Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:55:43 04/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 27, 2005 at 22:07:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 27, 2005 at 18:16:57, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On April 27, 2005 at 17:48:53, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>>On April 27, 2005 at 17:05:21, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On April 26, 2005 at 15:59:11, Steven Edwards wrote: >>>> >>>>>I'm sure that issue was covered in the match contract. In computer chess events >>>>>for nearly three decades prior to the event, adjustments made between games were >>>>>permitted. >>>> >>>>And this is the cancer that destroys honest computer vs human chess. >>>> >>>> >>>>>Kasparov knew what he was doing, particularly in the second match >>>>>after his experience with the first. >>>> >>>>Interesting to write what Kasparov knew. We should better deal with what the >>>>computerchess people knew. Apparently they didn't really know what they are >>>>doing. And that for decades already. Ok, humans never really cared that much >>>>because the overall chess emulation wasn't strong enough to be considered for >>>>serious. But if compuerchess is propagating the superiority over human chess >>>>things should be clarified a bit... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Kasparov is being a sore loser and is unhappy because he didn't get a third >>>>>match and the money that would have come with it. He's appears to be trying to >>>>>help draw attention to himself for his political asperations that have nothing >>>>>to do with chess, and he's making Valdimir Putin look good by comparison. >>>> >>>> >>>>For sure Kasparov isn't a sore loser when it was Hsu&IBM who deconstructed the >>>>machine so that no further tests could be made. Scientifically this is a crime >>>>(that is what Kasparov is saying in the quoted interview). Whith whom Kasparov >>>>should have made a third match? With people who betray their own science? >>> >>> >>>Unfair. It was not Hsu decision to "deconstruct" the machine. But you blame >>>him anyway. Why do you do this? It is completely unfair. >>> >>>You use this to claim Hsu cheated science. But your claim is bogus because Hsu >>>had NO CONTROL over that. >> >> >>You make me laugh and shed tears. A scientist who has no control over his >>science is no scientist! A scientist who sold his moral to economy has lost his >>status of scientist. This is so trivial and sad to know that this could happen >>in our field of computerchess. >> >> >> >>> > > > >Then I guess _none_ of us are "scientists". After we won the 1983 and 1986 WCCC >events running on a cray, the machines were taken apart and shipped to >customers. I could not have used them again. Ditto for every year we ran on a >Cray. The CCT before last, where I used the 4-opteron box from AMD was the >same, the machine was gone a week after the event. > >This is _very_ common, and is _not_ "unscientific" in the least... > It's understandable but still it's false. You always confuse mere computerchess events with computerchess vs human chess! I see that you are not prepared for real competition between computers and Man. :) > > > > >>>Give it up, Rolf. You can't fool anybody with such poor logic built upon false >>>premises. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>That >>>>Kasparov is not a politician, this is a different question. I would agree! He's >>>>not.
This page took 0.01 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.