sje wrote:bob wrote: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.
---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. 