Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 21:40:38 01/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2003 at 22:03:56, Carlos Lantigua wrote: >Let´s be sincere, a super GM of the calibre of Kasparov couldnt missed the >winning move 25, imagine if Kasparov would won game 2, the match wouldnt be >interesting for the public and for the comercial interest of DJ, Kasparov and DJ >team agree he would win the match on a very narrow margin, perhaps 1 or 1/2, >thus Kasparov and DJ would be happy. > >PS, excuseme my bad English.) Quite right, it's all fixed. ;) I have already posted about this. I believe that for the conspiracy theorist, the dynamics of the situation require that Kasparov win by a narrow margin. First, if he loses, people will say that Deep Blue really was stronger, that it's victory was not a fluke, that it was not a case of nerves by Kaspy, but that Deep Blue really was just better than the best human player in history. So we know that Kasparov will win the match. He has to. Accordingly, Conspiracy theory predicts that what is at issue is his margin of victory, not the outcome. I believe that Conspiracy theory requires Kasparov to win by a very narrow margin. Once again, consider the dynamics of the situation: If he blows the machine away, then people will argue that Junior is not as strong as Deep Blue, which makes for only a hollow victory. So he has to throw a few games. Sure, he wants to get in one or two big swipes just to show how strong he is, as he did in game one, but the overall match score must be a narrow victory by Kasparov. Only this margin of victory allows Kasparov to comment favorably on the machine's play during or after the match, and only this margin of victory allowsh him to argue that although the human hero won, DJ's moves were of a higher level than those of Deep Blue. Moreover, there is money involved. These matches, the top 1 or 2 players versus the top 1 or 2 computers, will be repeated over and over again. But they only draw big money if there's tension, if the sides are not radically mismatched. Otherwise, people would lose interest. Again, the prediction is that Kasparov will eek out a narrow margin of victory. The problem with conspiracy theories is that they're always post hoc. In my opinion, it's very important that these conspiracy theories be advanced before the fact, in order to demonstrate their genuine predictive value. Roger
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.