Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 13:09:13 05/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2000 at 15:18:56, Hans Gerber wrote: >On May 07, 2000 at 10:34:26, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>Right, the match was not invalid. However the point Hans is making is >>that the match was presented (by IBM) as being "science" which is to >>laugh about. If it was about science the request of Kasparov to see >>the logfile should have been granted 10 minutes after the request and >>not 2 years later. > >Yes, this was my point. By not giving the logfiles the scientists destroyed >their own experimental setting because Kasparov no longer played "normal chess". >In social sciences you analyse human behavior. The question was 'who played >better chess', not 'the quality of the chessplay of Kasparov after being >confused'. I hope nobody will deny that upsetting Kasparov in a very unfriendly >manner was a _factor_ in the match. It's as if they had set Kasparov under >drugs. Therefore the result of the match is invalid. From a scientific point of view the match was invalid, I agee. But from the point of view of a normal chess match he lost. Ed
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.