Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:19:57 11/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 1998 at 17:29:22, Don Dailey wrote: >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. I don't understand the above. "me" == "Bob Hyatt". IE *I* see little room to fault Hsu and company for not playing a third match... > >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. that's a long way from fact. "graciously" should read "Kasparov *greedily* agrees to another match and loses." IE who *wouldn't* agree with a million dollars in the balance, and almost a half-million if he lost? Guaranteed 1/2 million dollars? I'd bob for apples in a new york sewer... :) > > 3. IBM quits while they are ahead. no argument... but as *I* said many times, were it me, I wouldn't play him again, *period*. IE it will cost me (me being IBM in this hypothetical case) one million dollars, while it costs Kasparov nothing... From a purely business perspective, what's the incentive to play him again? And after he accused me of cheating (remember, I am talking as though I am in Hsu's shoes here, hypothetically) so why would I want to do this again? > > >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. monetary inducements = 1/2 million dollars... not bad... :) > >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. I don't dispute that reason for no more match at all. Remember that each and every time I have said that *I* wouldn't agree to a rematch after the cheating accusation, and that I wouldn't blame Hsu for acting similarly. I never implied that was *the* reason there would be no 3rd match. Just that it is certainly a justifiable decision from a business perspective, *and* a personal perspective... > >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've said that many times... once the P/R value became apparent, I'm sure they lost control of events, as the bean-counters and legal-eagles then get into the act. But "ettiquette" doesn't fit in the discussion when only one side has to adhere to such a standard... at least IMHO... > >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. from a marketing/business point of view they were correct. They had *nothing* to gain and everything to lose, because 99.999% of the world knows nothing about chess, or computer chess, or what this was all about. They only remember the result. If he won match 3, that's all they would remember... and the P/R would be gone... > >- 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.