Thank you for the reply - things make sense after reading it. I know a few people like Hsu - they usually are convinced that they are objective and are absolutely unable to grasp the fact that other people might have different values and goals. They are conviniently overlooking things they don't like. These people often do achieve much but are absolutely dreadful to deal with.

I don't know if I agree. Owen's letter seemed to pretend that Kasparov didn't lose the last match. Why would Hsu need to establish himself as a competitor when he won the last match? That doesn't make any sense to me. When he says things like, "All he had was a computer chip with no organization or sponsor behind him." it's ridiculous. That chip is the chip that contains the data and knowledge that beat Gary last time, and he can't get any sponsors because they won't commit to a match. Looking at both letters, it seems that all Hsu wanted to do was get another match and Kasparov didn't really want to do it. I certainly could be wrong, but it sounded like they were making excuses.

Fen-hsiung Hsu's letter (the original post) has a ring of truth to me: it sounds like a sincere story of someone who doesn't know how to continue with a project that's personally important without the corporate backing that he started with.

This reply is pure mockery -- it could have been written by anyone, there's no personal feel at all.

How much faith should we put in our truth-identifying heuristics?

I agree, Owen's arrogance is quite startling to me...

What I don't understand is how Hsu wanted to challenge Kasparov for "title match"... World Title matches are managed by chess federation (FIDE), so it's not up to Kasparov or Hsu to decide. All in all, I would take both letters with a big grain of salt.