Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:08:07 05/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2000 at 16:49:15, Hans Gerber wrote: >On May 07, 2000 at 16:09:13, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On May 07, 2000 at 15:18:56, Hans Gerber wrote: >> >>>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 > >I agree. But in that case Kasparov wouldn't have asked that question. BTW >Kasparov mentioned many times that he always saw the obligation for the DB team >to give the logfiles. I don't understand why this so difficult to understand. >Both sides, the people around DB _and_ Kasparov (and the whole world of chess), >wanted to know how strong DB could play chess. You see it wasn't just a normal >match. The log files have been public for months. Just like Intel releases internal details of their microprocessors.... _AFTER_ they are released, and the window of opportunity for competition has closed. There is no scientific 'moral' that puts a time on when a detailed description of results was produced. They made good on their promise to release the logs. We have all seen them.
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.