Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Please read this link: Kasparov vs. the World .... amazing :)

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 13:23:50 10/19/99

Go up one level in this thread


On October 19, 1999 at 15:35:23, KarinsDad wrote:
[snip]
>I disagree (sorry Dann).
No need to apologize! ;-)

>You mention, but do not seriously take into account the
>fact that the World had a lot of resources behind them such as other
>Grandmasters and computer analysis.
Does not matter at all, if run fair and square by voting.

>It was Kasparov versus the World after all,
>not Kasparov versus the average of the world.
Not according to the rules of the process.  It was to be selected by vote (from
anyone who cared to).  Hence, the world team's only role was that of advisor.
Most people would not even comprehend the world team's advice (on average).
Consider, you have some computer problem.  A team of 4 experts diagnoses what
they think the problem is.  Then, we take a poll of the office workers.  They
can choose either to follow or ignore the adivce of the experts.  Whatever the
office workers pick is the repair step we will take.  On the other hand, we have
the best and most skilled repairman in the world.  He makes his diagnosis and
does whatever he likes.

Who's going to fix the computer?

>It is a fact that move 51 was
>ballot stuffed to pick a questionable move and move 58 was voted on without the
>analysis of the team whose input was more valuable than any other resource.
>Microsoft messed up more than once and that is a fact. Whether the World would
>have won or drawn is irrelevant. The only relevant thing that most anyone is
>going to remember from this game is that MS screwed up and because of that, the
>outcome of the game was a farce to most people. Unfortunately.
Bungled or not, the outcome was certain before the contest began.  If Kasparov
had lost, then there would almost certainly have been real cheating of some kind
going on (although I am not sure if it is even possible in this case to win by
cheating).  It's a lame parlor trick.
Lame *lame* *Lame* *LAME* !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OTOH, it generated a lot of interest in chess and there were a bunch of
genuinely interesting moves and a lot of genuinely interesting analysis.

A lot more good came of the contest than I ever imagined possible.



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.