Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 05:55:46 05/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2000 at 23:32:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >No... because the solution doesn't exist, which means that the logs are just >pieces of paper that won't prove cheating, nor will they disprove cheating. >As such, their importance is really only in giving us some insight into what >DB could do, things that many didn't know (depth, etc). > >As far as Hsu, you are on the wrong person. Hsu didn't have _any_ control >at the match. He designed and assembled the hardware. He (and others) wrote >the software. But legal and marketing folks took control because they realized >how valuable the P/R was going to be, particularly if DB won, but even if it >lost. > Must I repeat that for me Hsu is responsible because he "made" the hard- and software, with others of course? My point was that a scientist had had the obligation to reflect the mentioned problems and to find solutions. If you are convinced that logfiles had no meaning for the question of cheating, then I said that Hsu should have found a form of protocol that could give us the possibility to examin that. > >But if the computer is non-deterministic in its behavior, _how_ will you ever >prove whether it played some particular move or not? And if you can't, you just >lost any chance of using the logs (which Kasparov wanted) to prove that it >either did, or did not, cheat. I disagree. Non-deterministic doesn't mean that the development couldn't be analysed and controlled that led to a certain move. If the machine played a different move also the files should look different. >You should look at a tournament played last year. In a well-known scandal, >someone used a computer program to whack GM players like flies. He was a >2300 player himself I believe. He had a TPR over 2600. So yes, humans will >cheat, given the chance. > >As far as "on its own" how would you confirm that? How to be sure that there >is no 'access'? IE no rf link, no magnetic link, no laser link, no sonic link, >no optical link, etc... As I said elsewhere comparately weak players would try to cheat but not the best players. I don't want to discuss thechnical difficulties without being an expert. My point was that in principle such a control should be possible.
This page took 0.01 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.