Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 12:42:14 05/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 15, 2000 at 14:30:29, Hans Gerber wrote: >On May 15, 2000 at 07:29:50, Andrew Williams wrote: > >>I don't understand this point. Permit me to be a bit facetious, but surely >>by this argument I could claim to be World Champion on the grounds that when >>I lost to Polgar, Kramnik, Kasparov etc, I was intimidated by the fact that >>I couldn't understand why I kept losing. And when I asked them how they kept >>beating me they declined to answer. Surely I am the same player whether or >>not I am intimidated? If Kasparov was confused and intimidated, I think it >>was because he was ill-prepared for the match. And since he'd signed a >>contract accepting the conditions of the match, I would say that that >>was his own fault. I say this as a person who was hoping he would win. >> >> >>Andrew Williams > >Two aspects. > >Sure, it is obvious that Kasparov isn't innocent. He had all the possibilities >to make a better contract. He was quite naive. Point taken. > >But then, I come back to the standards of science. Obviously I couldn't make >clear what that means. You know the standards don't become weaker or less exact >only because someone like Kasparov didn't pay enough attention to preparation, >contract and so on. These standards must be respected even if a Kasparov would >have played with no contract at all. You know that is the worldwide accepted >ethos of science. You can't set under drugs your individual you want to examin, >if you claim to experiment how he will play against your machine. With the >intention to see how the machine's strength has improved. Because in that case >you examin the influence of drugs on your individual. In the case of our event >in 1997 the DB team (probably under the order of IBM) created a psychowar >against Kasparov just by denying the prints and going into the massmedia like >the NY Times. End of the story, Kasparov felt insulted, became upset, couldn't >solve the situation mentally and he played below his abilities. IBM won. > >In the not so far future this would have happened anyway. But in 1997 under >normal conditions Kasparov couldn't lose. PARDON???? Is this scientifically proven or are you just making it up? Andrew > >Still belonging to that aspect you seem to argue that Kasparov himself was the >one who allowed that they made him upset. Also here point taken. It's well known >that we have many GMs who would master such situations with much more >self-control. But wait a moment, this point is returned to sender. Again the >standards of science. By all means Hsu et al should have prevented such a >situation in the case of Kasparov. Because they - as scientists - will always be >remembered of having humiliated their invited human just to "win" the match. In >the case of Kasparov you can take that word "humiliated" for granted. But as you >can see, he came back and plays better chess than before. Let's see what Hsu >will achieve in future...
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.