Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 15:50:09 05/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 13, 2000 at 15:09:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >The cheating allegation _was_ made in public. It was reported in every >major newspaper, etc. NOT private. PUBLIC. May I repeat my question, when and where Kasparov did that? You can understand that question? I didn't ask when it were in the newspapers for the first time. Very slowly I become a little bit bored after your continual turn-around of my questions. > >When he played Anand two years ago, and after several draws, Anand suddenly >threw a wild punch, connected, and beat him, did he ask Anand for proof that >he didn't get help? Did he ask Anand for the analysis he was using to play >the moves, so he could be sure Anand knew the plan and wasn't getting outside >help? > >Same situation... To suggest that he should be given the printouts is >pure bullshit. This was a game between two chess-players. They should >(and were) treated the same whether they were human or silicon. Only >Kasparov wanted an 'edge'. Ok, sir, now you've crossed a border of misbehavior I won't tolerate from you. I will answer this article here as good as I can and then the discussion is ended. Excuse me. But let me explain that I am very certain that it wouldn't guarantee equality (you brought this "edge" into the debate) if we treated the machine and the human _likewise_. In special in that event. Kasparov was invited as a guest to test the machine. His performance over the years was well known. However what the machine could do was not so well known. So, all the questions about control are connected with the machine. > > >He asked for something he shouldn't have gotten. They eventually said >"no". I don't see the problem. If I was playing him in a match, and >he asked me to drop my pants, I would also say "no". If he gets bent out >of shape about that and loses, that isn't _my_ problem. Ok, if you "don't see the problem" you can't no longer take part in our discussion. I am sorry. Question remains why you have shown so much interest. > > > > > > >Were you there? Did you talk to people about the match? Did you read Hsu's >written account of the events? > >No, No, and No, I assume... I see. I forgot that you had to take part before you could ask questions. Completely new concept of science... > >For me, Yes, Yes and Yes. > :) >Does it matter whether he went bananas after game two or three? How so? He >did it on a stage, in front of several hundred press people. How would it be >different (and perfectly ok) to do it after game three, but not after game >two? > >This is a purely bogus argument... Argument taken. But let me be clear about this. Yes, it makes a big difference. And you know quite well why this is so important. Because you must delete the impression that the DB side started to talk in public about the question of the prints. When you had stated that it was Kasparov on the press conference after game two. B. Moreland already flew in for your help, declaring that this question was totally "boring and stupid". >I am certain it was _not_. The article in the NY times was written _after_ >the public allegation. Clearly so. He mentioned that Murray "shrugged the >allegation off." _clearly_ after the claim was public. _clearly_. IMO after the request for the prints in private. And please note that I do no longer debate about articles in newspapers. What I want is one little proof for the existence of a press conference after game two. Clear enough? (I had written:) >>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?) >> > > >Yes... I didn't expect your answer. Interesting logic. > >Nothing spooky. I can read. You think DB's team did something wrong. I don't think but I know it. The denial of the prints, an unfriendly act, destroyed their experimental setting. Hint: Kasparov could no longer play his usual chess. Convinced? > You >have already made up your mind, whether you have any data to support you >or not. I have made up my mind. But I did so _after_ I saw the printouts >that were released within a few days of game 2 (in the NY Times, if you want, >you can look it up to see exactly when the output for the two moves he >questioned was published). After I analyzed the output and found it perfectly >normal. After I published some output from Crafty that looked _exactly_ like >the output from Deep Blue. After Amir Ban said "this output needs to be >explained by IBM, it makes no sense and seems to suggest that it made a move >without any reason." After I looked at the output and explained _exactly_ >what every line meant. After I watched Kasparov continue to make the claims. >After The complete set of logs were published and looked at with a microscope >by many of us. After he continued to report that the logs had never been >released... > >Get the idea??? You seem incapable to understand what the real question is for me. My point was, why they didn't (perhaps with your help) explain that to Kasparov after game two. Get that? I don't doubt your description at all. I don't doubt that you are right that nothing seemed wrong. But then my name is _not_ Kasparov. Get that? :) Perhaps he can understand a bit better the chessic part of the whole question. But I have no reason to believe you. If only you could understand that it would have helped the whole match if Kasparov could have been convinced too... >Right... you weren't influenced by the real 'data'. Just what you want to >think??? I must agree that you have something in common with M. Campbell. Sloppy remarks.. >there were _no_ direct quotes... Did I misinterprete the " " ? (I wrote:) >>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? > > >nope... Thank you. I was afraid of the contrary because B. Moreland made such a strong proposal. >OK. I tire of this silly argument. Consider this my last post. You are free >to give any comments you want... But you could prove your assertion if you like. Looks better after so many lines. The one with the press conference after game two where Kasparov should have made his (after you) ugly public accusations... Until now I have not seen any proof for this.
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.