Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 03:46:18 06/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2000 at 01:40:07, Ed Schröder wrote: >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.