Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
Dann Corbit wrote:Consider the converse --
To this day, more than ten years later, Deep Blue is still uninformed that he won the contest. Worse still, he was pulled apart and sold for parts and is now running COBOL somewhere in Idaho.
Now that is real tragedy.
Are you sure you listened to the same audio I did? I heard absolutely _nothing_ that suggested Murray though anything was not as it should have been.Rolf wrote:This is not what I have written. Murray is a good speaker, so that wasnt the point. The point isnt that he took his time but that he reinforced his own statements in front of the questioner whose questions he couldnt logically answer properly. Simple as that. But read how I described the point. Let's not become too redundant. Last time I saw such sort of reinforment when kids told me lies. Then they thought they could make their argument stronger if they would nick with their head. This is what Murray did. Very shabby ignoring the facts by Murray. Facts he had the opportunity to define exactly this way and what this senior questioner called unfair at least. But Steven Edwards made the same point, please read what he had to say. Interesting that you completely ignore such positions. When was this discovered, that you can be a good scientist if you ignore decent questions and aspects? - Overall you are such a marvelous open speaker but when you have a prejudice it's difficult with you. But that is old news. I still like you.bob wrote:I looked at that when it was first posted, a long while back. I have no idea what Rolf is talking about when he talks about Murray's answer to a question. Murray has always taken his time to formulate an answer before he starts to speak, something perhaps Rolf might try to emulate more. But there was nothing "hidden" in his comments that lends any credibility to the "Kasparov was cheated" chant. In fact, that specific question was asked ("was it a fair match?") and I thought Levy's answer was dead on. Deep Blue 2 completely surprised Kasparov and demoralized him in game two. But the most damaging part was done by Kasparov himself, when he resigned a drawn position. And then he was told by his advisors of all the analysis many of us did overnight to prove it was a draw. And that was the final nail in his coffin. He blew it. He knew he blew it. And it caused him to implode. That is hardly IBM's fault...
Hey, maybe the DB control software was written in Cobol!Ovyron wrote:What? Who knows, maybe Deep Blue really hated chess and now is very happy running COBOL
You may have uncovered the secret behind the machine's playing strength.
bob wrote:I looked at that when it was first posted, a long while back. I have no idea what Rolf is talking about when he talks about Murray's answer to a question. Murray has always taken his time to formulate an answer before he starts to speak, something perhaps Rolf might try to emulate more. But there was nothing "hidden" in his comments that lends any credibility to the "Kasparov was cheated" chant. In fact, that specific question was asked ("was it a fair match?") and I thought Levy's answer was dead on. Deep Blue 2 completely surprised Kasparov and demoralized him in game two. But the most damaging part was done by Kasparov himself, when he resigned a drawn position. And then he was told by his advisors of all the analysis many of us did overnight to prove it was a draw. And that was the final nail in his coffin. He blew it. He knew he blew it. And it caused him to implode. That is hardly IBM's fault...
Get a clue, Rolf. None of IBM's behavior good or bad justified Kasparov's baseless allegations of cheating; and I have never claimed otherwise.Rolf wrote:Please also read carefully what Edwards wrote here couple of days ago. He showed all the justified charges that could be made and then he *broke together* with the unfogettable tune, 'but Kasparov should stop making unbased charges'.
You are right, but I doubt that Kasparov did it all for the money in that match. He was defending human race. You just dont treat such a hero with disrespect. You are also right if you claim that nothing could be finally proven. But here I never had a different view after the year long training with Prof Bob.sje wrote:Get a clue, Rolf. None of IBM's behavior good or bad justified Kasparov's baseless allegations of cheating; and I have never claimed otherwise.Rolf wrote:Please also read carefully what Edwards wrote here couple of days ago. He showed all the justified charges that could be made and then he *broke together* with the unfogettable tune, 'but Kasparov should stop making unbased charges'.
Considering the big haul of cash that Kasparov claimed in both events, I'd say he was treated rather well overall. For a week of sweat, he got more than most engineers make in a decade.
Gosh...such a strict view of what science is. Perhaps I should be calling myself a computerologist.The rest of computer science has nothing to do with science at all.
Nothing theoretical. The question was aiming at the problem if that science if at all could research successfully something in the recent past and I've read that this isnt the case. So it might be a sort of teaching a kind of tech or language for the handling of machines. Question! I'm just asking. So could you add something specific?BubbaTough wrote:Gosh...such a strict view of what science is. Perhaps I should be calling myself a computerologist.The rest of computer science has nothing to do with science at all.
-Sam