Author: KarinsDad
Date: 08:35:27 06/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2000 at 18:18:30, Pete R. wrote: >On June 27, 2000 at 17:19:19, KarinsDad wrote: > >>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. > >Consistency does not imply integrity. He is consistent. So is O.J. ;) But >because he has no proof and no possibility of proof that anything untoward >happened, it is in extremely poor taste to bring up suspicions that should be >left private. My soccer story was in fun but it was a serious analogy. If a >goalie were to slip at an inopportune moment, the thought may cross your mind >that he was paid off. But to just say so in public because you are angry at the >loss and want to put this possibility in people's minds as an excuse for the >loss would be the height of poor taste. This is exactly what Kasparov has done >and continues to do. He put a cloud over IBM's participation because he is a >sore loser and his temper got the better of him. He had no right to do this >without proof of impropriety. The burden of proof would not be on the goalie to >prove that he didn't take a bribe, it would be on the one who suggests that >something improper may have occurred. Poor sportsmanship, plain and simple, and >perhaps more importantly, bad PR. Bad PR for him personally, for the game, and >less chance of future man-machine matchups of that magnitude. It may be as you say, or it may be that Kasparov is correct, has little proof, but IS a man of integrity who sticks to his guns, regardless of how weak his position is. Quite frankly, we will never know. You have your opinion. Hans has his. My feeling (more of a guess than an opinion) is that Kasparov is in a state of denial. His knowledge of chess programming and programs told him at the time that some of the moves looked extremely suspicious, but he is unwilling to accept that it is probable that the DB team actually did come up with a program which could understand the game a lot more than current programs which do not have that engineered hardware advantage. My take is that he is being stubborn more so due to his personal world model of how chess programs work and how human chess works, than his true belief that the DB team cheated. From his point of view, he has a contradiction which he, in his own mind, just cannot rationalize as the program actually being that good, so he can only rationalize it as human intervention. This does not necessarily make him a poor sport. It makes him human. This is why eye witness testimony is so questionable. People's minds can make them rewrite history (i.e. modify their own memory) in order for them to fit it into their world view. But this happening does not make them bad people. It just makes them human. One thing you should consider. Kasparov's knowledge of the intricacies of chess is so advanced that even most grandmasters cannot understand his ideas. As proof for this statement, I point out an interview (sorry, I do not have a link for it) by GM Joel Benjamin (who worked on the DB team) in 1998. Joel said that Kasparov's knowledge is beyond Joel's just like Joel's knowledge is beyond that of your average Expert. With this in mind, moves in given positions could SCREAM cheating to Kasparov whereas other GMs might not notice at all. Since you and I are not at that level of understanding, is it just possible that DB was SO good that to Kasparov, it HAD to be cheating (regardless of whether that occurred or not)? I tend not to want to judge things I know very little about. KarinsDad :)
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.