Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:08:18 11/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 1998 at 19:29:21, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >On November 11, 1998 at 19:02:32, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>>>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... >> >>He lost his temper. He was not a good loser. All true. What remains in the >>memory of people is a) Kasparov lost b) Deep Blue won c) Kasparov is >>a bad loser. So in the end he didn't do himself a favor. >> >>There is no damage to IBM. There is no damage to Hsu. There is only >>damage for Kasparov. > >Ok, he lost his temper. But he not only said immediately after the >match, he repeated it (actually, he even enforced his statement) >several times *after*. When people from IBM tried to answer him >"We have no way to know what *exactly* happened in multi-CPU >environment under a real-time conditions", he answered "I don't >beleive you. If you'd want to do so, I'm absolutely sure you'll >find a way to do that". He could consult *any* specialist in a >concurrent programming (IMHO any CS student will be enough) before >doing that statement. > >And that changes the situation, doesn't it? Yes, but only for the worse. Ie he ought to have simply said "I screwed up, I didn't prepare well, I tried the wrong kinds of openings, I practiced against a micro thinking that would help but it didn't, I listened to the wrong people, I got tired, etc..." Instead he started accusing the DB team of dishonest behavior. And as I said, in "academia" there's hardly any worse insult. To do so is bad enough, but to do so with no evidence of any kind is *really* bad. And some examination with Fritz or another program would have shown him that all was on the up-and-up had he taken the time. But he just came out swinging instead.. > >>>So etiquette has already gone out the window on his part, which leaves me little >>>room to fault Hsu and company... >> >>I am sure Hsu will play again. Programmers always want to play. >> >> I hope so, although this is a special case. The P/R from this was huge, and while the "glow" is on, it makes little sense (from a financial/business point of view) to take a chance to tarnish it. Kasparov unintentionally gave them the perfect reason to ignore him. >>>>If Vishy Anand asks me for a re-match I say YES no matter if I am in >>>>the mood for it or not. I say YES and I will make sure it will happen. >>>>That is simply the price you have to pay when you have won. It's >>>>an obligation based on chess etiquette. I agree with Ed. For a different reason. A few years ago I was watching Crafty play a zero-increment game with Roman on ICC (this was before I had ever had a single conversation with Roman so I didn't know him except by his reputation). Crafty was well ahead on time, but the position was hopelessly drawn and Roman was nearly out of time. He offered a draw.. but he and crafty were moving so quickly I couldn't get in an "accept" before crafty would move which automatically rejected the draw offer. In frustration, I made it resign. I got an immediate (and indignant) "what did you do that for?" I explained that the game was drawn, he knew it was drawn, I knew it was drawn, and even Crafty knew it was drawn, but at the time crafty couldn't offer or accept draws on its own. And rather than see him get offended by losing on time, I chose to have crafty resign. "Why?" he asked. I responded that I would much rather see it play more games against him which I could learn from, rather than winning one game on time and not having him play again. That had two effects.. one we became friends of a sort, over the net and over the phone, and two, crafty got to play thousands of games against him to make it better. I offered that resignation out of respect. But also because I expected something in return, the absence of anger. It worked out. But the kasparov case is quite a bit different... > >Also, please note that he said "Money for new match should not come >from IBM". Who instead of IBM would arrange the match, if the only >real winner will be IBM? > >IMHO Kasparov is scared to death... It's very hard to beat the beast >in his favorite tactical style, and he spends too much energy playing >strictly positional chess, so he'll be exhausted after several games. >So, current situation - IBM won, but there are a lot of opened >questions - is benefitical to both sides. I agree... I don't go around with the "DB is better than Kasparov" flag flying. I only believe it was better than him in that match. And his penchant for tossing a pawn to the four winds costed dearly... > >Please note that I personally respected Kasparov before the match... >I have his books at home, and he struggled - and won - against >communist system in the beginning of 80's. > >Eugene > >>- Ed -
This page took 0.02 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.