Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:12:34 05/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2000 at 06:40:51, Hans Gerber wrote: > >Just a few thoughts. > >There are at least two possible levels of discussion. There is one with quick >and smart reactions, sort of short-cut winning points, that is the - let's call >it the - non-historical one. The other one is the scientific/ historic level, >the one with always integrating at least all the known collected facts and >already made arguments. > >The point here with these alleged "print-outs" at the IBM site is simply that it >was already mentioned long ago (in 1997!) that if IBM had wanted to fake these >print-outs, they could have done it in _less_ than an hour. In other words, they >could never be a proof. It was R. Hyatt BTW who explained that. > >Back to the main question. > >The ball does not lie in K.'s court. It is in the court of those who promissed a >detailed publication of the output of DB in a scientifically sound manner. What >does this mean?? Well, that the output is analysed _and_ (most important) proven >as the real/ original output of the machine. Does anybody believe that this >proof has been presented somewhere? Even more: Could this be done - >theoretically? How does the ball lie in IBM's court. They released the files. Now they have to do the impossible and prove that the logs were from DB? How? Couldn't they (by now) have modified the DB software so that it _would_ produce those exact moves and evals? This is impossible to prove. > >IMO in a certain view, Kasparov's points of critic are still open, unanswered >and unsolved. What is open. The fact that he is a whiner and sore loser? Those are pretty evident. The fact that he might be the best chess player of all time? There is plenty of evidence to support that too. The fact that he is the worst sport of all time? Plenty of evidence there too. But there is no evidence to suggest DB didn't play all of the moves. Most of them were reproduced by microcomputers. The logs look sane and support the games completely. > >The only ball in K's court, that is the one of the impossibility of explaining >the difficulties of such 'questions' to average people. So, it might _look_ as >if he, G. Kasparov, is the unsportive poor loser. As if he had the obligation to >solve the difficult problem which was and still is genuinely the one of the IBM >researchers around Hsu ... > It might "look like his is a poor loser"? I don't think there is one scintilla of doubt. But even worse, he _continues_ the nonsense. > >Hans
This page took 0.07 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.