Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 16:11:08 04/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 27, 2005 at 18:06:01, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On April 27, 2005 at 11:17:24, Lar Mader wrote: > >>On April 26, 2005 at 19:20:22, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>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. >> >> >>0) I think Rolf has described the crux of the issue nicely here. There are 2 >>possible positions on the event: >>(a) If your expectation for the event was some sort of fair and controlled >>scientific experiment, then reasonable people might argue that the event was >>unfair. >>(b) If, on the other hand, you thing that the event was a "match", in the >>competitive sense, then clearly it was quite normal. > >Although one could be happy that people like Mader give their own analytical >input the fun gets a serious blow and is destroyed if someone gives his analysis >and comes to the provoking thesis that certain co-authors must be mentally ill >or such. We have just one famous member here who's always writing of mental >illnesses in opposing people. Now we have at least two, unless Mader isn't a >fake. I detest such insulting nonsense by calling other members here mentally >ill. But if such a famous man as Fernando can make such nonsense remarks than >others are allowed too... > >Apart from that negative aspect, Mader's analysis is quite interesting although >without real class. > >To begin with there are no such _two_ possibilities. Simply because it isn't >important what WE here expected but what Kasparov the important human half in >the experiment did expect. And Kasparov expected to attend a scientifical >experiment. Period. If that were true, he would have played for no money or just to have his expenses covered. :) You can't win, Rolf, simply because you haven't faced your denial of his defeat.
This page took 0.03 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.