Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:06:39 05/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2000 at 15:20:23, Hans Gerber wrote: >On May 08, 2000 at 10:37:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 08, 2000 at 08:35:08, Hans Gerber wrote: >> >>>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? >> >> >>Absolutely not. First, it would give Kasparov a chance to see how deep the >>thing searches, how it extends. How it evaluates some positional >>considerations. It would be a decided advantage for Kasparov had he had this >>kind of information. Injecting it into the middle of the match would have >>definitely tainted the results. >> >>Second, the logs could have been 'doctored' as the game was played. A human >>overrode a move. He could edit the log immediately and make it appear that the >>machine liked the move. > >With the exact time for the move? Even experts had no chance to find out? > Sure. Post any position you want here, which no computer can solve. I'll post "crafty's" solution quickly, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that it can make the right move. I can type quickly, and I know VI inside-out. :) >Then I repeat my point. It would have been the obligation of the scientists >decades ago to think about it. we did. we decided the problem was not solvable. For every measure a cheater tries, you have to have a counter-measure. And for every counter-measure you produce, he will produce a counter-counter-measure. It would be an endless battle. If I thought someone would cheat, I would simply elect to not play them. > >> >> >>> >>>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. >> >> >>I have been doing this almost forever. I have participated in numerous >>discussions on how to prevent cheating in comp vs comp matches. The bottom line >>is that it is impossible to do. > > >Could you give further details? Why could there be a cheating if the output >would be controlled automatically by the machine itself and cams, so no human is >nearby? > >If the main machine is in the tournament room, why should it be impossible to >control the output? the output comes from _inside_ the machine. I simply 'doctor' it before it comes out... IE it likes e4. I tell it to play f4. It plays f4 and the log shows analysis for f4, produced by the machine... > > > >> >> >> >>> >>>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? >> >> >>Note that several people _did_ look over the output. Ken Thompson was one >>such person that was a friend to Kasparov as well. He said that everything >>looked perfectly normal. Kasparov would have no idea of whether the machine's >>output indicated cheating, or anything else.
This page took 0 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.