Author: Pete Galati
Date: 23:45:04 05/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2000 at 01:58:57, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 I wasn't following it when it happened, but my guess would be that the science lable was attached for the benifit of public image. But it's not much different than calling something "art" when it's usually a clear case of craftsmanship, so you look at a painting and it's a big black circle in the middle of a white canvas, only it's got a pink dot in the middle, so someone called it art. But, is it really art, or did somebody just paint a big black circle on a canvas and put a pink dot in the middle and call it art? Pete
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.