Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 04:26:32 05/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2000 at 21:38:44, Hans Gerber wrote: ><Murray Campbell, an IBM researcher on the Deep Blue team, shrugged off > Kasparov's sinister suggestion. > > >That's the intro of the Times. That's not Murray's comment, so don't attribute it to him. ><"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. Kasparov has just lost the second game, after winning the first game. Campbell's comment here is IMO quite reasonable. >< 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.) If Kasparov left hurriedly instead of attending the press conference after game two, would there be a difference? In any case, don't you think it is reasonable to expect Kasparov not to understand how the DB team "did what [they] did", given only two games experience against the machine and given that Kasparov is a world chess champion, as opposed to say, a doctor of Computing Science or Electrical Engineering? That's not presenting Garry as ignorant, that's just being realistic. >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. I would guess that he got overruled by a higher-up. That happens. <shrug> > < 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... Again, not arrogant, IMO: the champion had just resigned! He did qualify his statement with "apparently". Frankly, I think your accusation of arrogance is, well, arrogant. Dave
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.