Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: A 2005 Summary of the Debate About Kasparov and Deep Blue II

Author: Walter Faxon

Date: 19:44:31 05/01/05

Go up one level in this thread


On April 30, 2005 at 13:12:52, Lar Mader wrote:

>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


The simplest solution on the part of IBM that might have had the potential to
leave everybody happy in the end:

On the eve of the 6th game it was obvious that Kasparov was completely psyched
out, exhausted and playing poorly.  Before that last game he even implied that
he was just going to quickly lose.  When he played an obviously bad line (at
least very bad against a computer like DB) without an improvement, what Hsu,
Campbell, et al should have prepared to do was this:

When Kasparov resigned, Campbell (who I think was operating DB at the time)
should have refused the resignation:  "No, Grandmaster!  The game is a draw!  We
insist; it is a draw!"

The game drawn, the match drawn, a clear set-up for another match:  How could
Kasparov say no?

I think he would have refused.  But whether he did or not, he would later
publicly interpret this act of generosity to be a sign of a guilty conscience;
that IBM or the DB team had somehow cheated him.  And all of his apologists in
this forum and elsewhere would have agreed with him.

The result would be the same as what did happen:  There would be no third match.

-- Walter



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.