Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:17:54 04/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
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. > >:) Exactly. He did that. He lost the last game, so that his fee for his expenses became appropriate. 600000 US$$ were his expenses for mama Klara, FFriedel and his small team. Dont forget that he was the World Champion. Since then all human chessplayers get 1 million US$$ for giving an exhibition against far less strong machines. I would demand almost the same sum of money cash to tell you the truth... > >You can't win, Rolf, simply because you haven't faced your denial of his defeat.
This page took 0 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.