Author: KarinsDad
Date: 14:08:09 10/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 1999 at 16:23:50, Dann Corbit wrote: [snip] >Bungled or not, the outcome was certain before the contest began. Oh, come on. Most analysis showed the game to be at least drawn until the screwups. 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. Yes, good did come out of it. Unfortunately, I think that more people will remember the negatives as opposed to the positives. KarinsDad :) PS. I will answer your other thread here. The analysts (such as Irina) could not be considered to be cheating if they have outside help. I reiterate, the game was versus the World (which includes computers, GMs, Anand, and anyone else), not versus some random average of the world in an attempt to lose by attrition.
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.