Author: Dan Honeycutt
Date: 22:38:31 04/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2005 at 20:44:07, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On April 29, 2005 at 20:34:35, Dan Honeycutt wrote: > >>On April 29, 2005 at 20:17:59, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On April 29, 2005 at 16:13:28, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >>> >>>>On April 29, 2005 at 05:23:51, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>The impression of the chess players after the match was that DBII was not better >>>>>than Kasparov at 1997 inspite of the results. >>>>> >>>> >>>>You are right Uri, but I've never seen the other side (Bob) say that DB was >>>>better than Kasparov. Apparently some must feel that a 6 game match somehow >>>>"proves" who is better and they feel a need to vindicate Kasparov. As Bob has >>>>said, all it proves is who was better for those 6 games. >>>> >>>>Dan H. >>> >>>But even with that consideration the statement remains false. And that is >>>exactly because of what Uri explained. If you give up because you have false >>>assumption about the machine then this has nothing to do with chess as such. >>>Kasparov WAS capable of counting down to the necessary depth where he could have >>>seen the draw. But Kasparov was misleaden in thinking that DBII wouldn't have >>>played the line IF there had been a draw. That is the point. So, it boils down >>>to such a nonsense and has NOTHING to do with a better chess by DBII. That's the >>>point. >>> >>>So, Bob is completely wrong with his conclusion that DBII had been "better" for >>>these six games. All that is all logic. Only Hsu set logic out of the event. But >>>here we re-enter the known debate of cheating science, the spectators worldwide >>>and Kasparov. >> >>Have it your way. Kasparov played better, or could have had he not misjudged >>his opponent. Does not alter the fact that DB won the match. But winning the >>match did not prove that DB is the better player. There is no need to make >>excuses or find reasons for Kasparov's loss. That's my point. >> >>Dan H. > > >That's correct. But don't misunderstand my standpoint as a variation of >supporting sore losers. All I'm trying to do is presenting the involved factors >that were neglected by Hsu and his team. I would also agree with Bob and all >those who are astonished how naive Kasparov apparently was during the second >match after he had won game 1. But on the other side I want to point at the >violations Hsu et al had done to science. No matter how much science was in the >match at all. Hsu had no experts for talking between the team and their guest >Kasparov. That was a big mistake. I didn't take your stand to be support of a sore loser. And I think you make a valid point noting that Deep Blue won -but-. I'm reminded of an outing with friends a few years ago to watch some local boxers. In one bout fighter A was giving fighter B a drubbing. I expected the referee to stop the contest at any minute. Then A, overconfident or sensing the finish was near, dropped his guard just as B uncorked a desperation haymaker. The punch caught A square on the jaw and knocked him out cold. If all you saw was the result in the newspaper, B wins by knockout, you'd likely assume B was the better boxer. As to the science aspect we simply disagree. You have argued that case with passion and energy but Bob has countered with, IMHO, a lot more reason and logic. Don't take that as an affront. The entire discussion has been most interesting and I've learned a lot about the match. I thank you, Chandler, Bob and the others for sharing your insight and point of view. Finally, I think we all agree that it is a real shame that there were no more matches. The matches generated so much interest, which chess can surely use. Let's face it, we are not major league baseball or world cup soccer. There is probably a case to be made that Hsu and team should have been more aware that they were dealing with a high strung ego and could have been somehow more accomodating. Perhaps they lost sight of that with the prospect of winning. But I feel that the lion's share of the blame, with the accusation of cheating, has to go to Kasparov. Regards Dan H.
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.