Author: Amir Ban
Date: 08:45:13 11/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 1998 at 09:58:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... > What a ridiculous argument. Then let me point out that it was not Deep Blue but DEEPER Blue that beat Kasparov. How can you be so DISHONEST as to say that Deep Blue beat Kasparov, when it was Deeper ? >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. > Shay was did not say all this. I did. Look back at the thread to see who says what. You are very careless about which accusations you throw at whom. Next time look back at the thread to make sure you have your facts straight. If you do that, you'll find that I (and not Shay) mentioned there was a Harvard Cup in 1995 (December) and an Aegon in spring 96 & 97. >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. > This last "Fritz" thing just illustrates the point. There was a debate after you said what you said, in which several others including Ed took part. I remember I reminded you of what Hsu wrote on this after HK, what was the first move out of book (0-0), and there was analysis done by several people. You had done zero checking before saying what you said. You just said the thing that most suited your preconceived conclusions. I remember we actually GOT YOU TO CONCEDE THE POINT. To no avail: You are back to arguing the same as if this didn't take place. >So, it's your serve. How can you defend the article Shay wrote when it is full >of false and intentionally misleading statements? > I don't think I can do this in a way that is compatible with the CCC charter :( >Or does this go back to the "DB Junior" affair again? You are RIGHT ! How could I overlook this ? Innuendo is a great debating tool, Ed. Right after sending an invoice to IBM for services rendered, would you remind this newgroup what this was about ? Amir
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.