Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 23:18:51 05/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2000 at 20:11:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Totally agreed. Some practical examples to make it more clear: #1. Going with the mouse over a certain part of the screen could tell the program to force the search to play the best move sofar. #2. Going with the mouse over a certain part of the screen could tell the program to change certain parameters. #3. .......... the list is endless ......... Bottom line: if a programmer wants to cheat he can do wathever he pleases. Ed
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.