Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 12:08:49 05/10/00
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. I'm dissapointed that nobody seems to care about scientifical standards. We don't talk about criminal acts. We are talking about control. It's interesting that this aspect of science is so much doubted. You seem to argue that a control should not be necessary in computerchess because it's not possible to do in any way. I did never hear of such a position in science. You must control for the sake of the quality of your research, _not_ because of the possibility of crimes. Elsewhere I wrote that I had a certain understanding for the behavior in early computerchess tournaments. Scientists were playing against each other. Out of mutual respect there was not even a thought of the _necessity_ of control. But can't you understand that you have to guarantee a certain safety the moment you start to play for the World title against humans? You have left your scientific environment and yes, you'll have to come out wih a minimum of controllability... This is so basic. Do we really have to discuss this?
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.