Author: Don Dailey
Date: 14:29:22 11/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 1998 at 16:57:04, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On November 11, 1998 at 14:31:09, Ed Schröder wrote:
>
>>>>IMO you simply give a guy like Garry Kasparov a re-match out of
>>>>respect. He asked for it so you give it to him. Shame on IBM! Note that's
>>>>some different than shame on Deep Blue. They did a fantastic job.
>>
>>>>- Ed -
>>
>>
>>>you really blew that response badly... based on one word: "respect".
>>>Why would IBM have any "respect" for Kasparov now? He called them
>>>cheaters at a press conference... Personally, my "respect" for Kasparov is
>>>down to zero, and still falling. I'd certainly consider Karpov, whom I have a
>>>*bunch* of respect for however...
>>
>>Sure Kasparov has a temper. He did badly. But that's not the point. I am
>>pointing at IBM one of the biggest companies on earth.
>>
>>They made the match a fantastic spectacle. Even now we are still talking
>>about the match all matches. They won and this shocked the chess world.
>>
>>It's against all chess etiquette not to honor the request of Kasparov for a
>>revenge match. I find this quite a humiliating treatment for the current
>>best chess player on earth.
>>
>
>humiliating yes, and *exactly* what he deserves... I mean he did stand up
>in public and accuse them of cheating... in front of lights and cameras and
>journalists...
>
>So etiquette has already gone out the window on his part, which leaves me little
>room to fault Hsu and company...
Did Ed fault Hsu or IBM? I remembered him saying something good things
about Hsu and the programmers.
It's really hard for me to see your point of view in this case Bob
because I see this as an independant issue, is it proper ettiquette
to give a rematch to the strongest player in the world after beating
him only once in a short match? This question stands on it's own.
We are not going to settle it here by any means but look at the issue:
1. IBM plays Kaspaov (who agree's to a match in the first place)
and looses.
2. Kasparov graciously agree's to another match and loses.
3. IBM quits while they are ahead.
It's much more complicated than this I grant you. Kasparov recieved
monetary inducements and I happen to know (the deep blue team) have
been raked over the coals so to speak behind the scenes.
BUT, this is a historic event, in my opinion a whole lot bigger than
the behind the scenes problems involved. What I have laid out above
is what is seen to the world and there should ALSO be a little bit
of historical responsibility.
Bob, I have talked to a lot of people about this and I get the same
comment, they BELIEVE that IBM simply had nothing to gain from a
rematch and just quit while ahead. They could be totally full of
it and I'm positive they don't understand every little issue, but
what they do see is the high level view, and in my opinion that is
the one that you must honor and is really the only one that REALLY
matters. 100 years from now no will care that Kasparov gave them
some grief and they didn't want to go through it again. What will
get recorded is that IBM refused a rematch and people will draw their
own conclusions from this.
It's very hard for me not to feel that a rematch was not only
deserved but REQUIRED to satisfy decency and ettiquette. This is
a statement not against the programming team, I feel that they
were no doubt just pawns in the politics of this.
I also believe that even if they had lost a rematch, the advertising
and good will would have completely minimized the impact of the loss.
IBM in my opinion was in a win/win situation and people would have
viewed yet another match with great interest, the clash of two titans
and would EASILY have forgiven an IBM loss. I think IBM though, viewed
a possible loss as a HUGE loss of face and a humiliation.
- Don
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.