Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 05:35:08 05/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2000 at 23:25:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >But _none_ of this has anything to do with being able to detect or prove the >absence or presence of cheating. It simply can not be done. You give me an >experimental set-up that you like. I'll explain how I will still cheat without >your being able to detect it. > Just to remind the group: we were talking about the DB vs Kasparov match in 1997. Isn't it obvious that the scientists should have granted Kasparov a look into the prints of the logfile if the proof that nothing had happened that could be called cheating? My "set-up"-hint? To find right from the beginning of your research how to control and thus assure objectivity of your results. Is it so difficult to understand? IMO the long tradition of computerchess events has shown that the actors, most of them scientists, had a mutual agreement about the procedere. They were scientists and behaved like that. It was more or less fun. Therefore they neglected the genuine question of control. Although the possibilities for cheating were there. As we know there is a long tradition of so-called experimental matches between strong computers and humans. The stronger the hardware became, the better the machine could play. Even GM players had difficulties to get good results. Still the whole events were more or less fun. Then came the close cooperation between the DB team and Kasparov. If we neglect the question of money, it's still fun. Look at Kasparov's own comments on the strength of DEEP BLUE after the first match. If DB had all the weaknesses Kasparov detected it's completely nonsense to talk about the ultimate match to decide the fight between The Machine and The Human Race ... You can't have "fun" and at the same time an event that should _prove_ who really should be regarded as the strongest chessplayer of the world. The participation of scientists however seemed to guarantee that this proof could be presented. Fact is that G. Kasparov had the impression that something wasn't kosher with the second game. He thought that he could win some insight if he could see the logfiles. They were promised then denied. So for Kasparov this was a support for his suspicion. He could no longer concentrate on the match, his thoughts went back to this game number two. The outcome of the match did no longer interest him which can be seen especially in the 6th game. The proof that the machine could beat the human was not there. I have no idea how we could _control_ the output of the machine, but many might be here who have ideas for a solution. Kasparov should not be regarded as an especially difficult human being. All chessplayers hate being cheated. So, if we want proof if a machine could play better chess than the best humans we should at _least_ guarantee that the machine won the match on its own. Including match psychology and so on. Any ideas? Hans
This page took 0.05 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.