Author: Amir Ban
Date: 04:52:10 01/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2000 at 23:38:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 18, 2000 at 22:34:08, george petty wrote: > >>On January 18, 2000 at 21:51:54, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>Let's suppose the worst. IBM decided to cheat. Now, folks like Anand and >>>Karpov are not going to risk a lifetime ban by doing something illegal. So it >>>would pretty much have to be a lower-eschelon player. [Well, they could have >>>crammed RJF into that box, but he would have been deathly afraid of a sinister >>>plot, I'm afraid -- so I think we can rule that out also]. >>> >>>So what are we left with? How do you cheat against the world's best player (by >>>a landslide?)??? >>> >>>You have some lower level GM who can be tempted and yet will *never* spill the >>>beans (hmm -- it seems it would take millions to do that, but what if he put the >>>money in a Swiss bank account and decided to write a book... Sounds a bit risky >>>doesn't it) >>> >>>In short the cheater theories are idiotic. It does not work. Even if you could >>>somehow pull it off, you would be sneaking in some high school track star to run >>>against Michael Johnson. And then taking the ENORMOUS risk that for the rest of >>>his life, he would keep his mouth shut. >>> >>>It's ludicrous. Insanely, bizarre. I can't imagine how such a foolish >>>expression can even escape the lips of any intelligent, thinking person. >>> >>>But forget all that, and suppose that you somehow manage to have a very clever >>>human (maybe we get a 2600GM who hates GK's intestines) to participate. The >>>human says "Rxb2" and the computer says "a4." Whom do you believe? The GM >>>can't outplay Kasparov -- we already know that. >>> >>>I will admit that having a super-GM in cahoots with Deep Blue *would* make a >>>stronger pair -- if you had a few months to form a workable system and a few >>>hundred games. But the risk is so enormous that only a great fool would believe >>>an image conscious company like IBM would try a foolhardy thing like that. >>> >>>In short, I lose respect for any person who says they believe in that hokey >>>"conspiracy" theory. >> >> How you can come up with all that from my statements is FANTASTIC. Boy I >> have seen people take things out of context, but I have to say this tops them >> all. I have never seen so much jealousy, and no sense of fair play. No >> wonder the rest of the world laughs at Americans. Don't wait for the FACTS, >> just prejudge. No body was talking about "conspiracy". But you have all the >> answers. NONSENSE!! I did not say I did. I say lets wait and see what the >> FACTS are. Hopefully we are not trying to write fiction on this post, but >> what is based on FACTS. > > >Here are the facts: > >Kasparov lost to Deep Blue. > >Deep Blue is a computer. > >The DB team has been working on this since 1986. > >The DB machine won the Fredkin stage II prize for the first computer to produce >a GM performance rating over 25 consecutive games. > >The log of the position questioned by Kasparov in game 2 was available within >a couple of days to some of us. It made perfect sense to all but a few that >wanted to cast a dark shadow on things for reasons unknown. > >We found _no_ moves that couldn't be reproduced by a computer given enough time >to compensate for DB's huge hardware advantage. > That's untrue, of course. Amir >none of that leads to any sort of cheating conclusion. > >Except in the mind of Kasparov. the loser.
This page took 0.02 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.