Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:23:09 05/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2000 at 07:25:53, Hans Gerber wrote: >On May 07, 2000 at 21:37:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Sorry but 'science' is _all_ about secrecy, until the deed is done, and the >>results are in. Try to get a peek at Intel's next cpu, without signing a non- >>disclosure. Ditto for Cray, MIPS, Sun, HP, you-name-it. Secrecy doesn't mean >>'no science'. It is all about being 'first'. And it is hard to be 'first' if >>you tell all before it is done. >> >>I don't see a thing 'new' here. > >Then let me help you out. We have two different things here. Kasparov was part >of the experiment. He wanted to see the prints to be sure from his standpoint as >a chessplayer (with all the limitations to be able to understand the technical >details of the machine). It was not a question of worldwide publication of the >details. The denial then had bad consequences on the rest of the match. So that >the original question is still open. Since the confusion was _not_ invented by >the machine itself as sort of match psychology. I still don't see the issue. Human beings are oddballs when it comes to comparing them to a computer. The computer will be _exactly_ the same each and every day of the match. The human won't. He will be tired. He will be irritable. He will be destracted. But note that the DB team didn't cause him to become paranoid. And I don't see where they had any obligation to let him look inside DB's "head" other than across the chess board.
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.