Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:24:32 11/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 12, 1998 at 02:33:33, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>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? > >I tried to find the "Kasparov-Oxford" interview in my mailboxes but to >no avail. As far as I remember it was on the Chessbase site. Does >somebody have a copy? I like to have it again. Besides all Kasparov's >allegations there was also lots of new information in the article. > > >>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. > >>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 > >About respect.... I also don't like the way Kasparov behaved. I also think in >the end besides losing the match he lost a second time because of his >behavior in public. > >With respect I meant respect for the "chess player" Kasparov. He is the >best. For that purpose IBM wanted a match against him. Not because >of his character. IBM knew (or should have known) who they invited. > >The match was NOT against Kasparov but against the strongest chess >player of that moment. That was the goal, beat the strongest chess player >of the world. In that respect Kasparov has full right on a revanche. > >IBM by not giving Kasparov this opportunity lacks all rules of sportsmanship. >If you want compete in the area of the "creme de la creme" then realize there >is an etiquette to stick to. > >Kasparov said, "I want a re-match". IBM does not have given him that. The >only thing in defence to IBM can be that Kasparov didn't really meant what >he said for reasons he only knows. > >But this is unlikely. Below is the summarize of an interview Keith Ian Price >had with Hsu. Special attention to the following points (quotes) about the >chances of a re-match. > >Subject: a re-match. > >[ begin quote ] > >#1. He stated that no one on the team wanted to put that amount of effort > into it, since the history-making goal had already been achieved. > >[ end quote ] > >Not much chances for Kasparov I would say. > > > >[ begin quote ] > >#3. DB was dismantled right after the match because the SP2 processors > used during the match were part of an order that was shipped right after > the match > >[ end quote ] > >It looks like IBM never considered to possibility to offer Kasparov a revanche. > > let me toss in there that this isn't any news at all. Cray Blitz participated in computer chess events from 1980 or so thru 1994. *Every* machine we used was "shipped" right after the tournament. In many cases we used two different machines in the *same* tournament because the first was due to ship. DB still exists. The processors are in boxes. IBM still makes the SP-2... if the opportunity arises, it can easily play again. So it's not "gone but not forgotten"... it's just sitting on a shelf... but they could play tomorrow if they want...
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.