Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 20:10:23 07/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
>On July 19, 2002 at 15:50:08, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>On July 19, 2002 at 11:50:51, Matthew Hull wrote: <snipped> >>But we find that logs from other chess engines show a similar DB2-like regard >>for the two moves over time in that the two evaluations show a trend toward >>intersection. This greatly weakens (if not completely destroy's) Kasparov's >>strongest evidence of cheating. > >Objection! > >Why do think that completely different entities could be taken for refutation >or corroboration of DB2 play? That is comparing apples and peas. (That is why I >demonstrated the importance of the deconstruction of the machine. It simply >destroyed all possible evidence. The rest is speculation. At whose costs? The >team of DB2 is guilty of.) > <snipped> >>_That_ is science. If it's good enough for other engines to find the >>evaluation >>trend, if not the move itself (given the un-avoidable technological >>disparities), then the DB2 log validity is only strengthened, not weakened. <snipped> >The question is if DB2 would reject the >present of three black pawns! Of course PC machines can be instructed to reject >it, but facts speak a different language - that comps still are a bit too >greedy. Let me try to answer this one; and I quote Rofl, from further above (same posting!), as the answer to Rofl: "Why do [you] think that completely different entities could be taken for refutation or corroboration of DB2 play? That is comparing apples and peas." I guess sometimes people raise arguments against themselves simply to avoid boredom, or maybe to test themselves against their own best weapons. But what happens when the irresistable force meets the irresistable object? Et tu, brute? But the brute was yourself (gasp!). The mirror cracks. --Steve :)
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.