Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 13:25:50 06/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2005 at 15:53:59, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >On June 26, 2005 at 14:11:25, Roger D Davis wrote: > >>On June 26, 2005 at 10:56:15, James T. Walker wrote: >> >>>On June 26, 2005 at 10:46:25, Roger D Davis wrote: >>> >>>>On June 26, 2005 at 10:14:14, K. Burcham wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>At this time, I do not believe that Hydra beat GM Michael Adams, 2737, in match >>>>>play. >>>>>At this time I do not believe the results of this match. >>>>>At this time I believe that someone has an agenda that I am not aware of. >>>>>At this time I believe that money has influenced the match results. >>>>> >>>>>At this time I do not believe that all GM and Super GM that watched and/or have >>>>>analysed these games are saying: "damn I cannot believe these moves and >>>>>positions that the machine was able to play, this is truely 2700 Super GM play". >>>>> >>>>>Webster: skepticism >>>>>a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is >>>>>uncertain >>>>>b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism >>>>>characteristic of skeptics. >>>>> >>>>>http://www.fide.com/ratings/toparc.phtml?cod=77 >>>>>http://www.fide.com/ratings/card.phtml?event=400041 >>>>> >>>>>kburcham >>>> >>>>I think Kramnik-Fritz and Kaspy-Junior were probalby fixed, not necessarily each >>>>game, but the match result. I don't think Hydra-Adams is. >>>> >>>>I think the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorist. Unfortunately, since >>>>there is no proof, so the conspiracy theory doesn't stand up. >>>> >>>>Roger >>> >>>Yes, so where is your proof the above mentioned matches were fixed. The >>>conspiracy theorist make the same claims after each human/computer match. It's >>>easy to sit on the sidelines and kibitz. The pressure of being the one playing >>>is quite different. Have you never been there? >> >>I didn't say I had proof, I just said it was my opinion. I don't think it's >>unrealistic to believe that Kramnik and Kasparov drew in order to keep the match >>funds flowing in. Milk the man versus machine thing as long as possible. Makes >>sense to me. >> >>Roger > >The only result that would dispute all of this fixed business would be if the >humans win matches against the comp. any other result, and the match was fixed. >Nutz > >Wayne Well, there's difference between saying that the match was fixed and saying that you suspect it could be fixed. I think a substantial minority thinks some of these matches might have been fixed, simply because the incentive is there. Whether they were really fixed, we will never know, and like you say, it's unprovable. For me, it's unprovable whether they were either fixed or fair. I really don't know. Fortunately, the incentives for Adams versus Hydra definitely favor Adams playing the best chess he can. So I feel certain the Adams versus Hydra match is real. Roger
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.