Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 03:58:25 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 Do you want the long version or the short one? Since the other questions are discussed elsewhere I give you the short answer. 1. Simply because we have too much contradictions. 2. Simply because it was not just a sport event. 3. Simply because the IBM and DB side had called the event 'science'. Which is totally normal since the machine was a scientific project over all the years. 4. Simply because we have Garry Kasparov and the game scores. I would doubt with all respect that Ken Thompson is equal to Kasparov when it comes to a game of chess. Also, in the question of the psycho war, Ken Thompson was not on the side of the DB team. He criticised the way they treated Kasparov. So he might have understood the terrible situation Kasparov was in. As a scientist he knew what that meant for the interpretation of the results. All IMO of course. 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.