Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 22:40:07 06/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2000 at 16:28:45, Hans Gerber wrote: >On June 27, 2000 at 15:20:20, Ed Schröder wrote: > > >>Seems to be you are unable to convince the CCC people that they are willing >>to believe (not even consider) the DB guys cheated (me included). It's a wall >>of granite you can't demolish. >> >>Ed >> >>PS, the match wasn't about science although IBM implied so, but of course >>you already know that. > >First of all I want to thank you for your comment. > >1. Yes, this was not about science (obviously!). > >2. However the members of the DB team and Hsu are scientists. My only >conclusion: they had to avoid that their testing person for the machine would be >irritated by the team's own behavior. If the person itself would be >uncontollable, the whole event should better be terminated. In either way the >result would not make sense for the question of the machine's strength. BTW I >studied several incidents where you in your matches against chessplayers behaved >much more careful as if half a point here or there would not be worth the effort >if at the same time the chessplayer would risk to lose say his temper, his >'face'. How could that be of importance in the development of computerchess when >the machines will be stronger one day anyway!? > >3. Honestly, please believe me, I do _not_ believe that the DB team cheated. >This is absolutely not to imagine. So what I am trying to do for weeks now: to >show that the DB team, not even IBM are the only possible sources for cheating. >Perhaps you remember that R. Hyatt did well explain that a cheating from the >outside could not be prevented, while now suddenly he declared that the team had >all under total control. How could this be if they are not even able to present >immediate data about the authenticity of the thinking process of the machine. >Herefore my point was that the scientists should have followed Kasparov's >requests. Not even IBM should have prevented that successfully because the >scientist could have easily explained why it would make no sense to begin a >psycho war. > >Why not discussing the points? Not to spoil the DB team or IBM. But for the >future of computerchess and fairness towards Kasparov. > > >Hans Gerber It all makes no sense to discuss this. France got world champion football 2 years ago. Nobody was questioning if the french used a new undiscovered drug while theoretically that is possible. Nobody questioned the honesty of the referee during the final while he could have accept a bribe. It is all possible but we don't even think of those possibilities. Nobody questioned the Anand-Rebel result and Rebel at that time even had not a log-file which could prove the validity of Rebel's moves. Why start a conspiracy theory in the DB case and not in case of the French or the Anand match or thousands of other examples. The DB-KASP match had a referee like the French like the Anand match and we trust his judgement. Why not start a conspiracy theory on the Anand match as how can you be sure the Rebel team did not cheat? Then why do this to DB? Ken Thompson (the arbiter) said: nothing was wrong, why not trust his judgement as we do in thousands of other sport events. Ed
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.