Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:20:22 04/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2005 at 18:13:31, chandler yergin wrote: >On April 26, 2005 at 17:09:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 26, 2005 at 16:49:48, chandler yergin wrote: >> >>>On April 26, 2005 at 16:39:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On April 26, 2005 at 16:01:57, chandler yergin wrote: >>>> >>>><big snip> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>You really don't believe this? >>>>>"No contemporary writer can give an accurate view of anything." >>>>> >>>>>"Only long after purported events as information is accumulated, and >>>>>the Historians assimilate the totality of the evidence, can a more accurate >>>>>picture of what really happpened be provided." >>>>> >>>>>"This is true for War.. Politics, Stock Market, Religious thought, >>>>>and 'Cultural' events." >>>>> >>>>>Then not only am I surprised, I'm appalled. >>>> >>>> >>>>The be appalled. I want to know what actually happened. Now what someone >>>>"thought" happened based on speculation, conjecture, rumor, fantasy, etc. >>>> >>>>History is a precisely recorded enumeration of events as they happen. With no >>>>"interpretation" or "justification" built in. What you are wanting is "not" >>>>history. >>>> >>>>I can figure out what happened by reading an accurate report about Little Big >>>>Horn, or the Alamo. I don't need any "interpretation" or "spin" thrown in to >>>>confuse things. Just an exact account of events. That is history. >>> >>>What are 'accurate reports' without the totality of the evidence, and all >>>viewpoints considered? >>> >>>Would you want to be on a Jury deciding life & death, without considering all >>>the evidence. >>> >>>I don't think so. >>>If so.. I wouldn't want you on my Jury.. regardless od what I was indicted for. >>> >>>I can't seriously you believe what you are saying Bob. >> >> >>There are no "viewpoints" in history. > >Nonsense! > > >> That is what you are missing. > > >No, you are missing it. > > >>"viewpoints" are opinion. There is no opinion in history. History is just a >>factual recording of events as they take place, no opinion, no speculation, no >>nothing. A video-tape of an automobile wreck is a perfect example. I don't >>want _your_ opinion as to who was at fault, I want accurately recorded data that >>I can use to make up my own mind about what I think about the event... >> >>Your jury analogy is _not_ valid. Evidence is factual only. Which is >>historical in content. I don't care what you think, what you thought you saw, >>what you conjecture happened, etc. As a jurist (and yes I have served multiple >>times) I care only about facts. That is what a jury does, "finding facts". No >>room for "opinion" or anything else in the jury room. > >Nor should there be. > >The "totality" of the evidence is what should determine a verdict. > >Until all the evidence is in, conclusions should not be drawn. > >That is my opinon and I stick with it. You both used a language I wouldn't support, but in that specific problem I agree with Chandler. It is very clear that Bob is making a judgement on a limited view on the whole topic. In that limited perception Bob is absolutely right, but if one is opening an overall, more whole view on the 1997 event, Bob is wrong. By all means Bob wants to underestimate the importance of the human client for the design Hsu et al had created. In this light Bob always wants to insinuate that this was "just" a sports event, a match. In reality the event was a mutual attempt to evaluate the chess capacities of DBII. It's trivial that if Kasparov was disturbed for playing his usual chess, that the whole event was spoiled and the result was meaningless. In the eyes of Bob Hyatt a game of chess is always of the same quality, no matter if it's played for the Wch, during simultaneous exhibitions, in show matches or in skittles in chess cafés or on tables in NY Central Park... The perception is that Kasparov is _always_ playing the same quality of chess. So, under that perspective it wouldn't really matter much how the IBM team treated Kasparov in the show event. It's also reveiling a lot if you read Fernando's message. He's no less than a sociologist from Chile. For him someone who's asking questions during a show/research event must be paranoid. That is the level how we discuss things here in CCC. If the best chessplayer of the time asks suspicious questions in computerchess, he must be mad...! Something is going wrong here.
This page took 0.02 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.