Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 07:11:12 06/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2000 at 06:50:16, Hans Gerber wrote: >On June 23, 2000 at 00:02:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: > > >>That is a crock. Your "opponent" pointed out flaws in your reasoning, and >>finally suggested you post under your real name, which is pretty obvious to >>some that have recognized your 'style'. >> >>You don't discuss, you ramble and obfuscate and pontificate, all without >>saying anything new or informative. > > >Must I repeat that it was and still is new and informative that you declared >something wrong for several weeks and that I gave proof for that. It is about >the mean accusation against Kasparov that he had accused deliberately the DB >team of cheating. What I achieved is the proof that in the given documents >Kasparov did never do this. That's not true. Yes, he refused to name it "cheating". Instead he said "there are serious questions. It maid the move no one computer can make, and than just never saw a 8-10 ply draw". For me that is equivalent to saying "DB team probably was cheating". Eugene >This might not be spectacular and new for _you_... > >Remember? _You_ declared you had evidence for the accusation in a certain press >conference after game two. Truth is that you could not present your evidence and >that there was no press conference at all after game two with Kasparov. The >document you gave then did not contain what you had declared. In the text about >the press conference after game three there is nothing you could interprete as >the accusation of cheating. Still you continue to repeat the same _old_ and >_unproven_ theories. > > >How would you classify that personal style? > > >If you do not like to be corrected, _your_ business, if you do not want to speak >with me, leave me alone, but do not try to supervise or attack me with >ridiculous assumptions. Either talk with me about computerchess and events like >Kasparov vs. DB or leave me alone. I am sorry but you brought this special >accent of ad hominem into the debate. > > > > >> > You think Kasparov was wronged. I think >>Kasparov wronged the DB team. You keep your view. I will keep mine. >> >>end of story... more or less. >> > > >For the many members here in CCC it would be better to talk about the different >views. Note that I do not keep my view against all possible evidence. Or could >you imagine why I asked you for your special evidence for so long? But you can >not hold up your very personal views if the evidence - you had pretended to have >- - - is simply not existing. > > >But the most important fact for the debate is the truth that _even if_ Kasparov >would have behaved "like nuts", if he had directly accused them of cheating (in >private and in public), the scientists of the DB team must have kept their >personal concern under control - just to the best of their testing procedures. >They should have talked to him, explained the situation to him, so that he could >have kept his emotions under control again. > >This is so basic, that I do not understand why you could miss that detail... >Of course the (alleged) "accusations" must very personally hurt you if you are >befriended with members of the team, but does this change one single standard of >science that had to be respected universally? > > > >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.