark has received very little coverage. This tells us that sources accord the computer far greater significance; we should follow the sources. BilledMammal (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

text:  I was also surprised by the page-views for the shark.  Clearly, no topic other than the chess computer could be the primary topic.  But, overall, I see the evidence as people viewing it as more "historical trivia" than "a transformational impact to computing".  (The separate issue of considering the primary topic separately for Deep Blue v. Deep blue is complicated, and I am happy to avoid commenting on it.) Walt Yoder (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 11 June 2023