Author: chandler yergin
Date: 14:03:17 04/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2005 at 17:25:25, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On April 22, 2005 at 09:18:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 21, 2005 at 17:14:34, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On April 19, 2005 at 19:16:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Nothing in the contract forced IBM to produce anything. Kasparov forgot about >>>>that in the negotiations. Had the match ended amicably I'd guarantee you he >>>>could have gotten the printouts easily enough. But I wouldn't give him time of >>>>day after he went on stage and accused me of cheating. >>> >>> >>>You confuse completely cheating to Kasparov with cheating to science. >>Cheating. (verb). To violate existing rules when participating in a contest, >>so as to obtain an unfair advantage and influence the outcome. >> >>Now exactly how/where did the DB guys "cheat science". What "contest" was there >>between the DB team (IBM) and "science"??? > >Thanks for the question. My English sucks. Cheating science = violating >methodological fundaments of scientific experiments. Here testing the strength >of their machine against the best available human chess player. By tearing him >into psycho war they could confuse Kasparov and the team can say they beat him >fair, but then they forgot what the whole show was meant for. Again: do you like >winning ugly? I thought no. Can winning ugly prove in any relevant issue PROVE >something about the chess play of the machine? -- Nope! Certainly not. I agree! http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?422466
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.