Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:19:47 04/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 27, 2005 at 19:36:03, chandler yergin wrote: >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? So deep blue is the first computer chess player to beat the current world champion human in a match at standard time controls. That's "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.