Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 03:43:16 06/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2000 at 21:44:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 27, 2000 at 19:51:09, Hans Gerber wrote: > >>On June 27, 2000 at 19:35:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 27, 2000 at 19:24:43, Peter Kappler wrote: >>> >>>>On June 27, 2000 at 09:00:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>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. >>>>> >>>> >>>>When did Kasparov deny that IBM produced the logs? If you have read this in >>>>print, I suspect it came from an old interview given before the logs were >>>>released (remember that it took 2+ years), or possibly just a bad >>>>Russian-to-English translation. >>>> >>>>--Peter >>> >>> >>>Someone posted quotes here that were dated within the last 6 months. Where he >>>said "IBM _still_ has not provided the game printouts." I pointed out when the >>>quote was posted here that the logs had been on IBM's web site for quite a >>>while. >> >> >>This is not true. Kasparov said something else. He said that "they did not prove >>that" ... the machine played the crucial moves. This is out of my head, not his >>exact words. You see the difference. > > >I believe he said that moves are still not understandable. Yet we went over >the logs, and explained _everything_ that he doesn't seem to be able to >understand. Why it didn't play Qb6. Why it took so long. Why it seemed to >change its mind right at the last second. All was quite obvious and natural, >and as I pointed out at the time, it looked _just like_ the output I see from >Crafty _all_ _the_ _time_. Three questions: 1. When did you discussed that? Could I find the debates in the CCC archives? 2. Was it difficult to come to the conclusion that all was natural? If that was easy why the DB team did not communicate with Kasparov during the exhibition match? (Perhaps you could also include the question, why it was reasonable to treat Kasparov in such unfriendly manner. Was it by intention that they wanted Kasparov to believe that something was not normal? If yes, then that is exactly what I call a psycho war.) 3. Finally a science question. At the time, on the last press conference, it was said that the logfiles could not be understood, that it took time to present it to the public. Now you say to my surprise that the output looked like what you "see in Crafty all the time". Why this contradiction? Both can't be true. Perhaps your detailed answer could also help Kasparov to understand and hopefully terminate all the questioning for good. In any case I would beg you to try to find a tamed language when you characterise Kasparov. I think _he_ is not responsable for all the irritation about the 'logfiles'. Under the assumption that he was successfully irritated and therefore was not able to play his best chess, then what would that tell us about the strength of DB? Nothing? That is exactly what I tried to explain about the mistakes of the DB team, who were scientists. 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.