Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 11:21:52 05/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2000 at 13:35:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 12, 2000 at 11:33:41, Hans Gerber wrote: > >>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? >> > >Best person to ask... monty newborn at McGill university (chair of the CS >department there). He can be reached via email. And he was present for the >entire match. > Could you mail me the adress? > >> >> >>>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". > > >Did they not release details "after the match"? They have made presentations >around the world, written articles on the hardware, released the complete set >of game log files. Seems to me that they did it just as they promised. I >don't take "after the match" to mean 30 seconds after the last game ended. Do you think that any of these publications could answer the questions Kasparov had? Please don't simply repeat "but he's a jerk...". > > > >> >> >>>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 have told you what I remember. Problem is that you couldn't prove the existence of such a press conference with Kasparov where he made these accusations. > He couldn't understand the move Be4 rather >than Qb6. He couldn't understand the move axb5. Then, after he had it pointed >out to him that he had resigned in a drawn position, he started "How could the >computer miss that simple draw?" About the most _stupid_ question I have ever >heard, since _he_ overlooked the "simple draw" himself. You see, this had nothing to do with any press conference. Your memory is at least wrong in relation to the exact history. The often quoted "stupid" remark was reported by F. Friedel. It was made in a private situation, _not_ in public. And most important _not_ on a press conference after game two. All that is very important to judge the details of the denying to give the prints... > >All this spells "jerk". IMHO. > We read that. Could you please argue without such a wording? :) > > > > >> >>> >>> >>>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.