Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:58:13 11/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 1998 at 09:13:11, Amir Ban wrote: >On November 10, 1998 at 17:33:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: > > >> >>Seems a tad dishonest to write such nonsense... > >Mind the language please. > >I'm not in the mood to accept this coming from you, because I've been on this >topic often to correct things you said that I found too blatantly false to let >pass. When I did that I went into an effort to base myself on first-hand >sources, analysis and quoting sources, while on your side it's clear that you >say those factoids (examples ? "DB lost to Fritz out of book", "DB cheating >charges were publicly refuted", "GK received from IBM all the printouts he asked >for" and more of that in these archives and DejaNews. Something you posted here >yesterday also fits the mold) because they are the most convenient fabrications >to advance your preconceived conclusions, often without any basis or checking, >and sometimes in spite of contrary facts that you are well aware of. > >More credibility on your part in this matter would be welcome. > >Amir I stand by that word, "dishonest". Based on the following: 1. DB didn't lose to fritz. A processor two versions prior to the final DB lost one game to Fritz, in Hong Kong. Not Deep Blue v1, not Deep Blue v2, but deep thought hardware running the eventual deep blue software on the SP machine. This was called "DB prototype". You know that. I know that. Most *everyone* knows that. Yet Shay writes "Deep Blue lost to ..." That is *wrong*. More on the "dishonest" word in a moment... 2. DB didn't "avoid playing other computers to avoid further embarassment." I specifically pointed out why... After 1995 there was *NO* *MORE* *EVENTS* they could have played in. There was no ACM event after 1994 (DB prototype played at the 1994 ACM event)... there was no WCCC event after 1995. So this claim is also wrong. 3. Shay went on to mention other events. Aegon. There are *no* computer vs Computer games at Aegon, as both you and he well know.. *none*. He also mentioned the Harvard Cup matches... When was the last one? And when was the Harvard Cup match where two computers played each other? We both know the answer, and again he was wrong. So, I sense something deeper going on here... A subtle attempt to once again discredit the DB guys. And I'll repeat my statement once again, "it is a tad dishonest to make such statements, by highlighting the 'true' part while not explaining that the point is really irrelevant." I await either of you to point out where any of my above comments are wrong. His statement was misleading and inaccurate with zero doubt. But the way they were framed makes it quite obvious that it was just an "character put-down" directed toward the DB team... I also stand by what you refer to as "factoids". I've clearly proved that a current chess program can find that the move Qb6 leads to a perpetual, although it takes a day of searching. So Kasparov's claim that the program played Be4 through human intervention is stupid. DB prototype did lose to fritz right out of book. The game may be playable, it may not be. But they were in trouble immediately. That happens. I play bad book lines regularly. And I still win some of them. So, it's your serve. How can you defend the article Shay wrote when it is full of false and intentionally misleading statements? Or does this go back to the "DB Junior" affair again?
This page took 0.01 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.