Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 09:36:37 05/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2000 at 06:16:13, Hans Gerber wrote: >Two aspects: 1) the exact moment of his question and of the denial of the >prints, 2) the difference between events in reality and the reality of articles >in newspapers about "events". Let us analyse before we make our conclusions. > >You hypostated a direct connection between his _public_ question (which in >itself is accusation and insult in your view) and the (therefore justified) >_reaction_ of the DB team and IBM. Up to this moment I don't have any proof that >Kasparov made any (public) accusations after game two. > >The article by B. Weber allows the ref went into the public with Kasparov's >request. Thus the request was stamped as impolite and based on a kind of >confusion. But _if_ it was made in discretion and in the belief of friendly >terms of talking? At the time of this newspaper's article, the request was not >even known in public. So, the article documented a turning point, initiated by >the DB team and IBM, in person of M. Campell, the second man behind Hsu. Perhaps >you are right that the later official statement was given by Tan, but in this >article there is a clear presence of the DB team to be seen... This is so incredibly boring, you might as well do tea leaves or numerology. I'm surprised nobody has run astrological charts of these people in order to find the supposed truth. This was a non-starter when it was proposed almost three years ago, it's only dragged out by people who think the CIA killed Kennedy. It is time to move on, folks. I am sure there is something newer and more interesting to have conspiracy fantasies about. I just hope that the next hot conspiracy topic pertains to human chess more exclusively this time, so that it will be more properly on-topic in the other group, which I don't read. bruce
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.