Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 10:43:30 01/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
> Roger This is mere speculation.You have no hard evidence that a fix is on. >Until you do why should anyone listen? >Al Well, this is exactly the point...there is no hard evidence. After the Kramnik-DF match, I got kind of tired of hearing people saying it was fixed. You can probably say ANYTHING is fixed, after the fact. At least two characteristics separate scientific theories from conspiracy theories. First, scientific theories make predictions. Conspiracy theories are always post doc. But the best conspiracy theories share with scientific theories the fact that they seem to account for all the evidence at hand. So this time I thought, why not turn it around and generate a conspiracy theory that actually makes hard empirical predictions. That way, if the predictions fail, then the conspiracy theory is falsified (taking a page in the philosophy of science from Sir Karl Popper here). So I tried to generate the best conspiracy theory I could, one that seems to take into account the dynamics of the situation in a convincing way in order to predict an outcome. My conspiracy theory predicts that Kasparov will win, that he will win by a narrow margin, and that only this allows him to compliment Deep Junior on its quality of play. He needs to do all these things in order to help put Deep Blue behind him. So...rather than listen to the screech of conspiracy theories, I thought it best to actually make predictions that were open to falsification. Now it's an honest "horse race" between Conspiracy theory and the theory that it's a Fair Match. Let's see how it turns out. :) 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.