Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 18:38:44 05/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2000 at 17:34:16, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>On May 12, 2000 at 14:06:55, Hans Gerber wrote:
>
>>It doesn't look "good" to read "jerk" in your articles on and on. The question
>>must be allowed if you are still an objective scientific observer and thinker
>>for the whole question. A teacher, sure, can accuse his pupils of being dumb
>>nuts, but does this analogy is allowed in case of Kasparov, the chess genius? It
>>seems as if you wanted to continue the impolite, arrogant and aggressive style
>>of Murray Campell in the NY Times' article... Why?
>
>Substantiate this claim (that Murray Campbell's style in a NY Times' articles
>was impolite, arrgoant, and aggressive), or resign, Chris.
>
>[There, that's a real example of impolite, arrogant, and aggressive (accusatory,
>too, for good measure :-) for you to compare whatever Murray was quoted as
>saying against.]
>
>Dave
<Murray Campbell, an IBM researcher on the Deep Blue team, shrugged off
Kasparov's sinister suggestion. >
That's the intro of the Times.
<"He can't be happy," Campbell said, "particularly after
making such a good start.>
You have a friend. A guest, you had invited to help you to find out some answers
for a few problems.
Now please believe simply that it's impolite, aggressive to go into the mass
media (!!) and to declare 'my guest can't be happy' of what we are doing with
him right now.
< He doesn't know how we did what we did, and at the end of
the match, we'll tell him." >
So we have the guest and it happens that our guest is perhaps the best
chessplayer of the world and we still declare in public 'he has no idea, but we
will tell him'. Isn't this a clear sign for arrogance, more, a sign for hybris?
To present your guest as an ignorant? (For a deeper interpretation we need the
facts if Kasparov had attended a press conference after game two. If he did and
if he had made the accusations of cheating, _then_ the whole case looked
different.)
BTW R. Hyatt stated that he didn't see the promise to give explanations " 30
seconds after the end of the match". But the quote shows that Campbell meant
exactly that. "At the end of the match", not after the match or years later.
< As for the perpetual check, Campbell admitted, "Deep Blue missed it."
"Yes, it was a perpetual check," Campbell said. "But it turned out it
was a very deep
perpetual check, at least 15 moves down the line." In other words, it
was beyond the
computer's search, as it was apparently beyond the intuitive powers of
the champion. >
Here we go with the next arrogance. We have the famous chess expert Campbell who
declares in public that the perpetual check was beyond the intuitive power of
the champion...
This page took 0.03 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.