Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:11:26 05/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2000 at 08:55:46, Hans Gerber wrote: >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. My point is that preventing 'crime' is _impossible_. Otherwise, after a couple of thousand years, banks would no longer be robbed. Web sites wouldn't be broken into. Computers wouldn't be vandalized. There are some things you can _not_ prevent.
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.