Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 05:27:12 06/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
Kasparov said: "Let's just say this: IBM categorically refuses to submit any proof that this [cheating] did not occur. No one can really prove this, but the information we have at hand..." 1. We have n sources for a possible cheating. IBM and DB team are two of them. When Kasparov is talking about a possible cheating why he must have meant IBM or DB team? Why is it assumed that n=2? Is this a new technology to reduce complexity? 2. R. Hyatt explained that no output in computerchess in general could prove anything. Simply because it could have been manipulated already in the machine itself. By consequence output presented days or months later (the famous logfiles on the IBM site) can not be regarded as proof. Why it is still assumed that IBM has already done what Kasparov is asking for? On the other side is it not easy to understand why the quick deconstruction of the machine is even more disadvantageous for the question of proof? Is this a new technology to establish proof through insufficient data presentation? For the debate itself in this thread I am out until new data will be presented. Hans Gerber On June 26, 2000 at 14:21:33, Pete R. wrote: (ad 1.) >Mathematically there is a difference between saying "yes they cheated", and >"maybe they cheated". But in humans terms this shade of difference is >meaningless. If I ask you "did you hit your wife?", and you hesitate, or you >refuse to answer, or you do anything other than immediately say "no", you make >yourself look guilty. Kasparov had the opportunity to clarify. He could have >answered Ashley with something like "No, I am not saying they cheated or the >computer had human help, but at times the computer played better than I was >prepared for.". Instead, he deliberately let the question linger. In the minds >of any right-thinking people this is equivalent to *casting doubt* on the IBM >team's integrity. In human terms the difference between this and an outright >declaration of cheating is not meaningful. It makes Kasparov look like a >temperamental person and thus a poor sportman to further doubts about the >integrity of IBM's conduct in the match. Period. (ad 2.) >Kasparov himself admitted DB could not be considered >to be similar to any other chess computer, the logs have been available for >a long time, and this is no further proof possible. But these technicalities >are not the issue. The issue is that Kasparov *continues to leave open the >question of IBM's integrity*. The fact that he doesn't make a direct, plain >accusation is *meaningless*. Saying in effect "maybe they cheated" is just >as wrong, it is underhanded, and it is unsportsmanlike. End of story.
This page took 0.02 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.