Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 09:06:14 04/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 18, 2005 at 20:41:06, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >thanks anyway, but you left out the science issue. There is no science issue. There is only the psychological issue of those whose cherished notion of human superiority in chess was severely bruised in 1997. And those same persons have been in denial ever since. >of course THEN you are right >in all your points. on the other hand you are way too fixated on Kasparov and >that he didn't show up with any convincing proof for cheating. also here my >point comes into play that in such an experiment you don't need that the client >does "prove" something (besides his job to play good chess), but if something >happened that disturbed the "normal" process of the match, then it's the job of >the science side to clarify things. they didn't do this, instead they left >Kasparov with his (yes, it's well possible) fantasies. but it's a fact anyway >that this spoiled Kasparov's chess and hence the whole match. well, and then you >say, this is completely uninteresting, main thing is that this way IBM / Hsu won >the match and that is all what counted. this is exactly where we disagree. we >should agree on this. we should also agree that in chess it is nonsense to >distract your opponent, then winning and then being happy because you won. makes >no sense and I know quite well that in case of your own program you made that >differentiation more than once. you always wanted to win by your chess, but not >through technical tricks. you even gave away a point, if only you could get your >human GM in good humor. I know, we all do know, that you never argued in favor >of the meaninglessness of details. why you cannot see the psychological side of >this match and Kasparov's confusion, that is a remarkable singularity. and that >this did influence the result is evident. of course, if you leave this aside, >you are quite right. I wished you could take a look through my eyes; then you >could realise the motivation that leads you to think the way you do. is it >friendship or loyality to the team members? is it the conviction that Kasparov >himself had his own moments in chess where he almost cheated? you should know >that all this shouldn't influence your verdict as a scientist. no?
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.