Author: chandler yergin
Date: 10:39:33 04/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2005 at 13:30:52, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On April 22, 2005 at 21:06:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Not sure what that means. But one thing for certain, if I were playing a >>serious match against anyone, man or machine (using crafty) you can bet that the >>version they play against would not have been seen prior to the match. That I >>would have tuned, prepared a special opening book, etc. would be taken for >>granted by anyone that knows me. >> >>I'd equally expect my opponent to have prepared some things based on >>observations made on earlier versions. That would be perfectly fair IMHO. > >You confuse championships with a science show event. In 1997 it wasn't about >winning in all allowed meanness but seeking the truth who's better, machine or >human chessplayer. I don't get why you don't accept the difference. http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/mt-commentator.cgi?entry_id=721 Quoting: "Posted by Colin McDade at April 10, 2005 07:36 AM From my view, the only conceivable reason for a company like IBM, representing many billions on the Sotck Exchange, to allow itself to seem guilty by implication by destroying the evidence and then to compound the problem by remaining mum about the issue for so many years, is that they were doing something shameful. They probably had human assistance, they also had programming difficulties and Kasparov's suspicions were too much for them to handle. They were afraid of the negative publicity and were hoping for the issue to disappear by itself. Maybe the programmers were forced into this by some hot shot executive and the whole thing backfired... Posted by alphonse halimi at April 10, 2005 09:39 AM Posted by Mr. Wideman at April 11, 2005 09:06 AM The following is based on my memory of the "public face" of the match at the time. I'll have to look at the Hsu's book to see if it changes my perspective. That said: What really bothers me about the K-DB match has nothing to do with Mr. Kasparov. It is the bait-and-switch pulled by the DB team: They played the front end as a research project in computer science with an interesting "test" and then as soon as they actually won they dismantled the machine and scuttled silently away. Three years to produce logs is just further insult. One of my HUGE soap box issues is the misuse and abuse of scientific credibility, a practice that is trivial to get away with under these conditions. IBM went from open research project to a mode of closed, secretive corporate cash-in, and as far as I'm concerned this debased IBM and completely invalidated the match. I'm sure they cried all the way to the bank. Posted by Rob Fatland at April 11, 2005 12:12 PM
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.