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.

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 o9n the game together with the
computer.

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).

It was a farce. Not a funny one.

Wlod

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?

On 19 Jun 2006 06:08:55 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:


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?

You have provided definitive proof they hired Zoukhar.

GAME OVER September 22, 2003

http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/Eng...ans/030922.php

"Kasparov collapsed in the sixth and last game,
claiming he felt "ashamed" of an obvious mistake.
Perhaps the real reason he lost is that intimidation,
which works with human opponents who fear him,
proved futile against a machine that couldn't be
intimidated. This time it was the other way around." -- Larry Evans

THE FIRST BYTE June 19, 2006

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....icle&sid= 769

"Although still in their infancy, computers already are so strong
that world champions are glad to draw with them. Just ask Gary
Kasparov or Vladimir Kramnik." -- Larry Evans

Uzytkownik "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)" napisal w
wiadomosci ups.com...


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).

It was a farce. Not a funny one.


However some IBM stockholders did earn a lot of money out of naivety by
Kasparov and the rest of the world.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

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?

Where have you been? [ROFL].

If there was a cover-up of IBMs 'science' there is EVERY indication that IBM
were not on the level.

Kingston thinks the missing body of evidence which IBM openly and
immediately destoyed after the game which had no indepenedent auditor to
aver that the machine itself was playing all the moves...

[wait!] let me check something with TK - is this destruction of the evidence
suspicious to you?

.... is somehow different from the missing data logs and computer itself.

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?

Yes! All this is a matter of record!

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:

Its not a conspiracy theory - its a plain as your face cheat! Only
numbskulls with no curiosity whatever could ask for information as if there
was nothing strange about the situation.


(1) why Kasparov resigned in what was actually a drawn position in game
2, and

TK has not read what Kasparov himself said.

(2) why Kasparov played a move (7...h6) already known to be objectively
unsound, a move allowing a vicious attack (8.Nxe6!).

Unsound against a person, the book, or theory?

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?

Lets say I invited you down here to play chess, but punched you on the nose
instead - would only conspiracy theorists complain?

PI

Taylor Kingston wrote:

[...] Mathematics? Do you think a dissertation review
committee would accept this "proof"?

No. But if Garry took IBM to court he'd win.

Wlod

And what would he win?!?!


"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)" wrote in message ups.com...
| Taylor Kingston wrote:
|
| [...] Mathematics? Do you think a dissertation review
| committee would accept this "proof"?
|
| No. But if Garry took IBM to court he'd win.
|
| Wlod
|

Although some of the hardware used for Deep Blue was remissioned for
other purposes, the software lives on. Since the project was completed,
no further investments have been made and it has not been enhanced. To
IBM, Deep Blue was simply a fun way to develop its concept of "deep
computing", that resulted in a much bigger PR payoff than expected.
There was no cheating. Garry could have drawn the final game, and
therefore the second match, but he took a calculated risk to try and
win it, that didn't work. Bravo for Garry ... he demonstrated that even
the largest amount of compute power that had ever been assembled for
chess could at best play even with the top human player.

Don't know if anyone is interested, but I worked at both the
Kasparov-Deep Blue matches, and the inventor of UNIX (and computer
chess program Belle), Ken Thompson, was hired to watch Deep Blue's
monitor as it analyzed. After the second game, when the controversy
broke out, Thompson was asked if Deep Blue could have cheated. His
reply, and I am paraphrasing, was "Not only did Deep Blue analyze Be4
before it played it, but so far it has analyzed every move before it
played it."

So unless one wants to call one of the world's most famous computer
scientists a liar (and Thompson was not an IBM employee), then Deep
Blue did not cheat.

Ironically, if you give the same position to Kasparov's favorite PC
program Fritz 9 in 2006, it will now also rate Be4 as about the equally
best move very quickly!

- Dan Heisman
www.danheisman.com

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.