Author: Alastair Scott
Date: 12:11:37 10/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
As far as I can tell. Conspiracy theories have the wonderful attribute, for their proponents, that they are impossible to disprove; how can one show that Kramnik was _not_ given a biscuit tin full of money for his trouble? The only topic more tiresome is the mass of accusations, after (a new release of) every backgammon program, that the throw of the dice has been skewed to favour the computer player. With chess the conspiracy theorist has to be more devious and indirect; I've not yet see anyone claim that a crucial move was not played because the parties to the conspiracy crept into the hall at 4am before the big game started and glued a white pawn to b2, for example. Alastair
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.