Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:05:22 01/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2000 at 07:52:10, Amir Ban wrote: >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 What is untrue? of course? > > >>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.