Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 14:14:25 05/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2000 at 16:16:07, Ed Schröder wrote: >There are 2 kinds of science, the one about money and the orginal one >which is about complete openness. Guess about which one I was talking :) > >Ed I think you both are talking about different things. Let's take a look. It was a test for the strength of the machine. It was not about the question if the machine _and_ its helpers could outplay Kasparov psychologically. Scientists constructed the machine. As I said they forgot the question of the control of the output of the machine. Scientists have a certain reputation no matter if they act in science, in a test or in a match. By upsetting Kasparov they violated their own standards. It was not just the denial to provide Kasparov with the prints of the output, it was the way this has been done. Very unusual behavior for decent scientists. It was said that the IBM officials and not Hsu et al. were responsible for that indecent behavior. Anyway, the scientists and chess experts around Hsu should then have protested against such a method. Because the results of the match would no longer be valid. They should have explained that IBM had invested so much money for nothing if they treated Kasparov in such an unfriendly way. I don't understand why these scientists gave their consent to the destruction of their own experiment and probably their own reputation.
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.