Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 20:00:19 05/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 14, 2000 at 19:30:59, Hans Gerber wrote: >On May 14, 2000 at 11:59:02, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On May 13, 2000 at 08:15:40, Hans Gerber wrote: >> >>>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. :) >> >>Okay, and please read what I wrote. :) >> > >Slowly please. I didn't want to be impolite therefore I added the :), but if I >understood this correctly I thought that I had meant what you have claimed that >this was an intro by the newspaper, that means it wasn't a quote or whatever >from Campbell. So, where did I attribute something to Campbell? It seems that this particular subthread is headed into nitpick mode, so here goes: <nitpick> I did not state that you attributed the headline of the article to Murray Campbell. I only stated that readers of the thread (which certainly include yourself) shoudn't attribute the headline of the article to Murray Campbell. </nitpick> >>[snip] >> >>>I guess you are aware of what you are doing right now? :) >> >>You mean... being arrogant? :) >> >>Dave > >No. Although... if you express it like that? But for me there is another aspect. >The one of a discrimination of someone who had asked embarrassing questions. But >note that I am not responsible for the embarrassing answers. I still can't fully >understand that cheating shouldn't be controllable in computerchess. I was attempting to be arrogant earlier (and I had thought I succeeded, but... <shrug>) because I was attempting to juxtapose that behaviour with Murray's allegedly arrogant behaviour, with the aim of convincing you that Murray's comments were not arrogant. Whether I succeeded in that aim or not, though, that particular attempt is over. Regarding the broader issue of the curbing (if you'll permit the substitution) of cheating in computer chess: why do you believe that it should be possible? IMO it is very difficult to curb cheating in "real life", so to speak. Do you agree? If so, then on what basis do you believe it is easier to curb cheating in computer chess competition (irrespective of whatever form that competition might take: tournaments, SSDF list, etc.) that it would be in "real life"? Dave
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.