Author: Graham Laight
Date: 05:34:21 01/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
Suppose that IBM could not get DB to work, so they decided to put a humming black box in the Equitable building, and transmit the moves in from outside. The moves would have been chosen by a team of IMs working with other chess computers. Would the match referees have picked this up? As I understand it, there was only 1 referee, and he couldn't have been everywhere all the time. Was there even a referee in the IBM team room? Let me state for the record that I do not believe that, in reality, IBM cheated. -g 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.
This page took 0.01 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.