Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 13:46:07 05/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2000 at 10:03:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: (snip) >You keep trolling this same argument. It is bogus. The initial claim of >cheating was made public _prior_ to the NY Times article you are quoting. It >is quite obvious. Otherwise how would Murray "Shrug off the accusation"??? He >would first make it public then shrug it off? > >Nonsense. Please try to behave politely if you can. :) Your reasoning is wrong. Otherwise how would Murray shrug off. I told you how he shrugged of. Perhaps you know nothing about newspapers but here it's clear that Murray who shrugged off was from the side that distributed the news. There was _no_ public accusation by Kasparov before that NY Times' article. I begin to believe that you are a real dreamer. You continue to spread news about a press conference after game two and you have no proof for such an event. Just dreaming? But then accusing me of "trolling", insulting what I talked about as "bogus". This is a serious CCC or a theater for fantasies? _You_ can dream about all things and can accuse others of trolling? Who put you into that position? Please try to behave properly like a gentleman. I promise you that I will believe you if you showed me the proof for the public accusation of Kasparov _before_ that newspaper article. But if you can't prove that then please keep quit and stop your dreaming. It's telling when you declare the whole question as moot, when it's at the same time the base for your "opinions" about Kasparov. However it is clear. If the DB team went into the public with that story about accusations Kasparov did never publish _before_, it's the DB team who opened that psychowar which irritated Kasparov so much. Therefore he lost and therefore the whole event has no meaning besides the well-known fact that a human can be influenced by a psychowar and he then might play chess under his normal level. Great news. Thanks to Hsu and his folks. "Murray" et al... This is not a moot question. It's a scandal how you put the blame on Kasparov and still insult him as a "jerk". On data fully imagined in your fantasies, without any proof up to now! We have a second scandal. You were the one who had always strongly objected the idea alone of a possible cheating in 1997. You always argued that the idea alone would be unbelievable. Interesting how you now twist your strategy and explained that _of course_ there could have been always cheating, but that this couldn't be prevented. I repeat my point. If Kasparov had data (from his understanding of chess and computerchess) that in the second game something wasn't kosher then he had the right to speak about. He didn't do that in public at first. He asked for the prints in private. But then after the publication in the NY Times he could also talk about in public. And what was his insult? Was a cheating possible or not? Yes, you declared, of course it was _possible_. You don't think that it happened, but it could have been possible. So, what is the scandal in Kasparov's question for the prints. As we know now the scandal lies in the tragic of Kasparov himself who seemed to be unaware of the fact that even the prints couldn't prove a cheating with certainty. If he had known this he would probably not asked for them. Instead of discussing all this with patience and friendly manners you react as if such a debate as such is a scandal. But you know from your chessic wisdom that Kasparov is a bad loser. Excuse me if I must laugh. As if you have understood what Kasparov had in mind during the second game. On the contrary if computerchess people are attacked for their behavior, you react like an oversensitive child. But about genial chessplayers you can spread insults as if they were just some average idiots. Let's try to debate here in CCC like gentlemen. Please. Also in the genuine interest of computerchess. Please, show some respect for the genius among the chessplayers!
This page took 0.01 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.