Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:20:34 05/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2000 at 06:16:13, Hans Gerber wrote: >On May 11, 2000 at 22:13:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 11, 2000 at 19:33:42, Hans Gerber wrote: >> >>>On May 11, 2000 at 11:23:49, Albert Silver wrote: >>> >>>>On May 11, 2000 at 09:56:31, Hans Gerber wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 11, 2000 at 09:05:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 11, 2000 at 08:50:42, Hans Gerber wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>What is the actual adress for a webpage with the data after game two in 1997? I >>>>>>>must refresh my memory. Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I dont remember the precise URL. Go to www.ibm.com, the look for the >>>>>>'deep blue' link. that will get you to the right place. You will find >>>>>>a complete set of game logs for game 1 thru game 6. If you can't find them, >>>>>>let me know and I can email them to you. I have them all here on my machine. >>>>> >>>>>Yes I found it on the IBM page. But what I had been searching for wasn't there. >>>>>The transcript of the press conference after game two. You have said that >>>>>Kasparov made his remark about cheating right after game _two_, and in public. I >>>>>wanted to read that one. Also in the live commentary scripts of game two and >>>>>three I can't find a reference to the facts of your statement. Could we find a >>>>>clarification for that question? If it had happened like this, wouldn't it be >>>>>discussed in the live commentaries? >>>> >>>>Possibly. The live commentators were being paid by IBM, and IBM might easily >>>>have asked them to avoid touching on this subject. I found a reference in the NY >>>>Times piece after game 3 though: >>>>http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/050797weber.html >>>> >>>> Albert Silver >>> >>>I read that right now. But from that article you can't conclude that K. had >>>talked about "cheating" on a press conference after game two (as R. Hyatt said). >>>I tried to refresh my memory but I couldn't find any data yet. Is it true that >>>there was a press conference after game two at all? >> >> >>Yes, there was a meeting after each round. I am not sure Kasparov attended >>them all. But after each round, the players and press met in the media center. >>I wasn't there personally, so I can't say who attended which meetings, and I >>don't plan on bugging Hsu to ask for recollections about what happened. >> >>Clearly by round 3 he suggested something was wrong. Little doubt about how >>to interpret the comment Albert gave you a link to. A direct accusation... > >Two aspects: 1) the exact moment of his question and of the denial of the >prints, 2) the difference between events in reality and the reality of articles >in newspapers about "events". Let us analyse before we make our conclusions. > >You hypostated a direct connection between his _public_ question (which in >itself is accusation and insult in your view) and the (therefore justified) >_reaction_ of the DB team and IBM. Up to this moment I don't have any proof that >Kasparov made any (public) accusations after game two. back up a minute. I didn't "directly state" any connection between the claim of cheating and their denial of access to the printouts". I said "I think they were completely justified in turning down his request for several reasons." One of them being that I wouldn't give _anything_ to someone that accused me of cheating. IBM's official reason was _always_ that they didn't think it reasonable to give Kasparov a "view inside DB" by providing a complete log of the games. They did provide the output for the two moves he questions. Don't mix up what the DB team said vs what I said. It was always _me_ that said "I wouldn't have given him a thing after he accused me of cheating." They simply said "no". And "no" came from Tan. Not _anybody_ else. Murray didn't make the decision. He didn't make the announcement. He might have commented _after_ the decision was public. But neither he nor Hsu had _any_ control over things at that point. It was Tan and higher-ups. > >The article by B. Weber allows the ref went into the public with Kasparov's >request. Thus the request was stamped as impolite and based on a kind of >confusion. But _if_ it was made in discretion. He made it in public at a press conference. How could that be "in descretion"? > and in the belief of friendly >terms of talking? At the time of this newspaper's article, the request was not >even known in public. So, the article documented a turning point, initiated by >the DB team and IBM, in person of M. Campell, the second man behind Hsu. I don't know where this comes from, but it is wrong, as I mentioned above. Murray didn't initiate anything with respect to the logs. Perhaps >you are right that the later official statement was given by Tan, but in this >article there is a clear presence of the DB team to be seen... Tan _was_ the project director. He was directly Hsu's boss, and he was the head of the DB team.
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.