Kasparov was in fact psychologically cheated in 1997

[bob]

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'.

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.

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.

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.

Just for you in all due respect: is computer sciences science? What has it found out the last decades? What are you researching? Could you give an example in normal language?

Bullshit. He did it for the _money_. Nothing else. You need a reality check...

How many realities do you know, Bob? It's like stats, one believes in the one you'd cheated yourself... that is how the saying goes. And now? You believe truly into the American reality, right?! However a whole World disagrees... with you.

What does that rambling noise have to do with Kasparov's motive? He didn't play deep blue to "defend humanity against the silicon wave". He did it for $1,000,000.00, which is ten year's pay at a good job, earned in two weeks. It was about the money, and only the money. He thought it was going to be "easy money" from his 1996 experience. He was wrong.

Hi Rambo,
I forgot to mention that you are a computer scientist. You cant know therefore that Kasparov always wasnt just only a chessplayer but always also a politician. This is rare in his field. But continue to misbehave. You dont come from chess and its ethical background of gentleman's challenges. Yes, he was superstitious, but you have no right to rob him his human dignity only to cover up the impolite and cheating buddies.

I haven't robbed Kasparov of anything. He stood up on a public stage and acted like a complete jackass. He did a superb job of robbing himself of any dignity he might have had. Didn't need any help from _anyone_ to shred whatever dignity he had left, thank you...

You want to turn every conversation into a discussion with a twisted mind. I'm not biting. I'm not going to try to guess what he was thinking, I don't care. I'm not gong to try to guess what he was feeling, I don't care. It _really_ is that simple...

Bob, this is the first time that you admit that you are incapable of doing something specific. Psychology. But still you know exactly, please dont take this as a form of insult, that your friends of the IBM team didnt cheat in expectence of such a huge money Prize in case they could bust Kasparov. How's that? Providence? Military discipline plus brainwashing?

Perhaps you would also defend the Bush administrations I and II that they didnt cheat the people with their Iraq war tales.

IBM did not "cheat" Kasparov in any shape, form or fashion, according to accepted definitions of the word cheat. it really is that simple.

[Rolf]

IBM did not "cheat" Kasparov in any shape, form or fashion, according to accepted definitions of the word cheat. it really is that simple.

Bob, I meant worldwide. Of course in terms of American Power No 1, Americans cant be wrong. However in science this is different, because there is no such thing as an American science. And therefore I know for sure that if they wanted to challenge the best human in chess - THEN they cheated everything that scientific methods ask you to respect. Sorry, but this is not negotiable. There is also not something like IBM science. There is only one science. And also Americans must accept that.

[bob]

IBM did not "cheat" Kasparov in any shape, form or fashion, according to accepted definitions of the word cheat. it really is that simple.

Bob, I meant worldwide. Of course in terms of American Power No 1, Americans cant be wrong. However in science this is different, because there is no such thing as an American science. And therefore I know for sure that if they wanted to challenge the best human in chess - THEN they cheated everything that scientific methods ask you to respect. Sorry, but this is not negotiable. There is also not something like IBM science. There is only one science. And also Americans must accept that.

The word "cheat" does not have hundreds of different meanings, one for each country. It is an English word, with a single accepted definition. Since no rules were broken, there was no cheating. It really _is_ that simple...

[Rolf]

IBM did not "cheat" Kasparov in any shape, form or fashion, according to accepted definitions of the word cheat. it really is that simple.

Bob, I meant worldwide. Of course in terms of American Power No 1, Americans cant be wrong. However in science this is different, because there is no such thing as an American science. And therefore I know for sure that if they wanted to challenge the best human in chess - THEN they cheated everything that scientific methods ask you to respect. Sorry, but this is not negotiable. There is also not something like IBM science. There is only one science. And also Americans must accept that.

The word "cheat" does not have hundreds of different meanings, one for each country. It is an English word, with a single accepted definition. Since no rules were broken, there was no cheating. It really _is_ that simple...

Please dont blink, look me in the eye and admit that they cheated the science methods which include well treating your clients. Perhaps computerchess guys in the USA dont learn that. But I tell you now. They violated these iron rules. These are valid worldwide except the USA as it seems. Accept that!

[bob]

IBM did not "cheat" Kasparov in any shape, form or fashion, according to accepted definitions of the word cheat. it really is that simple.

Bob, I meant worldwide. Of course in terms of American Power No 1, Americans cant be wrong. However in science this is different, because there is no such thing as an American science. And therefore I know for sure that if they wanted to challenge the best human in chess - THEN they cheated everything that scientific methods ask you to respect. Sorry, but this is not negotiable. There is also not something like IBM science. There is only one science. And also Americans must accept that.

The word "cheat" does not have hundreds of different meanings, one for each country. It is an English word, with a single accepted definition. Since no rules were broken, there was no cheating. It really _is_ that simple...

Please dont blink, look me in the eye and admit that they cheated the science methods which include well treating your clients. Perhaps computerchess guys in the USA dont learn that. But I tell you now. They violated these iron rules. These are valid worldwide except the USA as it seems. Accept that!

\

They didn't cheat the science "methods" whatever that means. They violated _no_ rules that were in the official FIDE rules of chess, nor in the match contract signed by Kasparov. No other rules you can dream up matter at all...

[Rolf]

IBM did not "cheat" Kasparov in any shape, form or fashion, according to accepted definitions of the word cheat. it really is that simple.

Bob, I meant worldwide. Of course in terms of American Power No 1, Americans cant be wrong. However in science this is different, because there is no such thing as an American science. And therefore I know for sure that if they wanted to challenge the best human in chess - THEN they cheated everything that scientific methods ask you to respect. Sorry, but this is not negotiable. There is also not something like IBM science. There is only one science. And also Americans must accept that.

The word "cheat" does not have hundreds of different meanings, one for each country. It is an English word, with a single accepted definition. Since no rules were broken, there was no cheating. It really _is_ that simple...

Please dont blink, look me in the eye and admit that they cheated the science methods which include well treating your clients. Perhaps computerchess guys in the USA dont learn that. But I tell you now. They violated these iron rules. These are valid worldwide except the USA as it seems. Accept that!

\

They didn't cheat the science "methods" whatever that means. They violated _no_ rules that were in the official FIDE rules of chess, nor in the match contract signed by Kasparov. No other rules you can dream up matter at all...

Try to apply some logic. Now you come with chess against my science argument. Let's examine this for a while. In human chess we have rules of good conduct for the players. They shall not disturb each other etc.

Now let's take this to computerchess. I speak about our view in Europe, the USA of course is different. The whole thing of a machine challenging a human player has a longer tradition now and the final event was when DB challenged the best human player, human chess player. So, the sole question could be 'could the machine play decent chess' and perhaps beating the human player. Nowhere that thing included a variant say of looking for ways to disturb the human player, so that he might lose his concentration and to then let the machine win the game. A machine by itself is not disturbing a human player at all.

But in game two in 1997 there was a break and afterwards the machine played moves that were different to the moves it played still during game one. That made the human player suspicious. But he didnt accuse anybody. What he did he contacted the speaker of the team and asked him for a little example of the output, because he couldnt believe what was happening.

Now you might say that this already was wrong. But say in a human contest there were a player who heard a specifically technical signal near-by his opponent always shortly before he made his move. Then he would also contact say the arbiter and asked for a clarification. I dont want to write a SF novel but perhaps such a player would now be examined in a clinic with most modern tools. At least thatwould be negotiated.

Nothing else happened in 1997. With the scandalous difference that the team informed Kasparov that no that wouldnt be given to him. So, from then on, the two sides had a big dissent and IMO Kasparov did no longer play his usual chess.

The only critic is that now it was no longer the normal match with a motivated Kasparov, but a match that K. saw was unfairly managed against him. Not by the machine but by these IBM&DB guys. The only reason for K. continuing to play was that he would had lost all the money ikf he just stopped playing.

And after the event you claimed and still now that DB won a perfectly normal match because of his better chess against a K. who were shown that he played less well than a machine.

I contradict and say, no, without the psyching out impoliteness the match would have gone differently. Who knows how but the way it went it couldnt challenge the human chessplayer but it just tested fhow it would continue if the team behind the machine would mistreat the opponent.

Of course with ignoring all that you can claim as a positivistic Ass.Prof. of Comp.Sc. that everything went fine and DB won. The Topalov team BTW tried the same against Kramnik. But now it didnt work, because Kramnik is so much stronger that he could give Topalov an extra point for free.

[bob]

IBM did not "cheat" Kasparov in any shape, form or fashion, according to accepted definitions of the word cheat. it really is that simple.

Bob, I meant worldwide. Of course in terms of American Power No 1, Americans cant be wrong. However in science this is different, because there is no such thing as an American science. And therefore I know for sure that if they wanted to challenge the best human in chess - THEN they cheated everything that scientific methods ask you to respect. Sorry, but this is not negotiable. There is also not something like IBM science. There is only one science. And also Americans must accept that.

The word "cheat" does not have hundreds of different meanings, one for each country. It is an English word, with a single accepted definition. Since no rules were broken, there was no cheating. It really _is_ that simple...

Please dont blink, look me in the eye and admit that they cheated the science methods which include well treating your clients. Perhaps computerchess guys in the USA dont learn that. But I tell you now. They violated these iron rules. These are valid worldwide except the USA as it seems. Accept that!

\

They didn't cheat the science "methods" whatever that means. They violated _no_ rules that were in the official FIDE rules of chess, nor in the match contract signed by Kasparov. No other rules you can dream up matter at all...

Try to apply some logic. Now you come with chess against my science argument. Let's examine this for a while. In human chess we have rules of good conduct for the players. They shall not disturb each other etc.

Now let's take this to computerchess. I speak about our view in Europe, the USA of course is different. The whole thing of a machine challenging a human player has a longer tradition now and the final event was when DB challenged the best human player, human chess player. So, the sole question could be 'could the machine play decent chess' and perhaps beating the human player. Nowhere that thing included a variant say of looking for ways to disturb the human player, so that he might lose his concentration and to then let the machine win the game. A machine by itself is not disturbing a human player at all.

But in game two in 1997 there was a break and afterwards the machine played moves that were different to the moves it played still during game one. That made the human player suspicious. But he didnt accuse anybody. What he did he contacted the speaker of the team and asked him for a little example of the output, because he couldnt believe what was happening.

crock #1. The program did _not_ play "differently" after the break. Didn't happen. Been over all the games in detail. As have many others. This is simply a false assertion with _zero_ to support it. Where it comes from I have no idea, but it doesn't come from fact... So let's move on to something that actually happened, and get out of make-believe land...

Now you might say that this already was wrong. But say in a human contest there were a player who heard a specifically technical signal near-by his opponent always shortly before he made his move. Then he would also contact say the arbiter and asked for a clarification. I dont want to write a SF novel but perhaps such a player would now be examined in a clinic with most modern tools. At least thatwould be negotiated.

Nothing else happened in 1997. With the scandalous difference that the team informed Kasparov that no that wouldnt be given to him. So, from then on, the two sides had a big dissent and IMO Kasparov did no longer play his usual chess.

No argument. But crock #2 is to blame _that_ on IBM. It was purely Kasparov's shortcomings, not IBM's that led to this...

The only critic is that now it was no longer the normal match with a motivated Kasparov, but a match that K. saw was unfairly managed against him. Not by the machine but by these IBM&DB guys. The only reason for K. continuing to play was that he would had lost all the money ikf he just stopped playing.

That's why contracts exist. What is your point?

And after the event you claimed and still now that DB won a perfectly normal match because of his better chess against a K. who were shown that he played less well than a machine.

I contradict and say, no, without the psyching out impoliteness the match would have gone differently. Who knows how but the way it went it couldnt challenge the human chessplayer but it just tested fhow it would continue if the team behind the machine would mistreat the opponent.

There are thousands of things that could have happened to make things proceed differently. So what? What happened, happened. Things could have easily turned out differently had not kasparov acted like a a total jackass... Once he made his statement about cheating, he was going to get no further cooperation. And I agree with that action.

Of course with ignoring all that you can claim as a positivistic Ass.Prof. of Comp.Sc. that everything went fine and DB won. The Topalov team BTW tried the same against Kramnik. But now it didnt work, because Kramnik is so much stronger that he could give Topalov an extra point for free.

I have no idea what that means nor what it is about... And don't care, either.

[Rolf]

crock #1. The program did _not_ play "differently" after the break. Didn't happen. Been over all the games in detail. As have many others. This is simply a false assertion with _zero_ to support it. Where it comes from I have no idea, but it doesn't come from fact... So let's move on to something that actually happened, and get out of make-believe land...

All that what you are writing here, Bob, is irrelevant. Even if it were all the truth, and I wont imply that you are ever intentionally spreading lies, not at all, it has no impact on the scientific question if the guys had cheated science and Kasparov. Because they did. Look, this isnt a question of computer science, it's one out of logic and science methodology, that if you disturb your client when he is asking you something, then you can forget about your setting, your goal, your question, the reason why you've done this at all. Know what I mean?

Therefore I laughed loud when the news were coming that even commercial engines found this or that move too. As if that would mean anything to the question I have raised if they cheated science and their client. Of course they did. And if they didnt cheat him with the chess their guilt is even higher to be estimated because they had absolutely no reason to mistreat him. But they did.

Every line of the crock 1 is nonsense because you've never understood what the cheat and the scandal was. It was the destructive impoliteness of the IBM team towards their client Kasparov. But you will never understand it because science methodology isnt your field.

No argument. But crock #2 is to blame _that_ on IBM. It was purely Kasparov's shortcomings, not IBM's that led to this...

You see, it' not making sense, because you look upon the whole event with an aftermath prejudice, that if you didnt see anything fishy now, in the moves, then the IBM team couldnt have made any mistakes. Which is bogus to say the least. It' just illogical nonsense. Because politeness isnt depending on the truth of Kasparov's questioning. We see you are again making a terrible mistake out of your limited positivistic perspective.

That's why contracts exist. What is your point?

The point is that not everything is allowed, here impoliteness and lack of respect, what a contract doesnt especially forbid.

There are thousands of things that could have happened to make things proceed differently. So what? What happened, happened. Things could have easily turned out differently had not kasparov acted like a a total jackass... Once he made his statement about cheating, he was going to get no further cooperation. And I agree with that action.

You know tha from science I see the team, your friends, in guilt. Although I avoid to call them jackasses.

I have no idea what that means nor what it is about... And don't care, either.

I know, but you must not learn Chinese at your age, you just ask some friends what I could mean with positivism and scientific methodology and the treatment of clients which devalues the whole efforts. Good luck when you realise what you've done here.

[Bill Rogers]

Rolf
Expression you opinion as science and fact is a delusion and you as a scientist should know that. You have no proof which is required in a scientific method of logic, only your assuptions that something was wrong.
I can't believe that a man of your caliber could ever fall into this kind of thinking.
Bill

[Rolf]

Rolf
Expression you opinion as science and fact is a delusion and you as a scientist should know that. You have no proof which is required in a scientific method of logic, only your assuptions that something was wrong.
I can't believe that a man of your caliber could ever fall into this kind of thinking.
Bill

Dear Bill,

at least I dont claim I could prove something I cant prove. But I can prove from chess, and you know this too, that a disrespected and disturbed player, disturbed by impoliteness here of the organisers too who had told him before he were the best they could get in chess. But that functions only with respect and peaceful conditions. The whole propaganda was about his heroic fight for mankind...now they treated him like a liftboy. Very ugly.