Author: Peter W. Gillgasch
Date: 21:38:58 01/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
[Sorry for overquoting, but I feel that this is a major issue since it looks like a character assassination to me.] On January 13, 2000 at 23:31:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 13, 2000 at 20:20:48, Frederic Friedel wrote: > >>We received the following reaction to the open letter published by F.H. Hsu. It >>is by Garry Kasparov?s manager Owen Williams. Garry himself is on a flight to >>Holland, on his way to the GM tournament in Wijk aan Zee. The letter is also on >>Mark Crowther's site, or will be there soon. >> >>Feng Hsiung Hsu's open letter is extraordinarily misleading and he demonstrates >>a troubling ability to ignore certain responses and to take items out of context >>or make them up and put them in his letter as facts. In his Open Letter he says: >> >>"...Owen never said a straight yes or no to my question of whether Kasparov was >>interested in a match. " >> >>If you read the next paragraph, you will see his inability to read plain >>English. On Nov. 30th, I had responded as follows: >> >>"With regard to a match against a computer, Garry would be happy to consider a >>Challenge under the right circumstances with the rules carefully laid out." OK. This does not imply that you and Mr Kasparov are against the match. Why did you and Mr Kasparpov not give FHH a letter of intend to play his machine under if some conditions of your choice are met ? Exactly what would you and Mr Kasparov lose in doing so ? >>I went on to explain to Mr. Hsu that for Garry to consider a match, the >>prizemoney would have to be substantial, that putting his World Title on the >>line with an untried and untested opponent did not make any sense at all and >>suggested politely but firmly that Mr. Hsu would have to get his program up and >>running on his own or with a backer and then play many games including other >>computer programs and to establish himself as THE CONTENDER. I can understand your point of view perfectly. Up to this point. >>Obviously, Mr. Hsu did not like my answers very much, became belligerent and >>made threats and even grandly imposed deadlines. > >That is the first statement that _really_ sounds like an outright false >statement. I have known Hsu for a _long_ time... dating back to 1987. I >can't imagine him becomming "belligerent" ever. I have watched as he was >forced to forfeit a game due to a power failure. I have watched as things >didn't go his way with a person he _definitely_ didn't get along with >(Berliner). I have _never_ seen him lose his temper as this letter implies. > >It is always _possible_. But so is cold fusion, in theory. But in practice? >I haven't seen it. I had the chance of seeing him and Murray losing under totally outrageous circumstances to Fritz 3.1 at CUHK. The guys have been the favourites for the tourney, they have been under extreme pressure due to their affiliation with IBM, due to the fact that it was planned to sign the arrangments for the first match versus Mr Kasparov during the event, FHH was under extreme pressure because the chip was not yet fabbed etc. The guys - and especially FHH - have been absolutely stoic about it. FHH didn´t even have an angry face... Murray looked a bit helpless :) I have a hard time to believe that this guy can lose his temper at all !!! >> >>On Dec. 3rd, amongst other things, I repeated to him: >> >>"Your tone is quite hostile and with angry people, I like to keep my responses >>simple. Garry remains ready, willing and able to play a serious match against a >>computer - under the right conditions." >> >>So persistent did Mr. Hsu become that on Dec. 21s I wrote to him: >> >>"He (Kasparov) will not be associated with an open letter like this. It is not >>the way he does business and it would run counter to discussions he is having >>with others." I see... >>The next day Mr. Hsu sent a draft letter intended to go out openly soliciting >>sponsors on his and Garry's behalf! So what ? If he needs funding for a little work, some tools and some fabbing cost can´t you imagine that a forthcoming match versus Mr Kasparov would not help ? It is obviously a Catch 22 situation. If he cannot *prove* that Mr Kasparov will play the machine he cannot build the machine and as long as he does not have the machine Mr Kasparov refuses to sign a letter of intend that he would be playing the machine under certain well defined circumstances ? Truly wonderful. >>On Dec. 23rd, I replied as follows: >> >> "I think that maybe I am not expressing myself very clearly. Mr. Kasparov does >>not authorize you to say anything at all. I hope this is very clear." >> >>Incredibly, Mr. Hsu wrote once again, wanting Garry's authorization for another >>letter. I´d say your problem is obvious. You don´t want FHH to built the PCI card either because Mr Kasparov does not like the idea for private reasons or because such a card would threaten business interests of him or others he is related with. >>My last e-mail (in exasperation) was: >> >>"You continue making statements which are your words and not Garry's. Please >>read what I have sent you very carefully." >> >>Effectively, Mr. Hsu had many strikes against him: >> >>* He behaved as if he was Deep Blue and we know he is not. > > >That is a good one. Hsu _is_ DB. And they certainly know this. To say >otherwise is not only stupid, it is classless. Well put Bob. >>* All he had was a computer chip with no organization or sponsor behind him. > > >Had Kasparov agreed to the match, I'd bet Hsu would have had a lot more behind >him. But I am becoming convinced that Kasparov didn't _want_ anybody behind >Hsu, because then he doesn't have to worry about a third match happening. I feel that Mr Kasparov and his advisors are either not understanding that FHH has "only" the intellectual capabilities and the intellectual property rights for __building__ the chip and hence needs a helping hand in his effort to get the funding by receiving a letter of intend by Mr Kasparov and his advisors or they simply do not want to see Deep Blue for PeeCees to shake up the chess business on this planet. Since no one can be so ignorant to overlook the obvious and FHH has a proven track record of building VLSI chess machines, I believe the latter until proved otherwise. >>* Garry made it very clear that he was not going to give him time just to go on >>a "fishing trip" for a year or two to try and attract sponsors or money. > >And what reason was given? He lost in 1977. we are now in the year 2000. >Would 2001 or 2002 be too late? As opposed to _never_? Unless "never" is >the desired answer of course. Yeah. >> >>* His entire presentation was speculative and without substance. Why did you not give him a speculative letter of intend then ? >>* He began almost immediately to make threats and he seemed to think, like many >>before him, that all he had to do to get Garry to do his bidding, was to >>threaten "exposure." C´mon. We know who you are talking about. Don´t be silly. >>* To summarize, he had no sponsor, no money, no entity and was entirely lacking >>in any seriousness or credibility from a business point of view. I´d say he was lacking exactly what he lacked as he went from CMU to IBM, right ? Hence, the guy is a looser and will never be able to cream Garry, right ? Hence we all have been on dope in 1997 and in the collective fragments of our imagination the blast Mr Feng Hsiung Hsu gave to Mr Kasparov was purely fictional ? >>Ironically, Mr. Hsu waited until two and a half years after the match to set up >>a flurry of e-mails which almost from the beginning were threatening in nature. >>On reflection, I firmly believe that he knew his offer had no credibility and he >>was looking for a little publicity and some notoriety. >> >>For any of you who still think Mr. Hsu was above-board, just put yourself in his >>position. Would you not have called up and said, "Hsu here. Let's put our >>heads together and see if we can make this thing work." >> >>That's not a good idea if all you want out of this is to have a go at THE WORLD >>CHAMPION! Heck, the same can be said about your position. When dealing with Mr Hsu you are not dealing with just some guy. You are dealing with the man who destoyed your client at the chess board like no living being did before, so can can turn caps lock mode off. >He left out "The world champion that _lost_ to Hsu's program the last time they >met." Kasparov (in public) appears to frantically want to rematch the machine >and prove match 2 was a fluke. It seems that in private, he has an entirely >different agenda... Looks like that I´d say... >ducking and dodging. > >Hey, didn't he do that to anand and shirov also? :) > > > > >>Owen Williams >> >>S.M.S.I. Inc., Palm Beach, FL. > > >There are some things above that are very suspicious. At the top of the >response, he directly quoted Hsu. But after the beginning, no more quotes >to support his less than savory description of Hsu's actions. I find this >troubling. If he would quote him at the beginning, then couldn't he quote >some of his "belligerent" comments as well? Right. >I suppose we will have to wait a good while. Knowing Hsu he kept copies of >everything he sent and everything he received. Now that this 'claim' has been >made in public, posting the emails to show what really went on would be >perfectly acceptable, IMHO. Right. >And should be done, to show the true story... whatever that is... Well you know who I´d bet my money on... I have no problem if they´d say that company XYZ is not interested in seeing this machine in the shops and that they do not want to pay for licensing the machine (which is the only alternative to survive) since their software business is strong already... But smearing Mr Hsu is just a bit too much. Best wishes to Feng, whatever he will do now... -- Peter
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.