Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:07:31 04/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 27, 2005 at 18:16:57, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On April 27, 2005 at 17:48:53, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On April 27, 2005 at 17:05:21, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On April 26, 2005 at 15:59:11, Steven Edwards wrote: >>> >>>>I'm sure that issue was covered in the match contract. In computer chess events >>>>for nearly three decades prior to the event, adjustments made between games were >>>>permitted. >>> >>>And this is the cancer that destroys honest computer vs human chess. >>> >>> >>>>Kasparov knew what he was doing, particularly in the second match >>>>after his experience with the first. >>> >>>Interesting to write what Kasparov knew. We should better deal with what the >>>computerchess people knew. Apparently they didn't really know what they are >>>doing. And that for decades already. Ok, humans never really cared that much >>>because the overall chess emulation wasn't strong enough to be considered for >>>serious. But if compuerchess is propagating the superiority over human chess >>>things should be clarified a bit... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Kasparov is being a sore loser and is unhappy because he didn't get a third >>>>match and the money that would have come with it. He's appears to be trying to >>>>help draw attention to himself for his political asperations that have nothing >>>>to do with chess, and he's making Valdimir Putin look good by comparison. >>> >>> >>>For sure Kasparov isn't a sore loser when it was Hsu&IBM who deconstructed the >>>machine so that no further tests could be made. Scientifically this is a crime >>>(that is what Kasparov is saying in the quoted interview). Whith whom Kasparov >>>should have made a third match? With people who betray their own science? >> >> >>Unfair. It was not Hsu decision to "deconstruct" the machine. But you blame >>him anyway. Why do you do this? It is completely unfair. >> >>You use this to claim Hsu cheated science. But your claim is bogus because Hsu >>had NO CONTROL over that. > > >You make me laugh and shed tears. A scientist who has no control over his >science is no scientist! A scientist who sold his moral to economy has lost his >status of scientist. This is so trivial and sad to know that this could happen >in our field of computerchess. > > > >> Then I guess _none_ of us are "scientists". After we won the 1983 and 1986 WCCC events running on a cray, the machines were taken apart and shipped to customers. I could not have used them again. Ditto for every year we ran on a Cray. The CCT before last, where I used the 4-opteron box from AMD was the same, the machine was gone a week after the event. This is _very_ common, and is _not_ "unscientific" in the least... >>Give it up, Rolf. You can't fool anybody with such poor logic built upon false >>premises. >> >> >> >> >>>That >>>Kasparov is not a politician, this is a different question. I would agree! He's >>>not.
This page took 0.01 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.