Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 08:33:41 05/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2000 at 09:20:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Yes. Therefore I wanted to get more details about this "accusation of cheating". Therefore time and place is important. At the moment we have the article in the Times (=> public statement about speculations about K.'s state of mind) and _your_ description that K. had formerly accused the DB side of cheating _on the press conference after game two_, that would mean _in public_. I repeat my wish to know more about the press conference... If the _request_was not made in public, I want to know what brought M. Campell into the article of the NY Times? >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. I apologize if you could have the impression that I did that. > 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. Then I want to comment that the commentary by M. Campell was very arrogant and insulting for Kasparov. BTW it wasn't the truth when he announced this explanation how DB and "we" did it for "after the match". >He made it in public at a press conference. How could that be "in descretion"? > Could you give us more details about that press conference (after game two with Kasparov present)? > > >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. > > >Tan _was_ the project director. He was directly Hsu's boss, and he was the >head of the DB team. Ok, let me put it this way, if the DB team of _scientists_ had any kind of difficulty with the decision of Tan, wouldn't it be smart to keep quit and not to go into the NY Times and making arrogant commentaries about the actual state of mind of Kasparov? You remember the beginning of the debate. My claim (supported by E. Schröder) was that scientists had to show him the logfiles, if it was a friendly situation mainly to find out what the machine could achieve. You said it was IBM. Now could you demonstrate why Murray Campell had to comment the situation the way he did if there was any kind of dissence between the business side of IBM and the science side of DB, Hsu et al? Kasparov's ignorance and confusion about the machine and how "we" did it was well noticed by the DB side of scientists. I repeat my question, do you think that scientists should have acted this way _in public_? I don't think so. More so if we can't confirm that Kasparov did make his "accusations" in public on a press conference _after game two_ at all.
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.