Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:09:05 04/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 28, 2005 at 06:55:43, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On April 27, 2005 at 22:07:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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... >> > >It's understandable but still it's false. You always confuse mere computerchess >events with computerchess vs human chess! I see that you are not prepared for >real competition between computers and Man. :) > > > > I have played several computer vs human matches. Machine was shipped right after we finished the Levy match. We played 2 games against Van den Sterren (I am not sure that is spelled right and am not at office where paperwork would give it correctly) and again the machine was torn down and shipped right after the match ended. This is _normal_ when using big iron that is valuable.. > >> >> >> >> >>>>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.