Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:30:25 05/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2000 at 12:10:24, Hans Gerber wrote: >On May 12, 2000 at 11:07:04, Albert Silver wrote: > >>On May 12, 2000 at 06:16:13, Hans Gerber wrote: >> >> >>>>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. >>> >>>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 and in the belief of friendly >>>terms of talking? >> >>Kasparov isn't really know for his discretion, and if it had been printed >>against his will, he would not still be making this accusation _publicly_ until >>today. Here is a link to a speech given before the students of The Humanitarian >>University, St. Petersburg just now, April 10, 2000: >> >>http://www.clubkasparov.com/serve/templates/folders/show.asp?p_docID=4954&p_docLang=EN >> >>It speaks for itself. His argument still goes: if a PC program never plays the >>move, then DB couldn't have either. BTW, make sure you get the whole link as >>many browsers cut split it after the '?'. >> >> Albert Silver > > >I read that right now. What is your point? We have a very delicate situation. R. >Hyatt confirmed that there could be no protection against cheating. Taken that >for granted it's obvious that the DB team should have sought friendly >cooperation with Kasparov for the sake of the future of DB and computerchess. >The moment they denied the logfiles, they lost Kasparov as a confident friend. >In a way they are responsible for Kasparov's absence from computerchess. A fatal >loss. Note please that Kasparov is a genius in chess but in real life he's a >normal human being like you and me. Yes, he was successfully irritated or others >said he did it all by himself, yes, and what does that mean? That DB proved that >it is the best chessplayer of the world? - I don't think so. It might not have proven who is the 'best chessplayer' in the world. But it certainly left little doubt as to who is the biggest chess jerk in the world. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>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. 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...
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.