Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 22:58:57 05/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2000 at 22:00:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 07, 2000 at 16:09:13, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>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 > > >I totally disagree. Kasparov asked for something he had no business asking >for, something he would never have asked from a human opponent. If he was >playing you, and suddenly said "drop your pants, I want to see what you have >in there." Would you do so? He asked for something that was unreasonable >to ask for. He got turned down. Asking in the first place was wrong. Turning >him down was not. > >If he wanted the output that badly, he should have thought of that beforehand, >and made it a contractural requirement... The match details were agreed on >before the match started. He wanted to change things to suit him. It didn't >happen. He ranted. He lost. End of story, IMHO. > >He'll lose to another computer one day. I only know that _I_ would never play >him in any sort of match. Who wants that kind of grief... where even if you >win, you lose... All fine with me as long as the match isn't labelled as scientific as Mr. Tan (spokesman of IBM) emphasized in public. That was a clear lie as science in its natural form wasn't practiced. And I don't buy Kasparov excuse "I thought this was a friendly match" either, he is just too smart for that. Ed
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.