Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 13:10:05 06/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2000 at 12:02:54, Ed Schröder 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 > >Science ended when the DB guys came on the IBM payroll which was 3-4 years >(or more) before the match. Forget about science. This match was about money >and not about science. Haven't we seen worse examples of hostile WC matches? >Spassky-Fischer, Karpov-Kortchnoi comes to mind. > >Ed Dear Mr. Schroeder, money, hostility, the end of science... These are incredible words! Whom should I follow? You or R. Hyatt? In my memory he proved that the DB team did nothing impolite or near to a psycho war. It was all a question of Kasparov's "lack of character" (Pete R.). Also please think about scientists who let their science behind just for money. Let's see if you will come under heavy artillery right now. With deep condolence, 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.