Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:18:15 05/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2000 at 21:38:44, Hans Gerber wrote: >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.) > This is going nowhere. You missed _everything_ that happened, yet you want to draw conclusions in a total vacuum. Press conference before the match started> "Kasparov, how do you think that DB would do against fritz or a commercial program?" His answer: "I think it would win maybe 70% of the time." The DB guys _knew_ better. By the NY times story, the cheating accusation was already public. Hence the "He shrugged off the ..." You would do much better to first check what happened, _before_ making up your mind about who was arrogant and who was mistreated. You are _way_ off on both counts... IE I get the distinct idea you have made up your mind, and are now searching for details to support your position, even if you have to take them out of context and ignore many bigger details in doing so. This story unraveled over many days... The DB team was _always_ polite, even after the idiotic accusations they had to face. They didn't rant, they didn't call him a cheater. They didn't call him a poor loser. They just sat on the stage and took the abuse. _all_ of the abuse was from K's side here... He asked for something he had no business asking for. Something he would not have been given had he played _any_ other chessplayer. But that aside, the output has been public for many months. Yet he _still_ continues to say it is 'secret'. Doesn't that say _something_ to you??? >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.er \\\\\\\ Show me where you read that. After the match is after the match. Next year would _still_ be "after the match". And by the end of the match, things had changed drastically for the worse. I don't think they would have much to say to him after the final press conference nonsense... > > > < 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 _is_ intuitive. Did not Kasparov _resign_ because _he_ did not see that perpetual? A simple statement of fact is 'arrogant'? Again, the idea that your mind is made up no matter what the facts seem to suggest... If you are a Kasparov fan, feel free to be one. If you are a deep blue enemy there is little I can say to change that. But there is little reason to debate if both sides are immovable in their opinion, regardless of the facts in evidence...
This page took 0.01 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.