Author: blass uri
Date: 09:53:07 01/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2000 at 11:14:42, walter irvin 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... never assume Kasparov just prepared poorly and screwed up as a >>result. >> >> >> >>> >>> "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. > >there is something else that needs to be said ,how could deep blue cheat , it is >imposible . >1.kasparov is the strongest human chess player (ok maybe fischer)so any human >they would have used would have been weaker than kasparov or deep blue . I assume deep blue did not cheat but the fact that kasparov is better than other humans does not make cheating impossible. I believe that anand is a weaker player than kasparov and also that Fritz is a weaker player than kasparov but the team of anand and Fritz is better than kasparov. Uri
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.