No but I can reason things out and think and maybe have an understanding how impossible it would be to have as many people as would have had to be in on such a cover-up that it would have been impossible to keep all them quiet.

Not to mention those with high power telescopes, and those in foreign countries that had access to radar.....

Seeing as how Kasparov was the one playing, don't you think it should be his decision as to what constitutes a distraction? But no one, not even IBM, said that was the reason why they kept Deep Blue in another room. They kept it hidden so no one could see what they were doing.

Perhaps the central question then becomes how would seeing a big steel box with flashing LED's have made this any more plausible/credible/believable for you?

Jim

Maybe it still wouldn't be able to prevent a hoax, but it would be a lot more credible than not even letting Kasparov into the room to see Deep Blue after the match.

I mean, c'mon. After the game is over they still wouldn't let him in there. Why not? And why did they disassemble Deep Blue immediately thereafter? We're talking about the first machine in history to think like a human being, and they take it apart? Without even letting anyone else look at it?

The whole thing reaks of deception.

If this had been a genuine test of scientific acheivment, surely they would have gone out of their way to remove doubts, not create them.

I was sitting around just yesterday with Elvis and the old guy who really shot JFK discussing this.

We think that Deep Blue won because it was networked with an Alien computer in Area 51.

That's just our opinion.

Of course, this comes from someone who cannot even beat a laptop at Solitaire.

Bingo

Speaking of crazy stories...

If someone claims to have the frozen body of Bigfoot, everyone's first instinct is to want to examine the body to see if it's real. But if someone claims to have a computer that can think like a human being, everyone's first instinct is to pat IBM on the back even though they disassembled the evidence before you could examine it.

"Beat Kasparov at chess" does not equal "think like a human being".

In any case, to prove that the computer is doing all the work on its own would not be a simple task. How do you rule out, say, a tiny Bluetooth wireless link? Pick up the whole room full of hardware and put it inside a Faraday cage?

Kasparov's main argument is that the computer made a move in game two that only a human being would have made. The IBM team responded by saying that their computer was just that advanced. That's a hell of a claim to make, and then disassemble the computer. Don't you think?

A simple rematch would have been in order. Put an independent third party in charge of the computer. People with no vested interest in either side. Let them play referee. But it will never happen because they disassembled the computer right after the first match.