Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod) wrote:
Anybody who followed about the second
Kasparov-Deep Blue Match, and who
knows the disgusting lack of ethics at
the large US coompanies (I am sure
that it's not different in other countries
but I happened to know about the US)
can't have any doubts that IBM has
cheated Kasparov out of winning the
match.

We can't have any doubts, even when no evidence of cheating has been
offered?

An anonymous moron was writing
something about IBM taking someone
like me to court for my claim. Nonsense
because IBM would lose and the stink
would be overwhelming. They did cheat.

There were no provisions to check
on the IBM's proper handling the match.
I am not blaiming Kasparov for not
being paranoid like Fischer perhaps would.

Observe that the IBM team of the GMs
(and possibly some IMs?) was never seen
in puiblic during the games. How come?
They should be the ones to comment
on the games, to explain in real time
duringt the second game how wonderfully
they taught machine the positional chess.
But no, they were not in sight. They were
working on the game together with the
computer.

You saw them doing this? Or you can tell us of a reliable witness who
saw this?

Remember the first game? Everybody
was thinking that Deep Blue got the
computer kind of the game and was going
to win. Don't you remember? But it turned
out that in the fantastically tactical position
Kasparov's positional understanding won.
The big guys at IBM were deternmined
to win the match though, and they did by
dishonest means.

Where are the IBM chess team's (GM Benjamin
and others) articles about how they taught
the machine to think positionally? How come
their seemingly superb achievement and experience
was not taken advantage later on? Well, all
they did were minor tweekings and no real
break through. All they did was sitting in a room,
away from the audience, looking at the analysis
provided by Deep Blue, getting a feedback from
Deep Blue for possible moves, and deciding
aboout the ultimate move. That's why the audience
couldn't enjoy their comments or even their
lying faces.

IBM did everything to cover its traces,
especially by destroying the evidence
and by dismantling the Deep Blue (didn't
they have two copies of Deep Blue? I have
a vague impression that IBM did).

Wlod, you offer only suspicions, and not one bit of evidence. Aren't
you a Doctor of Mathematics? Do you think a dissertation review
committee would accept this "proof"?

Meanwhile, I'd like the conspiracy theorists to explain:

(1) why Kasparov resigned in what was actually a drawn position in game
2, and
(2) why Kasparov played a move (7...h6) already known to be objectively
unsound, a move allowing a vicious attack (8.Nxe6!).

Since these mistakes are Kasparov's alone, they rather put
responsibility for his loss on his own shoulders. Or are the conspiracy
theorists saying GK was bribed or coerced to throw these games?