Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 11:46:24 05/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2000 at 10:15:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >What makes this "not science"? Building the hardware was science. Writing the >code was science. Playing him under basically the same arrangements as the >first match was a scientifically repeatable experiment... > >He turned it into a free-for-all himself, by suggesting cheating. But the >games were played between him and the computer. If he got himself into a >mental state where he couldn't play, that was just a random scientific >variable beyond anybody's (except his) control. We get closer to the point. We agree that he was in a state where he couldn't play his usual chess. For the sake of the argument I accept that K. brought himself into that situation. (In real I don't believe that!) Now we have the crucial moment: Is a result of a match valid if one side was in a state of mental disturbance? Baseline: the scientists around Hsu and Hsu himself should have prevented such an issue. _Because_, what hat this issue to do with DEEP BLUE?
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.