Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 17:25:26 05/04/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2005 at 01:38:31, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >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. Excuse me if I disagree. Bob didn't address my science arguments at all. And I know exactly why. Because Bob always knew that he couldn't defend the wrong-doings of the Hsu-team. Therefore Bob always came to the final idea that it wasn't Hsu but IBM which made the false decisions. And the scientists simply had to follow the order... Well - this is what German war criminals also declared. They had the order. This is no legal excuse! Neither for crimes against humanity nor crimes against the bases of science itself. And please note that I know for certain that my arguments are standing until this very moment and nobody ever could challenge that. Note also that Kasparov did never confirm into omething that meant "we are playing now a match for the World title and we do as if we are playing such a match in human chess". No, he never signed such a contract. Why Kasparov did was this: he took the chance to get as lot of money no matter if he lost or won and therefore he wanted to play some games against the unknown machine. He certainly believed that this was a normal machine with the known weaknesses. With the determination of either the good or the ugly. But suddenly he saw that something went wrong. The machine played second-best continuations. So to say. Or? Perhaps there was someone who made his interventions? Therefore Kasparov asked questions. Now even if these questions were absolute nonsense, the scientists should have talked to their client! Because that wasn't a match as said before but a research topic. And they should have talked because a human cannot play chess in such an obscure. And if Kasparov doesn't play his normal chess then the money is wasted and the results are invalid. That was it what the scientists should have known. But no, they applauded their "win" as if it said anything at all. But it didn't. That is all very trivial and therefore these scientists can no longer be taken for serious. All what I can say is that it is true that Kasparov, if he had a hidden motivation to escape the situation because he saw that his preparation was too bad, that then of course he could boycot the whole event. But this is also nothing special in social sciences. You can never avoid that a client plays a false play. You simply skip the results and continue with a different client. But pretending as if NOTHING had happened that could make the results irrelevant, that is a further violation of science. It is a behaviour of criminals in general, but not of scientists. These scientists betrayed science by taking their irrelevant results as something that allegedly had to say something at all. I hope that I didn't forget a major point. This is a spontaneous message. I haven't the time for a complete survey of the whole crimes. > 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 0.01 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.