My observations on Kasparov vs Deep Blue rematch

[Rolf]

First, you can _never_ prove that DB made those moves. Even if you have it in front of you. It is always possible to design a methodology to provide outside influence. This is true of any computer chess program today. So, again, it is a straw-man argument. Of course this can't be proven, any more than the CERN folks will be able to prove that a Higgs Boson was not created in their previous collider, only because they never observed one decaying. You can't prove something did not happen, and it is a waste of time to discuss such.

Since we are now approachiong psychiatry and delusions what do you have to say as a psychiatrist about the situation for Kasparov. In view of the above would you maintain that Kasparov must be a fool if he assumed something fishy? I thought you should argue inte the opposite direction. You can try to fool Kasparov but he detects it with his chess instincts.

False. They simply acted as any scientist would, when they had unveiled the latest-and-greatest implementation of their invention, only to be called frauds and cheaters. I have played hundreds of thousands of games against GM players. Crafty has won most of them. I have yet to provide any one of them with a log print-out. Nor would I go to the trouble. If I beat a GM myself somehow (playing as a human, not using a computer), he doesn't have the right to ask me to sit at the right to demand that I sit across a table from him and explain why I played each move and what my winning plan was.

You confound real chess (Kasparov) with bullets and such gambles on the internet in fast mode. This is a nice passtime but it isnt chess. So, no wonder that no player ever asked you for an output proof.

Always have been. However, you haven't done your homework. You could, if you wanted to, find post-game interviews where Friedel/Kasparov talk about his preparation and how he was told that playing against Fritz would be comparable to playing against DB. I didn't make that up, it was discussed right after the match at length on r.g.c.c in fact... So, instead of it being a question of whether I am a scientist or not, it is more a question of whether you can read or not.

As I told you before this was the euphoric Friedel talking. It's not authorized deeper stuff when someone reports what a genius said when he chewed lobster meat. You have this all wrong if you pay attention to these fairy tales of candid camera.

Once again you fall right into the middle of the biggest problem scientists face each day. You can _never_ prove Saddam did not have massive stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. You could prove he did by exposing them. You can't prove he didn't just because you can't find 'em. Years ago man came up with this marvelous invention to transport stuff. It was called "an 18 wheeler truck"...

Dont you see the difference between

- you can never prove that something isnt the case and

- the saying from spin doctors or American secretaries who claim proof?

DB/IBM perhaps couldnt make a watertight setting for the match but they shouldnt have accused Kasparov of unbased charges if they were unable to give the sligthest proof for the output - in time (Edwards!!). How can they deconstruct the machine in such a situation of disbelief and chaos?

Admit that you only want to prolong a hopeless argument with absolutely no basis of scientific truth in anything you quote. It is now 11 years past the "grand event". Kasparov now has little chance of beating _any_ computer in a match. And I do mean _any_. I said at the time that DB was 10 years ahead of the rest of us due to custom hardware. So here we are 10 years later. There is ample evidence to suggest that things happened _exactly_ as we saw them, with no outside interference. The idea is actually pretty funny because _who_ would they want to override DB? What human could consistently beat Kasparov back then, hmmm???

Are you dreaming that DB did that accomplish??

Aha, they developed a direct pipeline to God, no doubt... Damn, didn't consider that option.

There is absolutely _nothing_ wrong with their output. It is consistent move to move, it follows the game precisely, and other programs agree with the movs. So exactly _what_ are you rambling on about???

You should see someone about that cough. You are slowly choking and don't realize it.

What output? What output was given in the situation itself? <cough>

[bob]

But there was nothing dishonest whatsoever with either the contract, the conditions, nor the actual playing of the games

Dishonesty? Well, maybe not, and there certainly wasn't any breach of contract as far as I can see.

But I still maintain that IBM was misleading the public in presenting the event as a symmetric match and that the event was no different than a typical high level match between two humans. (Other than one of the players was a machine.)

Could have the event been truly symmetric? (Note that I avoid the charged word "fair".) Maybe not, but it could have been much closer to a typical match. But apparently that would have been either too expensive or too risky for IBM.

How to deal with that one? In short this is all wrong although it appears to be very thoughtful from certain thoughtful expressions. But the logic isnt there.

- dishonesty not, maybe not

So possibly yes. In fact I believe in this variation. This is where I use the expression cheating. Compared with what they did before, also in respect for Kasparov, in their typical thankful manner which is never using the client as an object that could also be mistreated, even if it could be possible for the scientists with their deeper knowledge of the situation, the setting, the institutional background, the research details, their actual standing of progress. They obviously shouldnt speak about their exact performance but also they should not obfuscate the whole setting for propaganda effects. This argument was also in your mind above. Here they cheated the most.

Let me shortly introduce an example. Say psychologists would make a memory experiment with the best chessplayer Kasparov, well in 1997, and they would lance the propaganda that they would research genius, and in truth technically speaking they would just make an experiment of frustration, where the "genius" would look like a fool, so to speak, but again in the worldwide propaganda they would completely hide the frustration thing. And they could even justify this in best Hyatt style. Because you cant tell a client that you want to frustrate him because that alone would blow the experiment simply because knowing the background wouldnt lead to a frustration of the genius. But now consider what the memory blabla means to the genius. Who foresees for himself a big gig in public eyes. - Perhaps this example shows also the Hyatt believers that this couldnt be commented by Kasparov is the genius and he's old enough to look through such a setting and he could have easily changed the conditions that would forbid such experiments of frustration. Wouldnt that sound idiotic? Therefore I already told Bob this athletics example with the water holes, well, which isnt foreseeable if we imagine that there is only a single competition without former adaption. The example was theoretical indeed and it should only show that always the organizer is the one who is capable and authorized and forced to guarantee a fair competition. So, yes, this alone was violated in 1997 in numerous cases. No matter what Kasparov had signed.

- certainly not a breach of contracts

This is totally false. If we dont want to cheat then we admit that a contract has at least two levels. The written words with their meaning which is hopefully clear enough, and the level of a spirit of such contracts which excludes any form of cheating from the start. So, that was even in your opinion not secured. There was no "symmetry" how you call it when still seeing fairness or avoiding to reflect it at all. The situation was so biased and unfair against Kasparov, that his signature doesnt speak him guilty for the whole cheating. He couldnt have imagined or foreseen, what these guys would do to him. But during and after game two he knew it and was mentally and ethically dead.

- IBM mileading the public

Thanks for these kind words. But in context it means all the two paragraphes above too. Because this isnt logical what you say. Misleading but no breach, no unfairness to be discussed as necessary. The misleading IS the breach of the contract, which was designed for a fair and honest experiment. Called match.

- could the event have been truly symmetric?

Hyatt, as a positivst, already gave his verdict: it went along the written and signed, therefore accepted and therefore fair and also symmetric conditions of the match. As the factual truth. But we all know from birth on that it isnt so simple and odd.

We human beings are used to look a bit deeper into matters and then we see, what all critics saw right from the beginning, that everything was a hoax. Alone the change between round 1 and 2 could never have been performed by a machine itself. They knew they would lose in game 1 way. So, they called for the hand of G-d. We dont know the details yet but that it intervened in one or two situations is absolutely clear. And I dont even speak of chess. To psych out someone like Kasparov it really didnt need to order someone like Ed Gein for different masks. And to make this as clear as possible, if head-nicker Murray Campbell had told me that no, they wouldnt show me anything at all, nick nick, then I would have become mad at the instant.

Your last paragraph is exactly what one would expect if the topics were "conspiracy theory combined with imagination"... That's all any of it is. Would be fun for you to sign a serious contract, and then breach it. In front of the judge, you then try the above nonsense. "the words of the contract were not violated by my opponent, but the 'spirit' of the contract was" so I felt safe in violating the agreement since he had done it first. I am quite sure that would keep you out of any legal problems, right?

please grow up and get real...

Contracts are written to avoid just what you are trying to conjure up via imagination. If contracts were written as you suggest, they would all be worthless. You go by the words only, and you put enough words in the contract to clearly, concisely spell out exactly what is or is not required.

why is that so hard to understand???

[bob]

First, you can _never_ prove that DB made those moves. Even if you have it in front of you. It is always possible to design a methodology to provide outside influence. This is true of any computer chess program today. So, again, it is a straw-man argument. Of course this can't be proven, any more than the CERN folks will be able to prove that a Higgs Boson was not created in their previous collider, only because they never observed one decaying. You can't prove something did not happen, and it is a waste of time to discuss such.

Since we are now approachiong psychiatry and delusions what do you have to say as a psychiatrist about the situation for Kasparov. In view of the above would you maintain that Kasparov must be a fool if he assumed something fishy? I thought you should argue inte the opposite direction. You can try to fool Kasparov but he detects it with his chess instincts.

False. They simply acted as any scientist would, when they had unveiled the latest-and-greatest implementation of their invention, only to be called frauds and cheaters. I have played hundreds of thousands of games against GM players. Crafty has won most of them. I have yet to provide any one of them with a log print-out. Nor would I go to the trouble. If I beat a GM myself somehow (playing as a human, not using a computer), he doesn't have the right to ask me to sit at the right to demand that I sit across a table from him and explain why I played each move and what my winning plan was.

You confound real chess (Kasparov) with bullets and such gambles on the internet in fast mode. This is a nice passtime but it isnt chess. So, no wonder that no player ever asked you for an output proof.

Always have been. However, you haven't done your homework. You could, if you wanted to, find post-game interviews where Friedel/Kasparov talk about his preparation and how he was told that playing against Fritz would be comparable to playing against DB. I didn't make that up, it was discussed right after the match at length on r.g.c.c in fact... So, instead of it being a question of whether I am a scientist or not, it is more a question of whether you can read or not.

As I told you before this was the euphoric Friedel talking. It's not authorized deeper stuff when someone reports what a genius said when he chewed lobster meat. You have this all wrong if you pay attention to these fairy tales of candid camera.

Once again you fall right into the middle of the biggest problem scientists face each day. You can _never_ prove Saddam did not have massive stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. You could prove he did by exposing them. You can't prove he didn't just because you can't find 'em. Years ago man came up with this marvelous invention to transport stuff. It was called "an 18 wheeler truck"...

Dont you see the difference between

- you can never prove that something isnt the case and

- the saying from spin doctors or American secretaries who claim proof?

DB/IBM perhaps couldnt make a watertight setting for the match but they shouldnt have accused Kasparov of unbased charges if they were unable to give the sligthest proof for the output - in time (Edwards!!). How can they deconstruct the machine in such a situation of disbelief and chaos?

Admit that you only want to prolong a hopeless argument with absolutely no basis of scientific truth in anything you quote. It is now 11 years past the "grand event". Kasparov now has little chance of beating _any_ computer in a match. And I do mean _any_. I said at the time that DB was 10 years ahead of the rest of us due to custom hardware. So here we are 10 years later. There is ample evidence to suggest that things happened _exactly_ as we saw them, with no outside interference. The idea is actually pretty funny because _who_ would they want to override DB? What human could consistently beat Kasparov back then, hmmm???

Are you dreaming that DB did that accomplish??

Aha, they developed a direct pipeline to God, no doubt... Damn, didn't consider that option.

There is absolutely _nothing_ wrong with their output. It is consistent move to move, it follows the game precisely, and other programs agree with the movs. So exactly _what_ are you rambling on about???

You should see someone about that cough. You are slowly choking and don't realize it.

What output? What output was given in the situation itself? <cough>

THE log files. The moves in question became public within a day of the Kasparov outburst. Several people looked at them, myself included. We used our computer programs to analyze the same positions to see what our programs could find. Chessmaster found axb5 before anyone else. But given enough time, several programs found this move to be best. It was a matter of weeks before the whole mess was made public, I saved all the log files in case they were ever removed from the IBM web site due to lack of interest. I still have them... Amir and I had some exchanges on r.g.c.c about the move. He was more concerned about a "reconstructing the PV" message than anything else. Once I explained their PV problem (the hardware could not back up a PV so they had to recover it from hash tables that were spread across 30 different machines), that discussion died away as well...

[Rolf]

First, you can _never_ prove that DB made those moves. Even if you have it in front of you. It is always possible to design a methodology to provide outside influence. This is true of any computer chess program today. So, again, it is a straw-man argument. Of course this can't be proven, any more than the CERN folks will be able to prove that a Higgs Boson was not created in their previous collider, only because they never observed one decaying. You can't prove something did not happen, and it is a waste of time to discuss such.

Since we are now approachiong psychiatry and delusions what do you have to say as a psychiatrist about the situation for Kasparov. In view of the above would you maintain that Kasparov must be a fool if he assumed something fishy? I thought you should argue inte the opposite direction. You can try to fool Kasparov but he detects it with his chess instincts.

False. They simply acted as any scientist would, when they had unveiled the latest-and-greatest implementation of their invention, only to be called frauds and cheaters. I have played hundreds of thousands of games against GM players. Crafty has won most of them. I have yet to provide any one of them with a log print-out. Nor would I go to the trouble. If I beat a GM myself somehow (playing as a human, not using a computer), he doesn't have the right to ask me to sit at the right to demand that I sit across a table from him and explain why I played each move and what my winning plan was.

You confound real chess (Kasparov) with bullets and such gambles on the internet in fast mode. This is a nice passtime but it isnt chess. So, no wonder that no player ever asked you for an output proof.

Always have been. However, you haven't done your homework. You could, if you wanted to, find post-game interviews where Friedel/Kasparov talk about his preparation and how he was told that playing against Fritz would be comparable to playing against DB. I didn't make that up, it was discussed right after the match at length on r.g.c.c in fact... So, instead of it being a question of whether I am a scientist or not, it is more a question of whether you can read or not.

As I told you before this was the euphoric Friedel talking. It's not authorized deeper stuff when someone reports what a genius said when he chewed lobster meat. You have this all wrong if you pay attention to these fairy tales of candid camera.

Once again you fall right into the middle of the biggest problem scientists face each day. You can _never_ prove Saddam did not have massive stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. You could prove he did by exposing them. You can't prove he didn't just because you can't find 'em. Years ago man came up with this marvelous invention to transport stuff. It was called "an 18 wheeler truck"...

Dont you see the difference between

- you can never prove that something isnt the case and

- the saying from spin doctors or American secretaries who claim proof?

DB/IBM perhaps couldnt make a watertight setting for the match but they shouldnt have accused Kasparov of unbased charges if they were unable to give the sligthest proof for the output - in time (Edwards!!). How can they deconstruct the machine in such a situation of disbelief and chaos?

Admit that you only want to prolong a hopeless argument with absolutely no basis of scientific truth in anything you quote. It is now 11 years past the "grand event". Kasparov now has little chance of beating _any_ computer in a match. And I do mean _any_. I said at the time that DB was 10 years ahead of the rest of us due to custom hardware. So here we are 10 years later. There is ample evidence to suggest that things happened _exactly_ as we saw them, with no outside interference. The idea is actually pretty funny because _who_ would they want to override DB? What human could consistently beat Kasparov back then, hmmm???

Are you dreaming that DB did that accomplish??

Aha, they developed a direct pipeline to God, no doubt... Damn, didn't consider that option.

There is absolutely _nothing_ wrong with their output. It is consistent move to move, it follows the game precisely, and other programs agree with the movs. So exactly _what_ are you rambling on about???

You should see someone about that cough. You are slowly choking and don't realize it.

What output? What output was given in the situation itself? <cough>

THE log files. The moves in question became public within a day of the Kasparov outburst. Several people looked at them, myself included. We used our computer programs to analyze the same positions to see what our programs could find. Chessmaster found axb5 before anyone else. But given enough time, several programs found this move to be best. It was a matter of weeks before the whole mess was made public, I saved all the log files in case they were ever removed from the IBM web site due to lack of interest. I still have them... Amir and I had some exchanges on r.g.c.c about the move. He was more concerned about a "reconstructing the PV" message than anything else. Once I explained their PV problem (the hardware could not back up a PV so they had to recover it from hash tables that were spread across 30 different machines), that discussion died away as well...

Bob, I dont understand why you think that putting out a fire is the primar task for a scientist, when questions remain open. I mean what is your interest in all this? That no more questions exist or that something is clarified? Science would be to hold open the fire if no clear explanations could be given.

You argue like a lawyer. How could it mean anything to you (in science) if someone like Amir gives it a rest? What is this for a logical system to argue that someone had ceased to further ask questions. What has this to do with the underlying problem?

I conclude that you follow a path that itself calls for new questions. Science would mean you allow a fair trial of pro and contra. But these tricks, that someone had stopped asking who was particularly interested in this or that - this isnt sound.

Therefore I hold open the theory that Kasparov was psychologically cheated and that includes much of the fact that he added much to this out of himself, but everything else to assume would be quixotic.

You argue along the style I know since long. You simply ignore those arguments that annoy you and you present always new seemingly favorable aspects for xour standpoint but this isnt sound. You justg cant kill questions about the event that cant be answered without the assumption that they cheated Kasparov and above all by cheating science. You never could explain why the mistreating of a client should be allowed and reasonable.

To better understand your friends I am actually examining if they were scientists at all. Because as mere fighters for their country they could have done everything and much more than what they did. In military operations much is "allowed"... <cough>

[bob]

First, you can _never_ prove that DB made those moves. Even if you have it in front of you. It is always possible to design a methodology to provide outside influence. This is true of any computer chess program today. So, again, it is a straw-man argument. Of course this can't be proven, any more than the CERN folks will be able to prove that a Higgs Boson was not created in their previous collider, only because they never observed one decaying. You can't prove something did not happen, and it is a waste of time to discuss such.

Since we are now approachiong psychiatry and delusions what do you have to say as a psychiatrist about the situation for Kasparov. In view of the above would you maintain that Kasparov must be a fool if he assumed something fishy? I thought you should argue inte the opposite direction. You can try to fool Kasparov but he detects it with his chess instincts.

False. They simply acted as any scientist would, when they had unveiled the latest-and-greatest implementation of their invention, only to be called frauds and cheaters. I have played hundreds of thousands of games against GM players. Crafty has won most of them. I have yet to provide any one of them with a log print-out. Nor would I go to the trouble. If I beat a GM myself somehow (playing as a human, not using a computer), he doesn't have the right to ask me to sit at the right to demand that I sit across a table from him and explain why I played each move and what my winning plan was.

You confound real chess (Kasparov) with bullets and such gambles on the internet in fast mode. This is a nice passtime but it isnt chess. So, no wonder that no player ever asked you for an output proof.

Always have been. However, you haven't done your homework. You could, if you wanted to, find post-game interviews where Friedel/Kasparov talk about his preparation and how he was told that playing against Fritz would be comparable to playing against DB. I didn't make that up, it was discussed right after the match at length on r.g.c.c in fact... So, instead of it being a question of whether I am a scientist or not, it is more a question of whether you can read or not.

As I told you before this was the euphoric Friedel talking. It's not authorized deeper stuff when someone reports what a genius said when he chewed lobster meat. You have this all wrong if you pay attention to these fairy tales of candid camera.

Once again you fall right into the middle of the biggest problem scientists face each day. You can _never_ prove Saddam did not have massive stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. You could prove he did by exposing them. You can't prove he didn't just because you can't find 'em. Years ago man came up with this marvelous invention to transport stuff. It was called "an 18 wheeler truck"...

Dont you see the difference between

- you can never prove that something isnt the case and

- the saying from spin doctors or American secretaries who claim proof?

DB/IBM perhaps couldnt make a watertight setting for the match but they shouldnt have accused Kasparov of unbased charges if they were unable to give the sligthest proof for the output - in time (Edwards!!). How can they deconstruct the machine in such a situation of disbelief and chaos?

Admit that you only want to prolong a hopeless argument with absolutely no basis of scientific truth in anything you quote. It is now 11 years past the "grand event". Kasparov now has little chance of beating _any_ computer in a match. And I do mean _any_. I said at the time that DB was 10 years ahead of the rest of us due to custom hardware. So here we are 10 years later. There is ample evidence to suggest that things happened _exactly_ as we saw them, with no outside interference. The idea is actually pretty funny because _who_ would they want to override DB? What human could consistently beat Kasparov back then, hmmm???

Are you dreaming that DB did that accomplish??

Aha, they developed a direct pipeline to God, no doubt... Damn, didn't consider that option.

There is absolutely _nothing_ wrong with their output. It is consistent move to move, it follows the game precisely, and other programs agree with the movs. So exactly _what_ are you rambling on about???

You should see someone about that cough. You are slowly choking and don't realize it.

What output? What output was given in the situation itself? <cough>

THE log files. The moves in question became public within a day of the Kasparov outburst. Several people looked at them, myself included. We used our computer programs to analyze the same positions to see what our programs could find. Chessmaster found axb5 before anyone else. But given enough time, several programs found this move to be best. It was a matter of weeks before the whole mess was made public, I saved all the log files in case they were ever removed from the IBM web site due to lack of interest. I still have them... Amir and I had some exchanges on r.g.c.c about the move. He was more concerned about a "reconstructing the PV" message than anything else. Once I explained their PV problem (the hardware could not back up a PV so they had to recover it from hash tables that were spread across 30 different machines), that discussion died away as well...

Bob, I dont understand why you think that putting out a fire is the primar task for a scientist, when questions remain open. I mean what is your interest in all this? That no more questions exist or that something is clarified? Science would be to hold open the fire if no clear explanations could be given.

You argue like a lawyer. How could it mean anything to you (in science) if someone like Amir gives it a rest? What is this for a logical system to argue that someone had ceased to further ask questions. What has this to do with the underlying problem?

The only problem I see is that you seem to be unable to realize that there is _no_ problem here. Kasparov psyched himself out. Not IBM's fault. DB won. That was IBM's fault for building the machine and writing the software. Beyond that, it is all nonsense.

I conclude that you follow a path that itself calls for new questions. Science would mean you allow a fair trial of pro and contra. But these tricks, that someone had stopped asking who was particularly interested in this or that - this isnt sound.

Therefore I hold open the theory that Kasparov was psychologically cheated and that includes much of the fact that he added much to this out of himself, but everything else to assume would be quixotic.

The phrase "psychologically cheated" is meaningless. Whenever Kasparov played in a human event in years past, his opponents were immediately intimidated because they were playing the world champion. Were those matches therefore unfair because they did not play at their best because they were mentally / psychologically impaired by his presence at the board?

That's rubbish. The fact that he was surprised by DB's strength is his problem, most of the rest of us had a good idea how strong the machine would be, having played them and watched them for 10 years... The fact that he was unprepared for "the beast" was solely his doing.

You argue along the style I know since long. You simply ignore those arguments that annoy you and you present always new seemingly favorable aspects for xour standpoint but this isnt sound. You justg cant kill questions about the event that cant be answered without the assumption that they cheated Kasparov and above all by cheating science. You never could explain why the mistreating of a client should be allowed and reasonable.

Perhaps I tend to argue more from facts than from speculation and such?

To better understand your friends I am actually examining if they were scientists at all. Because as mere fighters for their country they could have done everything and much more than what they did. In military operations much is "allowed"... <cough>

Funny that this is alll the IBM group's fault. Kasparov is totally innocent and blameless for accepting match conditions he could have changed easily prior to signing up to play. Grown men are responsible for their decisions and actions. That unfortunately includes Kasparov...

[Rolf]

Why do you ignore my repeatedly asked aspect of the hour long break=interruption in the second game? Was Derek inventing that stuff? Nice science that simply ignores irritating questions. But computerchess isnt a science, I had to know that.

[bob]

Why do you ignore my repeatedly asked aspect of the hour long break=interruption in the second game? Was Derek inventing that stuff? Nice science that simply ignores irritating questions. But computerchess isnt a science, I had to know that.

What exactly is the issue? We have seen "breaks" in many computer events. Power goes down. Communications fail. Hardware failure. So what exactly is your point? I have no idea what Derek wants to imply, if anything. It is all irrelevant...

[bob]

After the defeat of Kasparov by DB, IBM's stock rose by several points---which translates to many millions of dollars. Surely IBM could have forseen this and made arraingements with Kasparov to throw the match ---for a King's ransom! When you are talking that much money, anything is possible. Perhaps the fuss by Kasparov was an act to make it look real.
Collusions in chess have been around for a long time and probably will remain as long as chess is played.

I ask you---is it possible?

One doesnt dare to speak it out so thanks for the invitation.

This is for me at least the main clue for this rematch in 1997.

Kasparov in the light of the World Press defending mankind.

Later perhaps becoming a politician and changing the whole world.

All that was in his mind. Just take a short look on how he organised his retreat.

In truth a chessmaster is much less in the eyes of the public. But then we all here bathed in the same delusions without having his genius.

Let me say it this way: Kasparov in his delusions couldnt believe that his American friends would risk the end of all such matches by simply trouncing him at the first occasion. But stupid enough they did.

In the lights of the billions the State (his citizans) must pay for the bank crisis now this is looking kind of weird however. IBM doesnt even have notebooks anymore. What a stupid development! Also, where is Hsu, and how was Campbell doing in 2005?. So, yes, Kasparov had been the right man for such a mega rebirth of the Christ. Instead he threw out Friedel and soon later he left chess for good.

Somebody has _got_ to come over to your house and help rid you of that monkey infestation. They are typing more and more gibberish each day...

[Rolf]

After the defeat of Kasparov by DB, IBM's stock rose by several points---which translates to many millions of dollars. Surely IBM could have forseen this and made arraingements with Kasparov to throw the match ---for a King's ransom! When you are talking that much money, anything is possible. Perhaps the fuss by Kasparov was an act to make it look real.
Collusions in chess have been around for a long time and probably will remain as long as chess is played.

I ask you---is it possible?

One doesnt dare to speak it out so thanks for the invitation.

This is for me at least the main clue for this rematch in 1997.

Kasparov in the light of the World Press defending mankind.

Later perhaps becoming a politician and changing the whole world.

All that was in his mind. Just take a short look on how he organised his retreat.

In truth a chessmaster is much less in the eyes of the public. But then we all here bathed in the same delusions without having his genius.

Let me say it this way: Kasparov in his delusions couldnt believe that his American friends would risk the end of all such matches by simply trouncing him at the first occasion. But stupid enough they did.

In the lights of the billions the State (his citizans) must pay for the bank crisis now this is looking kind of weird however. IBM doesnt even have notebooks anymore. What a stupid development! Also, where is Hsu, and how was Campbell doing in 2005?. So, yes, Kasparov had been the right man for such a mega rebirth of the Christ. Instead he threw out Friedel and soon later he left chess for good.

Somebody has _got_ to come over to your house and help rid you of that monkey infestation. They are typing more and more gibberish each day...

How can one talk about something that is 2000 Elo points above yourself?

[bob]

After the defeat of Kasparov by DB, IBM's stock rose by several points---which translates to many millions of dollars. Surely IBM could have forseen this and made arraingements with Kasparov to throw the match ---for a King's ransom! When you are talking that much money, anything is possible. Perhaps the fuss by Kasparov was an act to make it look real.
Collusions in chess have been around for a long time and probably will remain as long as chess is played.

I ask you---is it possible?

One doesnt dare to speak it out so thanks for the invitation.

This is for me at least the main clue for this rematch in 1997.

Kasparov in the light of the World Press defending mankind.

Later perhaps becoming a politician and changing the whole world.

All that was in his mind. Just take a short look on how he organised his retreat.

In truth a chessmaster is much less in the eyes of the public. But then we all here bathed in the same delusions without having his genius.

Let me say it this way: Kasparov in his delusions couldnt believe that his American friends would risk the end of all such matches by simply trouncing him at the first occasion. But stupid enough they did.

In the lights of the billions the State (his citizans) must pay for the bank crisis now this is looking kind of weird however. IBM doesnt even have notebooks anymore. What a stupid development! Also, where is Hsu, and how was Campbell doing in 2005?. So, yes, Kasparov had been the right man for such a mega rebirth of the Christ. Instead he threw out Friedel and soon later he left chess for good.

Somebody has _got_ to come over to your house and help rid you of that monkey infestation. They are typing more and more gibberish each day...

How can one talk about something that is 2000 Elo points above yourself?

What are you talking about? I'm not a FIDE player, but my last USCF rating was just over 2200 in 1971. I know how to play the game. Had a friend that was a FIDE master and we used to play on ICC all the time, and we were pretty much dead even there. So I have no idea what you are on now... But the monkeys have got to go...