Author: Lar Mader
Date: 10:12:52 04/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
I think this is in many ways a pretty nice summary. Also, I think that most if not all of us would agree with most of what you have said here. To summarize perhaps a little more succinctly: I think most people agree that the IBM team behaved badly at this event (but perhaps Kasparov did too). To make this event the best that it could be, in the interests of the experiment, Kasparov's state of mind/performance, and the overall quality of chess, it would have been preferable if the IBM team could have been more forthcoming about addressing Kasparov's concerns. However, on the flip side, doing so would run contrary to their own interests in winning. I think that the point of disagreement lies with how _far_ one thinks that the IBM team's obligations to Kasparov and the Experiment should extend. And you may be right that there may be a cultural difference here. I believe your position is that these obligations are so fundamental that ignoring them is tantamount to cheating on behalf of the IBM team. I think the people who disagree feel that IBM wasn't _required_ within the context of the rules of the match to take care of the needs of Kasparov or the Experiment (perhaps because so much was riding on the win/loss outcome, and they think that this was first and foremost a competitive event). It is ok to disagree about this. I think your position holds people to a somewhat higher standard where a little bit of care beyond simply winning at all costs is expected. This is an admirable quality to wish for in people. I think Americans are often indoctrinated into a capitalistic ideology that teaches people that it is ok to maximize self-interest at all costs :( Respectfully, -= Lar
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.