Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:01:54 05/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2000 at 14:06:55, Hans Gerber wrote: >On May 12, 2000 at 13:28:56, Robert Hyatt 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>This is _still_ utter rubbish. Complete logs from all 6 games are public. >>He says they have never been released. The logs for the key moves are easy >>to understand, even though he says they are not (I believe part of this >>confusion was caused by Amir's comments about the logs). > > >Fact is that the DB team did do nothing to prevent such a confusion, if it's a >confusion at all. This is not the way scienctists should behave... > >It's time to look through the confusion we have here in our debate. > >Kasparov is one of the best chessplayers but he is not a scientist nor a famous >expert in computerchess. We should not doubt his honesty when he makes his >claims. > >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 Kasparov is a jerk. Because less than one month ago, he made a statement that is now an outright lie. The logs have been out for many months. They were discussed here and on other forums in great detail. There is no conceivable way that he would not know about that now. "jerk" is actually quite polite, knowing my _true_ feelings. :) > >Kasparov said that "from all what we know about computerchess" no computer would >play such and such moves. > >Now -- if this is completely false, why not contact him or one of his >confidentals to give him the opportunity to update his knowledge -- if you are >sure that he is badly wrong? This was discussed. Someone had already told him that at the point in time of that game, no less than junior 5.0 would play the move h5 (one move he said no computer would play). He is aware of the other analysis that was done on the various moves, I am sure... The question _must_ be asked, "Why does he _continue_ to make such disingenuous statements?" Whining? > >This afternoon, following A. Silver's hint, I visited Kasparov's site and tried >to send him "feedback" about the crucial question. Unfortunately the >transmission didn't function. > >This was my text: > >quote: > >Actually there is a debate going on in CCC about the match against DB in 1997. I >want to invite either Gary Kasparov himself (perhaps with a pseudonym) or the >editor of this site to take part and to argue against the statement by Robert >Hyatt that "it is wrong what Kasparov always is repeating, that 'all what we >know about computerchess is NOT made to explain why DB played the way it did in >the second game'". > >It was mentioned that even micros find the moves in question. What are further >arguments from the side of G. Kasparov? > > >Sincerely Hans Gerber > >end of quote > You wouldn't get a response if the post had gone thru, I'll bet... > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>>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.