Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:33:40 05/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2000 at 17:48:51, Hans Gerber wrote:
>On May 17, 2000 at 17:35:52, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote:
>
>>Hi Hans,
>> there was a press conference after game three. A brief summary of the parts
>>relevant to game two is at the end of the following page:
>>http://www.insidechess.com/events/kasparov2.html
>>José.
>
>
>Thanks very much Jose. Yes, after the third game there was a press conference,
>where Kasparov talked about the suspicions. My debate with R. Hyatt however was
>about something different. He claimed that it was Kasparov who had opened the
>public war. But I could show that the DB team, in special M. Campbell, started
>the psychowar when they engaged the NY Times and made a few negative statements
>about Kasparov. This was it how all that began. Kasparov asked in private for
>the prints. They answered positively. Then suddenly they said "no". At that
>moment they went into the public. Thus they insulted Kasparov. Kasparov also
>didn't hesitate to talk.
>
>R. Hyatt however changed the whole history. As if Kasparov had insulted the DB
>team just by asking for the prints (in private! but R. Hyatt hypostated that he
>had asked in public).
>
>R. Hyatt always hypostated a press conference after game two. But he didn't
>substantiate his claim.
>
>Instead he called the whole question "moot". All very telling behavior...
Read the following carefully: (a side note. I now believe that all the
'fireworks' happened after game three, not after game two as I had originally
said. It was after game three that Kasparov asked for the printouts. It was
in this same press conference that he accused them of cheating.)
==============================================================================
Garry was very animated and it is correct to describe him as simply working
himself up into an
agitated or rather angry state.
Maurice Ashley then asked a logical question which was the only way of
interpreting Garry's
comments. He asked Garry whether he felt there to be "intervention." An
interesting euphemism
for "cheating." Garry didn't cross this line and simply repeated his
questions. C. J. Tan
explained that he was "honored" that Deep Blue had played moves superior to
that chosen by
other programs and that he himself could not understand why Deep Blue chose
a particular move
over others. C. J. Tan tried to make light of Garry's questions and simply
stated that Deep
Blue was a very sophisticated program.
Garry was deeply disturbed by what he felt to be evasive answers to his
legitimate questions.
And asked whether or not the IBM team understood his questions and to stop
making jokes...
After some further comments from IBM's Team to the effect that they were
proud of Deep Blue,
Garry, very angrily stomped off the stage. I felt the vacuum left on the
stage while standing
in the Press Center 49 floors away!
While I trust a good rest will help cool Garry's fiery temperament we have
one unhappy camper.
For the rest of ourselves, we could only feel a sense of consolation for
Garry. Absolutely no
one can possibly imagine anything but the finest sportsmanship by IBM - how
could it be
possible for them to "cheat" anyway? Did GM Joel Benjamin outplay Garry
Kasparov in game two?
I certainly don't think so, but, until Garry receives some satisfying
answers to his
questions, he has expressed his doubts.
Oh boy! Can anything else happen in this match? We've seen incredible
upheavals in the short
space of three games. It's hard to believe that the match is only half
over! The excitement
and energy are palpable.
With a tied match it seems that nearly anything is possible. I still
believe that Garry will
win the match but he has to regather himself for the challenge that lies
ahead.
===============================================================================
This was where he made his claim. This was where he asked for output. This
was where he showed up quite angry. Clearly nothing untoward had happened up
to this point. Clearly at this press conference he implied DB cheated.
Clearly he was unhappy with IBM's response to his request for output.
How do you now intend to paint Kasparov in the image of a saint? _he_ made the
claims, on the stage, in front of several hundred spectators. Maurice Ashly
even questioned him about this to make sure he heard what he thought he had
heard. After that sort of press conference, would _you_ give Kasparov anything?
I wouldn't.
I was apparently mistaken about which game "the" press conference followed
where the fireworks started. Nothing at all happened after game 2's press
conference. Everything happened after game 3. Including the first claim of
cheating. Assuming Yasser's article is accurate, and he usually is.
Does this change anything? No. He accused them in game 3. Then they refused
to give him what he wanted. Nothing significantly different from what I had
said all along, albiet shifted down one game. But that doesn't change a thing
about his ridiculous behavior.
I assume nothing more need be said, since it is pretty clear if you follow the
link given above and read carefully. If you only want to twist and distort,
feel free of course...
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.