Author: Pete R.
Date: 10:10:01 06/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2000 at 11:35:27, KarinsDad wrote: >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. Well in such a weak position, I think sticking to his guns is simply a matter of stubbornness, I don't think it's based on any admirable quality. To be a champion you have to believe you are great and deserve to be the champion, so a certain amount of attitude is understandable. Anand would never behave this way...but maybe that's why he's not the champ. ;) >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 [snip] >This does not necessarily make him a poor sport. It makes him human. That part I disagree with. I fully believe he may be in a state of denial. A lot of these top chess guys are a bit "interesting" in terms of personality. It is OK to have the suspicion pop up in your mind, it can't be helped. But you have a conscious choice about how you respond in public, and that is *always* a matter of character. Let's suppose Martians intervened in the game and manipulated the computer. Regardless, Kasparov's words, in the mind of the general public, clearly and deliberately continue to cast doubt on the DB team. He knows what his words will sound like to the public, and the fact that he doesn't directly say "the DB team cheated" is irrelevant because the public reads his words the same way, and he knows that. He has had plenty of time to cool off and be rational about it, but he can't stand reading in the papers "Deep Blue, the machine that defeated chess champion Garry Kasparov". Sure it must irritate him, because in reality he is stronger than the machine overall, and the general public may not appreciate that. But *nothing* excuses deliberately casting aspersions on the other side without anything more than suspicion, even if his personality causes him to genuinely suspect that he was cheated. Sure it's human to be a poor sportsman, or a total whack job even, but what does that mean? There is a standard of public behavior a sportsman should aspire to, and if he falls short of that it simply reflects on him. >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. Yet Benjamin would have been one of two realistic candidates (discounting the Martians) of making this move for the computer. It had to be either him, or Illescas, realistically. But that doesn't make sense, if Kasparov is so far beyond average GMs, how could a weaker GM know to override the machine, when even Kasparov says that the machine is stronger than they are (he said only four or five people in the world could beat it)? It just doesn't add up. Regardless, you don't even have to know how the pieces move to conclude that a suspicion of cheating that you cannot prove should not be voiced. It is poor form and makes you look bad. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof of that! There are many intelligent people on CCC, to whom Kasparov looks bad because of this inexcusable attitude. I'm very sure that someone like Anand would never have voiced suspicions of cheating, because a gentleman doesn't do that without proof.
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.