Author: george petty
Date: 02:41:04 01/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2000 at 23:38:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 18, 2000 at 22:34:08, george petty wrote: > >>On January 18, 2000 at 21:51:54, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>Let's suppose the worst. IBM decided to cheat. Now, folks like Anand and >>>Karpov are not going to risk a lifetime ban by doing something illegal. So it >>>would pretty much have to be a lower-eschelon player. [Well, they could have >>>crammed RJF into that box, but he would have been deathly afraid of a sinister >>>plot, I'm afraid -- so I think we can rule that out also]. >>> >>>So what are we left with? How do you cheat against the world's best player (by >>>a landslide?)??? >>> >>>You have some lower level GM who can be tempted and yet will *never* spill the >>>beans (hmm -- it seems it would take millions to do that, but what if he put the >>>money in a Swiss bank account and decided to write a book... Sounds a bit risky >>>doesn't it) >>> >>>In short the cheater theories are idiotic. It does not work. Even if you could >>>somehow pull it off, you would be sneaking in some high school track star to run >>>against Michael Johnson. And then taking the ENORMOUS risk that for the rest of >>>his life, he would keep his mouth shut. >>> >>>It's ludicrous. Insanely, bizarre. I can't imagine how such a foolish >>>expression can even escape the lips of any intelligent, thinking person. >>> >>>But forget all that, and suppose that you somehow manage to have a very clever >>>human (maybe we get a 2600GM who hates GK's intestines) to participate. The >>>human says "Rxb2" and the computer says "a4." Whom do you believe? The GM >>>can't outplay Kasparov -- we already know that. >>> >>>I will admit that having a super-GM in cahoots with Deep Blue *would* make a >>>stronger pair -- if you had a few months to form a workable system and a few >>>hundred games. But the risk is so enormous that only a great fool would believe >>>an image conscious company like IBM would try a foolhardy thing like that. >>> >>>In short, I lose respect for any person who says they believe in that hokey >>>"conspiracy" theory. >> >> How you can come up with all that from my statements is FANTASTIC. Boy I >> have seen people take things out of context, but I have to say this tops them >> all. I have never seen so much jealousy, and no sense of fair play. No >> wonder the rest of the world laughs at Americans. Don't wait for the FACTS, >> just prejudge. No body was talking about "conspiracy". But you have all the >> answers. NONSENSE!! I did not say I did. I say lets wait and see what the >> FACTS are. Hopefully we are not trying to write fiction on this post, but >> what is based on FACTS. > > >Here are the facts: > >Kasparov lost to Deep Blue. > >Deep Blue is a computer. > >The DB team has been working on this since 1986. > >The DB machine won the Fredkin stage II prize for the first computer to produce >a GM performance rating over 25 consecutive games. > >The log of the position questioned by Kasparov in game 2 was available within >a couple of days to some of us. It made perfect sense to all but a few that >wanted to cast a dark shadow on things for reasons unknown. > >We found _no_ moves that couldn't be reproduced by a computer given enough time >to compensate for DB's huge hardware advantage. > you mean HYATT FOUND, and the rest of His little "group" FOUND what the rest of the GM's have not been able to ESTABLISH as true or prove, one way or the other yet. I know you think your opinion is FACTS, so I am not going to try to change that, would be very hard to do with closed mind. >none of that leads to any sort of cheating conclusion. > >Except in the mind of Kasparov. the loser.
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.