Author: Pete R.
Date: 09:50:15 06/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2000 at 22:33:44, Hans Gerber wrote: >Ok then, thank you for this one. You're welcome. I try to be fair. ;) > >The only negative aspect of your post is the fact that you do not happen to be a >programmer. So most of our exchange has indirect meaning or a demonstrative >character. > >As to the general content of your article concerning the style of postings in >CCC in general in relation to (ok let's take) Kasparov, I hope that you agree >with me that computerchess sites should keep up a certain decent climate just >for the effects to the outer world... and its internal atmosphere. Within certain limits of course. In general I think both "real" chessplayers and computer chess people are in agreement regarding the state of computer chess. Humans are still superior overall, but it's inevitable that this must change in the future as computers become increasingly powerful. So I don't believe that computer chess people look down on human GMs at all, and neither do I think that GMs scoff entirely at computers. I think there is natural respect on all sides. But if there is a particular issue such as Kasparov vs. DB then I don't see the harm in discussing it, even though some may hold a negative opinion of Kasparov. You seem to be saying that your fear is that such an attitude will cause more GMs to shun dealing with computer people. I don't know to what extent such fears are valid, or where the line should be drawn in negative opinions. You seem to be advocating zero-tolerance in this regard, which I think is too extreme. >To speak it out I am deeply concerned about the way some important persons here >have commented on Kasparov in the past. I am very sure that beyond all possible >deviances in his personality Kasparov was treated in a very unfair manner for >his behavior during and after the match against DB. You are sure, but others are not. So should they not be allowed to voice their opinions because they disagree with you? >Because Kasparov asked the >questions Hsu and his team should also and primarily have asked! This is by no >means a case closed. Think of the damage for certain figures if it should be >proven that K's thoughts were justified... Think of the damage to the American >computerchess community if it becomes known that their best figures violated >the rules of science. For me it is already proven. I don't want to start this discussion all over again. You seem to say that Kasparov was "scientifically" justified to demand printouts or whatever proof might be deemed valid in order to show the machine played on its own. In my view, and in the view of many I think, such proof is by definition impossible. Printouts are meaningless. Kasparov accused the DB team of cheating without any proof other than his own surprise that the machine played so well at times. This does not constitute evidence, and the burden of proof is on the person who makes such an accusation. To make such an accusation based solely on personal conjecture, without the realistic possibility of evidence, is simply in poor taste. It's poor sportsmanship. If Kasparov feels that the test was unscientific because of lack of "objective" oversight of the machine, he has only himself to blame because he set the conditions and signed all the contracts to approve the match under those conditions. To complain after the fact just makes him look bad, and destroys chances to have another match in the future under whatever "scientific" conditions he feels would be appropriate.
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.