Author: george petty
Date: 02:24:19 01/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2000 at 23:32:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 18, 2000 at 19:11:09, george petty wrote: > >>On January 18, 2000 at 18:42:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 18, 2000 at 18:19:48, george petty wrote: >>> >>>>On January 18, 2000 at 16:54:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 18, 2000 at 15:35:06, george petty wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Tom, I think there still too many open questions out there that we do not know >>>>>> the answers to yet. Now do you really think he is a idiot (and a jerk)? You >>>>>> being a programmer, and having a top program, do you think some of his logic >>>>>> could have some possibilty, that something fishy may have occured? Right now >>>>>> I don't know, and I question, what do we know are the real facts, not opinions. >>>>>> I still think if I.B.M. had came out with the printouts first, there would not >>>>>> be so much distrust of I.B.M. or Kasparov having any grounds to cry. Just a >>>>>> thought. But to keep an open mind and watch. I think the TRUTH will come out >>>>>> sometime with all these outstanding minds, looking everything so close. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I think if IBM had produced the printouts Kasparov would have _still_ tried >>>>>the same excuses. "they doctored them to say what they wanted". >>>> >>>> Bob, if they had released them immediately, a lot of these things would never >>>> have came up. To say that Kasparov would have still tried the same excuses, >>>> seems to me, as not being very fair and extremly biased against Him. >>> >>>Not nearly so unfair as to take the group that built a chess machine that >>>did what no other has come close to doing, and right after they accomplish what >>>we _all_ were saying was impossible, to accuse them of 'cheating' to do this, >>>was simply _very_ ugly. So how is my suspecting that he would have found other >>>things to complain about worse than what he did in the _first_ place. No >>>evidence. Just got his tail kicked and then resigned in a drawn position that >>>he overlooked. And he accused deep blue of cheating? :) >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> They could have been doctored up, we don't know yet. >>> >>>There you go... right out of Kasparov's mouth. Always assume the DB guys >>>cheated... >> >> >>How did you get that out of my statement? > > > >Quite easy. I don't know that you are not a thief. I don't know that you are >not immoral. I don't know that you are a complete idiot. I don't know a lot >of things about you. And I _do_ _not_ make those claims, either, do I? > >_that_ is the difference. Saying "we don't know yet" is the same thing as >saying "there might be something fishy here..." > >> >>I said WE DON'T KNOW YET. >> >>Do you know something the rest of us don't know? > > >Apparently a lot in some cases... > > >> >>Bob we all have opinions. But we are trying to get to the FACTS. I repeat >>do you have some FACTS that rest of the world does not have? >> > >Yes. I have seen the logs. I have seen DB play games OTB. I know all of >the people involved. They have _never_ cheated before. I know a little >about Kasparov. I know that he moved a piece and then took it back, and >was caught on video (against Polgar.) So Kasparov is a proven cheater, >The DB guys are not. Those are a _lot_ of facts. And _none_ of them suggest >that the DB guys would do _anything_ to possibly wreck their reputations.. > >absolutely nothing... > > > > >> >> never assume Kasparov just prepared poorly and screwed up as a >>>result. >>> >> >> >>I'm not taking anything for granted without FACTS and PROOF. >> > >IMHO you are taking a _lot_ without proof. To even suggest that there is >a possibility of cheating is going way overboard.. > > > > >> >>> >>>> >>>> "They had >>>>>no 'chain of evidence' to make sure they were observed at all times." Etc. >>>>> >>>>>If someone wants an excuse, they can _always_ manufacture an excuse. Whether >>>>>it makes technical sense or not. >>>> >>>>Thats true of both parties. Why should we take one side over the other, until >>>>we get more FACTS and not OPINIONS? >>> >>> >>>Innocent until proven guilty is the reason. >>> >>>Nothing more needs be said. > > >no comment about the above??? Just one! Is there anything to the accustion that Cray Blitz was charged with cheating in the Chess Championship Match in the 1980's ?.
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.