Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:38:52 05/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2000 at 19:58:17, Hans Gerber wrote: >On May 17, 2000 at 18:33:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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... > > >Frankly, I don't understand your reasoning. > >1) First of all you must admit that you always hypostated fantasies. You always >told us that Kasparov had accused publicely the DB team of cheating after game >two. This was not true. This is correct. However, it is unimportant. I had also thought that several things happened at game 2. It _all_ happened after game three, after Kasparov had a day to reflect on game 2 using Fritz. The order is _still_ the same. He accused them of cheating in public. He wanted output. IBM said NO. > >2) Now we can read a report where I can read no reference to your claim of a >public accusation of cheating. Perhaps I have reading problems but I don't think >so. You can read? You did read where Maurice A. asked Kasparov "are you really saying that IBM cheated?" give me a break... > >3) It's apparent that Kasparov had already asked the DB team for the prints. >They had refused to give them. Now he spoke on stage. It was not at all a press >conference. It was the stage of the live commentaries during the game. Kasparov >did never speak of cheating. He only explained the chess positions where >something extraordinary had happened. If the DB team, here in special Tan, >hadn't refused to give him the prints before, why should Kasparov run off the >stage? The conclusion is easy to see. Because they had refused already his quest >(in private) and now they joked about him (read Tan's "we are proud of...") but >didn't comment on Kasparov's detailed analyses. They had started a psychowar >against Kasparov. They simply let him look like a clown in front of hundreds of >spectators. It is not apparent. He spent the day after game 2 analyzing the game. His own words in the interview. After game three he started the I want to see output. This doesn't make sense. How could a computer play that when Fritz won't? etc... > >4) I ask you again, where Kasparov had accused the team of cheating? Please give >us the wording or the quote in that report above. If you read carefully you can >see that Kasparov did _not_ answer a question that could have led to the >question of cheating. Still you continue to say that he talked about cheating. > When a GM (now) asks the question M.A. asked, it would seem to be intuitively obvious to the casual observer that Kasparov had made the implication, and MA was looking for a careful clarification. I don't think any of Kasparov's accusations were mysterious at all.. >5) I ask what the DB team could have done more aggressive than to let Tan >respond to Kasparov instead of Benjamin who was the right person to answer >chessic questions. It is not the question here if Kasparov was objectively right >or wrong with his suspicions in these concrete positions of game two, it is the >question of the scandalous behavior the DB team showed towards Kasparov, their >favorite invitee for the test. Kasparov, probably the strongest active >chessplayer! Tan was the highest member of the DB team! > >6) You are wrong when you write that I painted Kasparov as a saint. Here in your >own text you can read however that Tan behaved impolitely, and Tan stood for the >DB team. Kasparov didn't accuse, he asked questions of chessic content. The >scandal lies in the fact that they gave him no answer, not even a man who could >have answered his questions. That was the psychowar I was talking about. OK.. again, my last comment on the subject. If you want to post under your real name, I may or may not reply. But no more of this nonsense... If you want to be the only person on the planet that thinks that Kasparov did not accuse the DB team of cheating, you may continue to do so for as long as you want. But what you want to support is not based in any kind of fact in any publication or video from the tournament... Back to your regular job...
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.