Author: chandler yergin
Date: 16:36:03 04/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 27, 2005 at 19:32:41, chandler yergin wrote: >On April 27, 2005 at 19:11:08, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>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 really don't have clue what wsa going on do you? > >Very sad... > > > > > >> >>You can't win, Rolf, simply because you haven't faced your denial of his defeat. No one denies he lost.. The significance of the event is what is in dispute. There was not any Title on the line... it a was an exhibition of 6 games. It was for $$$$$$ for both parties. Both Won... So what?
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.