Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 10:56:12 04/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2005 at 13:39:33, chandler yergin wrote: >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 Thanks Chandler for all the quotes. This is exactly what I think.
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.