Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 05:05:06 05/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2000 at 22:18:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >This is going nowhere. You missed _everything_ that happened, yet you want >to draw conclusions in a total vacuum. We are approaching a new stage in our discussion. Obviously it doesn't please you that you still couldn't find proof for your statement that Kasparov made his accusations on a press conference after game two. So you must place me in a total vacuum where I draw my conclusions. Very convincing indeed. Perhaps it's good to remind you of the beginning of our exchange here where I claimed that scientists should have given the prints. Now we are in a _very_ distant area of questions. Intention? > 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 ..." Would you please be careful with the implication that "it was public because Kasparov had made it public on the press conference after game two"? Let's not create too much confusion. > >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... Interesting turning point. Then would you please check what happened in the press conference after game two before you hypostate that Kasparov accused the DB team of cheating exactly there? Interesting method to invite _me_ to collect enough data to prove your theory. I would have contacted Monty Newborn as you proposed but why do you attack _me_ as if _I_ had not checked what happened when in reality it was you? > >IE I get the distinct idea you have made up your mind, and are now searching >for details to support your position, Interesting observation. Perhaps you can reflect on the days of the coming weekend about the process of making hypotheses. Perhaps then you can explain how you could do it without assumptions. (Hint: my assumptions were fed by an observation, namely the contradiction between the profession of these members of the DB team and their behavior in the question of the prints. Just read the first part of our exchange.) > even if you have to take them out of >context and ignore many bigger details in doing so. Yes, I was responding to someone who questioned my interpretation of the article in the NY Times. It wasn't possible to write a book about the whole event... > This story unraveled over >many days... The DB team was _always_ polite, even after the idiotic >accusations they had to face. This is what you are repeating over and over again. But still you could not find any proof for Kasparov's accusations in public - on the press conference after game two. Shouldn't you argue a bit more careful? > 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. My point was however that they behaved impolitely and arrogantly in the press. Just read the article in the NY Times. Always under the assumption that _Kasparov_ did _not_ accuse them in public after game two. > >_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??? > This is not the point. The public accusations, where were they? Or did you change your argument? Is it his "asking" in private that is the insult? As to your question. You explained convincingly that they could have faked the data if they had wanted to. So what is your point? Do you think that I am defending Kasparov? Just because I dared to reflect about the obligations of scientists? > >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... Read the article in the NY Times. "At the end of the match..." >This _is_ intuitive. Did not Kasparov _resign_ because _he_ did not see that >perpetual? A simple statement of fact is 'arrogant'? Of course. Has something to do with chess. Kasparov said that he simply believed the machine. Against a GM he wouldn't have done that. He would have analysed the position. So, what Campbell is saying here, is completely wrong and arrogant to the "guest" and champion Kasparov. > >Again, the idea that your mind is made up no matter what the facts seem to >suggest... You are wrong. Didn't I confirm that the case would be different _if_ Kasparov would have accused them of cheating in public on your press conference after game two? Interesting style you have in our discussion... > >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... In special in view of your presesentation of "facts" that can't be proven. As I said right at the beginning of our exchange here, I'm surprised by the astonishing behavior of the scientists of the DB team. BTW you can't "forget" to be a scientist just because you are working for IBM. I hope that I didn't violate a taboo...
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.