Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 15:51:05 06/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2000 at 16:10:05, Hans Gerber wrote: >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. Me? No, count me out :) Ed >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.