Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 05:40:04 06/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2000 at 08:27:12, Hans Gerber wrote: >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? Yes, you're absolutely right. We mustn't forget the butler. He might have done it. >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? Since there's no decisive proof for and against the claim of cheating, it's a futile discussion and I fail to see the importance. The exhibition game is old news by now. It was barely interesting then as far as I'm concerned and completely insignificant now. Let it go. Best wishes... Mogens
This page took 0.01 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.