Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 05:15:40 05/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 13, 2000 at 07:26:32, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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. Please read what I wrote. :) > > >><"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. > I didn't doubt that his statement had substance. I was talking about the incidence as such. > >>< 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? Of course. Perhaps you could discuss that with R. Hyatt. > 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. You make me smile. Of course you are right. But exactly this what you find completely ok, this is what I find obsolete. This is the bad behavior I was talking about. (Always under the assumption that Kasparov did not yet accuse anyone of anything...) > >>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> Absolutely. Perhaps not a problem for you, but perhaps for Campbell? > > >> < 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". Exactly. For me this is arrogant. :) > > >Frankly, I think your accusation of arrogance is, well, arrogant. > >Dave I guess you are aware of what you are doing right now? :)
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.