Author: allan johnson
Date: 02:04:02 01/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2003 at 00:40:38, Roger D Davis wrote: >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 Roger This is mere speculation.You have no hard evidence that a fix is on. Until you do why should anyone listen? Al
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.