Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:00:16 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..." > Let's just say this: "Kasparov is an outright liar." He had the output for a couple of moves he wanted, within a week. The _entire_ set of game logs has been on the internet for close to a year now. Yet he _continues_ to make this same false statement. > > >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? There is no other alternative. IBM would _have_ to be in on this (IBM or the DB team). There would be _no_ other way for cheating to occur, since the DB team had total control of the hardware/software. > >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? It is _impossible_ to prove a negative. They can _not_ prove they "didn't cheat". And the way he is trying to prove they did, by using other micro- computer programs and showing how _they_ can't find some of DB's moves, is ridiculous on the surface. He should be trying to prove that they _did_ cheat, not demanding that they prove that they didn't. In the same way I can prove who _you_ are, but not who you aren't. (hint: don't ever send any- one email if you want to remain anonymous). > > > >For the debate itself in this thread I am out until new data will be presented. > > >Hans Gerber AKA Rolf. You are only "out" because your position is hopelessly weak. And everyone including you knows that. > > >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 0.01 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.