Author: blass uri
Date: 23:34:18 05/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2000 at 02:18:51, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 ......... The example of going with the mouse can be prevented by choosing honest operators. Uri
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.