Author: chandler yergin
Date: 09:09:15 04/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 18, 2005 at 12:13:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 18, 2005 at 08:41:22, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>Of course - I don't know how USA Corp. does function. >> >>As I said, IBM/Hsu violated the spirit a) of the science experiment and b) of >>the ethics in chess. Hence they killed not only the relationship to their golden >>duck Kasparov but also their status in computerchess. How could you think for a >>minute that Kasparov was the loser in that show? Yes, you like so many >>Americans, you are possessed by mere numbers of the result, but as I said, chess >>has its own codex of honor. Go figure my evaluation shortly after Hsu's >>appearance on the last press conference when he answered Kasparov's speech. See >>r.g.c.c. via Google. Hsu smiled, but was extremely nervous and didn't comment on >>Kasparov as if he, Hsu, defined all the future of the show. He completely missed >>that Kasparov wasn't the one he could dog around in any thinkable manner. Now >>Kasparov's period in chess is over and Hsu out of computerchess and far away >>from the gold... - Apart from that, I agree with everyone who's saying that >>nobody could "prove" a cheating in that show event. But the word of Kasparov has >>a certain meaning in chess, I would assume and Kasparov said that some events >>during game two were irregular and IBM didn't clarify things at the instant. >>That was it. (This still has effects on similar shows in computerchess, because >>now the players take care that even human intervention couldn't decide the >>outcome of the match. They simply play for a draw and run away with the money.) > > >I don't know why we keep re-hashing this. But two key points. > >1. The cheating claim is simply false. Why? Because _other_ programs have >reproduced _every_ single move that Kasparov questioned. And when I say _every_ >I do mean every, from avoiding Qxb6 and playing the Be4 move (shredder 8/9 will >play this after a couple of minutes thinking or less) to other moves. > >2. The log files have been public for years, yet he keeps saying they were >never made available. No, they were not made available "AT THE TIME HE REQUESTED THEM". He never saw them.. They were Posted later... much later. I have them on my laptop. Others have them. I presume >they are still available on the IBM web site although I have not looked since I >originally down-loaded them years ago... > >In addition, remember that Kasparov signed the contract to play, under the >conditions that were actually used. No one held a gun to his head. In fact, >all they did was hold money out and he bit. And lost. And then started a >years-long series of complaints and excuses. The old "a lack of planning on his >part does not constitute an emergency on IBM's part" fits pretty well. He had >his eye on the money and let the details slide. That's his problem, not IBM's >or anyone else's.
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.