bob wrote:Rolf wrote:BubbaTough wrote:Therefore it's ridiculous when Sam asked me to refreign from criticising American 'culture' and foul play.
When you get the urge to rant on 'culture', please do it in the "Chess Thinkers Forum" where I am sure comparisons of the great evils of various societies, historical and current, would be of interest to many. If you have a point to make about computer chess, it should be able to stand on its own without regard to the heredity or geolocation of the author of an opposing position. If you find yourself unable to present a coherent argument without referring to someone's tertiary characteristics, perhaps you need to revise your position.
Essentially, there is no need to bring issues up so completely unrelated to computer chess here.
-Sam
And keep your tongue in your mouth, you limey Kraut.
Sam, I dont get it. Why is Bob allowed to call Kasparov jackass? But I am not allowed to criticise Bob for such insults from my European perspective? Do you follow a double standard in that regard? Is Bob really allowed to insult people who defend Kasparov? Shouldnt we exchange opinions without insults at all?
I called Kasparov a jackass and gave a _precise_ reason for doing so. To accuse/imply someone cheated in such a match was a sure sign of a jackass at work. Simple enough.
I have not insulted anyone that defends Kasparov that I am aware of. I have certainly pointed out flaws in (mostly your) reasoning about the subject. If you consider that an insult, you have even more problems to deal with.
I dont get it that you are incapable to grasp that you are not following consent for a neutral talking about a problem, scientific/research or how you may call it. Look, next time around I call you the man with the screwdriver in his ears or the Easter candles. And I will _precisely_ give the reasons for doing so. And then this would be allowed here??
You claim to be logically correct to say "
To accuse/imply someone cheated in such a match was a sure sign of a jackass at work. Simple enough." And you are completely wrong with it.
It really blows my mind that an American Associate Professor (excuse the former notion, I really had confused it as the same because I always saw the three letter abreviation Ass.Prof., so sorry for that oversight) could speak out such an illogical nonsense.
You, Bob Hyatt, have yourself given me multimega reasons how everything in computerchess could be cheated and _why_ it only partially and for a short instant could be reveiled before the next level of the childish game "get me if you can" has been attained. Would you want to deny that?
But you are incapable of making the conclusion yourself, that then a human chessplayer, like every lay around, is open for all kind of suspicions and conspiracy theories? It blows my mind why your so highly educated and experienced friends in the DB/IBM team had no plan for such a development during the match. The way how they then reacted was indecent, impolite and a violation of several rules of scientific methodology. But you have the nerve to simply reduce the whole topic on K. simply being a "jackass".
Now what is this all about here? - Are you really the Ass.Prof., you are, with a kind of neutral, hate-free speech and a perspective for the decisive factors of a problem, or are you feeling like a running mate for a candidate in a political election in your country? Or like the trainer in a football team? Methinks you are confusing these levels more than necessary. It then is no wonder if I come to the conclusion that this sort of violent debating style must have some reasons in the origines of the particular actors. Not that Europeans were 'better' but I think academics at least should have learned to willingly decide to use a civilized speech.
Above all your personal style isnt interesting for the underlying question if the IBM team are the reason for the escalation that then brought K. to make his statements later, I think at minimum a day after his forfeit in game two, that the hand of God had interfered. But the evil was already done on that morning when the team member told the media that K. had accused them of cheating which he simply hasnt done. We must not repeat what we wrote in earlier messages. What Friedel was about etc.
Is it fair to say that in the end we can call the whole problem this way:
° computer science isnt a science, isnt an exact method either because it even cant exclude simple or smart cheating, so that the object is unknown that should be controlled and researched
° if a human being is participating in a sort of experimental design, it's possible beyond personal friendship and respect, that the psychology of the setting enforces suspicion and conspiracy in special if we speak of superstitious human beings as clients like in this case we are discussing here
I would say so. These two paragraphes describe the difficulties of the topic we are talking about. and this is possible do research without personal insults or envy. Or hate propaganda. Or stupid allegations of dirty laundry addictions.
You must realise that these aspects should be addressed in your field of computation tech. I for one, coming from physics, am pretty sure that a better control of the setting in machine chess is possible. Better control mechanisms might look odd but it's doable like in human chess too. And after all, Kasparov said it, it's important to have the topic in the contract itself. After the motto, everything must be especially forbidden what you dont want to happen. Which is insane compared to science. In science you dont forbid evil intentions but someone who was caught in the act or indirectly by proof, he wont be participating anymore. It's simple as that. To understand that you must first of all forget about watertight court verdict accorded proof.
In the case of the IBM match in 1997 my proof was made. They treated the suspicious K. with contempt, as if his quests of doubt would come from an alien and this was the unallowed incident because how could that be thought and done if you can show the many ways how it could all be cheated? You dont want to make these implications out of your own judgement?
Finally, dont you know how scientists proceed? I would be happy if you could show and prove exactly where and why I am wrong with all these questions and suppositions. Therefore it would be nice if you would better care for your allies who are just waiting for a signal from your side to go for a virtual slaughter in this forum. It looks as if people who ask questions must at first prove that they dont want to find out something fishy underneath. As if such a forum is made for the protection of stinking fish and dirty laundry. Thell me please that this isnt the case for the decisive people.
Although it's breathtaking with what a big double standard you measure your own "scientifical" questioning and chasing of Vas and then in return your conservative protective wall like defense of your iBM buddies. That double standard stinks more than anything else. 
