Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:04:22 01/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2000 at 05:24:19, george petty wrote: >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 ?. Nope. The charge was based on the fact that according to Berliner "Cray Blitz played a move that _no_ computer would play." Ken Thompson discovered that Belle would play that move. Crafty today will play that move. And in front of a half-dozen people, Harry Nelson had Cray Research restore the exact program we used in that round (they did a backup every night) and that version played that exact same move, with the same time taken, etc. How would _you_ evaluate that? "Wait for more facts, I am sure"???
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.