Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 15:54:53 05/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 15, 2000 at 18:04:02, Andrew Williams wrote: >On May 15, 2000 at 17:03:24, Hans Gerber wrote: > >>No, it's _not_ proven that Kasparov couldn't lose against DB under normal >>conditions - - but if I look _how_ Kasparov lost the two games, how DB lost his >>game, what GMs had commented, -- then I am sure that DB was not better than >>Kasparov in 1997. > >Like you, I thought Kasparov would win. When he didn't win, I thought it was >because he hadn't played very well. It is a breathtaking leap of logic to >immediately blame his poor form on Hsu et al. If your whole argument is >founded on your certainty that Kasparov was going to win, then you don't have >much of an argument, in my opinion. > >Andrew Not the certainty to win. My certainty is that the scientists around Hsu should _not_ have done what they did. Not for moral reasons. Not for reasons of gentleman's sports, but because the acted against standards of science. But let's keep it here, you don't mention my main argument, so it doesn't make much sense to discuss. For me this is not about persons who could be blamed. Not Hsu, not Kasparov. My intention was to lead the attention of the group away from such personalizing to the standards of science. You should at least read the articles of the whole debate for the past week. Do that and then perhaps new questions could be discovered. To propose that Kasparov had a 'poor form' is wrong. Take game one. Was that poor form? No, the crucial game was the second. And we are again in a debate that is not genuinely one about chess, but about computerchess and the impossibility to control the output of a machine. That means, the door to cheating is wide open. Perhaps you think about the chess one could play under such conditions.
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.