Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 04:32:26 06/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 2000 at 01:44:39, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 21, 2000 at 22:33:44, Hans Gerber wrote: >>The general question of the details of the match between Kasparov and DB however >>will not disappear, and not because some people like me but because the final >>solution has not been found yet. >> >>(The question of the relevance of findings with micros like Fritz or Hiarcs in >>isolated positions for the understanding of big machines like DB, that is just >>one example. Unfortunately it has always been achieved to bash that sort of >>questions as being a part of a general propaganda against IBM or the DB team. >>When in real it is a very interesting scientifical question. Interesting for all >>who are not primarily interested in the very details of chess programming.) > >In a petulant fit, Kasparov accused the Deep Blue team of cheating. Does "No >computer can make that move!" ring a bell? 1. IMO Kasparov did not do what you are believing as a given fact. It's interpretation and also a wrong interpretation of what he really said. Most important he did not accuse the team of cheating. 2. The sentence "No computer..." has a wider meaning than just "They must have cheated". > >He burned his own bridges. His questions were well over the line of reasonable >inquiries into procedures and data. He really stepped his foot into it. 3. The future or perhaps 'history' will decide on who burnt his bridges. The day will come IMO, and for knowies it has already been there, when it can be understood why Kasparov's chessic judgement about game two was justified and why perhaps DB could not have done - in 1997 - what it apparently should have been able to do. If you asked me I would always believe in the judgement of such a good chessplayer. 4. As to the data and procedures, I made clear that it would have been the task of Hsu and his team to ask for. More, Hsu had the duty to clarify all these questions. However the whole attitude during and after the game was not what scientists should seek for. For me the questions Kasparov asked are still not answered. Let's see to whose disadvantage this may lead... 5. Perhaps it could be of help if I repeated that later presentation of data might be insufficient material to prove anything relevant... Because it is a difference if you presented your data in time or after long thoughts and many possibilities of destroying the authenticity of your data. Who's to blame for? That is exactly my point. The scientists, not Kasparov, who asked for and talked about it in time, without second thoughts about what could be helpful for his own image or things like that. > >No amount of information that the DB team can ever present would satisfy all the >neigh-sayers. 6. Time will come when it could be understood when exactly the DB team missed the point of their genuine duty as scientists. > >Garry Kasparov is probably the best chess player this world has ever seen. I am >among those who think he is probably better than Deep Blue. 7. These cautious remarks reflect a complete missing of the situation between Kasparov and DB in 1997. The games itself speak their own language. But that is again a question of chess and not computerchess. Why do you think other chessplayers had attacked Kasparov so heavily if that would be a real question of 'who was better'. The only question is why Kasparov was not able to play his chess. I gave my answer, it was, because the psycho war he wasn't prepared for. He was there as a guest, a friend - and he was treated as something different. For that twist he wasn't prepared. Let's wait what history will tell us in the end. 8. IMO this world has seen many good chessplayers. For principle reasons you can't compare them and their times. But his behavior >after the match was churlish, childish, petty, naive, and rude. > >Those are the kindest words I can possibly summon to describe it. 9. That is because you can not understand what the situation was beyond the letters of the contracts. And that the surprise effect was the most important in favor of the machine. It had nothing, I repeat: nothing to do with what we understand of modern (tournament) chess. This is so basic, that the best players can't show their superiority if they could not prepare on a concrete opponent. Kasparov behaved very real, authentic and honest, he did not play any political games. That is how I would describe it. > >Be that as it may, I still think he is the best chess player the world has ever >seen, and perhaps ever will see. 10. There is no way that your bad opinion about him and his behavior in 1997 could be made balanced with such declarations. This is not what I meant with showing respect. At first you should forget about all the personal qualifications about Kasparov. In 1997 his personality was not the cause but the target for what happened. Let us debate all that with coolness in this club. The truth will become known - in any case... Hans Gerber
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.