Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 08:08:02 05/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 13, 2000 at 09:44:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. You claimed that K. made ugly accusations in public, on a press conference, after game two. Not after game three. This is important because my recall is that he did not go into the public but asked in private. A difference. > >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. > You are trying to extend the span. This is very important because if you are wrong about the public accusation on the press conference of game two you lose your main argument against Kasparov. Because if he acted in private, then was treated in the known manner (first they agreed then denied the prints), his reactions in public _afterwards_ made more sense. > > >> >>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.) We go round in a circle. Your claim does astonish me. As I said, it was a scientific examination of the actual strength of the machine. Human tester: G. Kasparov. Agreed, he was well recompensated... Suddenly he had a suspicion. He asked for the prints. What is the problem? Of course Kasparov might have had some information about some details but (with consequences to the test as such) but what were the consequences after they denied him the information? The whole (expensive!) event had lost its meaning because Kasparov could no longer play his usual chess. Would you object against this _fact_? Exactly this was the content of my first article... > >But _during_ the match? No way. That would corrupt the experiment. > Uh, finally you accept that. And for the other variation, the one that had happened? >I'm not creating _any_ confusion. This _actually_ happened. Starting with >the press conference after game 2 and continuing to today... Ok, I doubt that. My memory is different. Kasparov did _not_ ask for the prints in public (at the press conference after game two). Your turn. >As I said, I had details as this went along. The net was _full_ of information >after each game. Yes, that would excuse if you had mixed up something in your memory. > 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. We are now at 48 hours after the second game. At first you claimed that it did happen at the press conference of game two. What is your intention? I did never doubt that Kasparov made some speculations _after_ they had denied him the prints. You tried to convince me that Kasparov had acted like this (in public!) right after game two. Let's not confuse that. > 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. For the moment I'm pretty sure that the first public mention was in the B. Weber article of the NY Times. Quoted source Murray Campbell! Your turn. > > >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. I had thought that we all had theories... (for example you seem to think that because he's still utterly wrong right now, Kasparov must have been wrong in 1997... is that reasonable for you?) > > > >I don't have any 'assumptions' here, so I don't know what you mean. > I meant the following. The scientists didn't act like scientists in their own experiment. This observation brought me into this debate here. I gave you that explanation because you made some spooky speculations about my starting motives here. >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. Perhaps it's my advantage that I wasn't influenced by all this? You shouldn't lose out of view the main point. Was it Kasparov who made public accusations against the DB team directly after game two -- _before_ they denied him the logfiles? And I mean _Kasparov_ not Friedel or the DB team members themselves. For me the first official statement about it came from M. Campbell directly quoted in the NY Times. >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... Then you missed the direct quotes... > >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... I don't understand your agitation. Do you fear that it could be that Kasparov really didn't make the public accusations directly after game two - as you have declared here? Is the whole aspect of the order of the incidents irrelevant for you? > > >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. Please! I did understand what you have explained. :) > 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... > > > > > > > >Read what happened between then and "the end of the match". Kasparov turned >it _very_ ugly by that point... > No. Not if he had asked in private, then was informed that this was doable and then was informed that this would not be done. Kasparov thereafter had a subjective right to feel busted, mistreated by his former friends... However the obligation of scientists is not depending on the quality of good relationships nor on the weather. You can't excuse Campbell with Kasparov's wrong-doing. BTW the whole world of chess wanted to have the details... > >jeez... Yes, this is a point that is speaking against the team of scientists. They had the obligation to watch the scientific standards of the experiment. It looked as if they didn't care that suddenly they examined the possibilities to play with a machine against an upset opponent. Was that the initial question? > >I'm not working for IBM. Hsu and Campbell were. They _had_ to do whatever >IBM legal said do. NO choice whatsoever.. This is completely against the selfunderstanding of scientists. As a scientist you might work for a company. You might follow the orders of the company when it comes to certain questions. Regarding making public certain things. _But_ as a scientist you have no choice, you have to guarantee the success of your experiment. If you create your own destruction of the whole experiment, just because you feel the obligation to follow the orders of your company, you have lost your reputation as a scientist. This is a very stupid behavior. Perhaps the IBM officials didn't know thus much about chess and Kasparov in particular. But the DB team around Hsu must have known better. They should have examined the questions of the influence on their experiment. They should have found a mode to calm Kasparov's suspicions and still saving the original experimental setting. (Reminds me of the film where the kid who knew all the quiz questions suddenly had to pee. He was forbidden to leave the stage. Consequence was a bit similar to the one in 1997. The boy could no longer answer the quiz. Wasn't it with Tom Cruise?)
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.