Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 08:18:15 06/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2000 at 11:11:24, KarinsDad wrote: >On June 28, 2000 at 07:29:36, Hans Gerber wrote: > >>On June 27, 2000 at 17:19:19, KarinsDad wrote: >> >>>On June 27, 2000 at 08:51:24, Hans Gerber wrote: >>> >>>[snip] >>>> >>>>I agree with you that until these questions have not been answered the whole >>>>debate here in CCC is uninteresting. On the other hand I find it not fair if >>>>some people always repeat the same stuff to spoil Kasparov and his integrity. >>>> >>> >>>I have stayed out of this debate for the most part, but I think I will make a >>>comment on this. >>> >>>I cannot decide (for my own opinion) whether Kasparov has great integrity since >>>he sticks to his guns with his innuendos about cheating even though his position >>>looks weak, or if he has a chink here in his armor concerning the DB team which >>>prevents him from admitting that he is probably mistaken. >>> >>>If he is not mistaken, then it is a matter of sticking to his guns because he is >>>correct versus not sticking to to his guns since he has no proof. A man with >>>high integrity could pick either position. >>> >>>I have a feeling that it is somewhere in between all of these. Probably >>>something of Kasparov getting the impression of cheating during the games and >>>being unable to shake that impression (i.e. in denial), regardless of lack of >>>proof. This would not imply that he is not a man of integrity, rather it would >>>imply that he is human. >>> >>>It's unfortunate that the controversy started in the first place since I have >>>great respect for both Kasparov and the DB team. >>> >>>In any case, it is now a relatively moot point. >>> >>>KarinsDad :) >> >> >>So we can't be absolutely sure about what it is. In this case would it be not >>careful if we avoided to call him jerk, liar and such things? >> >>But the main question for me is why the DB team let him believe he was possibly >>cheated although they could have communicated and shown that all was quite >>normal? It all boils down to the very actual question of how people in >>computerchess should treat the chessplayers? In science it is absolutely normal >>to treat your testing person with utmost friendliness and respect. Not because >>scientists are Saints but simply because they want to have proper data. >>Excuse me if it could sound as if I wanted to teach you such trivialities. But >>it is often forgotten that the DB team was a team of scientists. >> >> >>Hans Gerber > >Actually, I think that the term scientist is a little overused here. A team of >engineers may be a slightly more accurate description. > >And to tell you the truth, I have seen ALL types of engineers in my day; from >saints to sinners; and the bottom line is that no matter what anyone does, there >will always be someone else complaining about it. Yet another part of the human >equation. > >KarinsDad :) Yes. But you do not think that you could take Kasparov's astonishment as sort of first evidence for a complaint? I ask because we are here in computerchess and chess is not so far away. Is he just a noname? 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.