Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:44:22 05/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 13, 2000 at 08:05:06, Hans Gerber wrote: >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. I haven't _tried_ to find any information about the press conference. My memory is clear enough about what happened that I don't plan on wasting any big effort to reconstruct what happened. If you contacted Monty, I'm sure you have (or will) get a pretty clear picture, since he was there as one of the organizers of the event... As to drawing conclusions in a total vacuum, I see no way that can lead to anything useful. I told you what I recall. I am pretty certain the initial allegation of cheating came after game 2, when he asked for output. I am certain that by the press conference after game 3 he was going full-steam-ahead with the cheating claim. That covered a span of 48 hours, from the end of game 2, plus one non-playing rest day, plus the day for game 3. > >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? Why don't you ask intel for a detailed internal design description of the new Itanium? It has been out for over a year in evaluation form. Yet they have _just_ released the details. Companies release things when it think is to their advantage to do so, _not_ when they think it is to -our- advantage. IBM management made the choice to not release output. I _still_ believe it was the correct choice. After the match? Sure. And they were released after the match (maybe too long after the match, but at least they were released.) But _during_ the match? No way. That would corrupt the experiment. > > > >> 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. I'm not creating _any_ confusion. This _actually_ happened. Starting with the press conference after game 2 and continuing to today... > > >> >>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? As I said, I had details as this went along. The net was _full_ of information after each game. I chatted with people that were actually there, including a GM friend that gave some commentary for a couple of the games... There is _absolutely_ no doubt that over a specific 48 hour period, starting with the end of game two, and ending with the end of game three, that Kasparov made some ugly claims. This is all well-documented in news surrounding the event. I am sure you can find the NY times for the day after the loss in game 2, if you want to see what was going on. Check that paper, plus the next 2. The picture is pretty ugly. > >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? > I don't have a 'theory', you do. My comments are based on what happened. You only have to look at the URLs to recent comments by him to see how wrong he continues to be. > >> >>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.) > I don't have any 'assumptions' here, so I don't know what you mean. > > > >> 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? > > I haven't looked for any proof. It obviously happened. It caused a buzz on the net for days. You could probably even visit Dejanews and search for articles in r.g.c.c on the day of game 2. > > >> 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. > > > There was _nothing_ arrogant in the NY times article. That is something you are reading in between the lines, not in the printed text. There are no direct quotes by the DB team there. There is no arrogant behavior described there. At least none I can see using my glasses... >> >>_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? Sure... the asking was in private. He never mentioned wanting them in public. Fortunately we had several psychics at the event so we could find out about this and make it public for everyone to see... He _still_ doesn't mention any possiblity of cheating in public. The article Albert posted the URL for was really published in "The Psychic Times" and not the "New York Times" because we know that the NY Times doesn't have psychics on the staff... > >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? > I pointed out that he was ignorant for asking for the logs. They would not, could not, have proved that DB cheated, or that they didn't. For the reasons I have already given. He could just have well asked for their teacups after drinking tea, so that his fortune-teller could read the leaves in the bottoms of their cups to see if they were cheating... > >> >>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..." > Read what happened between then and "the end of the match". Kasparov turned it _very_ ugly by that point... > > >>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. > > jeez... > >> >>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... I'm not working for IBM. Hsu and Campbell were. They _had_ to do whatever IBM legal said do. NO choice whatsoever..
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.