Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 12:11:37 05/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2000 at 09:13:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 10, 2000 at 02:34:18, blass uri wrote: > >>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 > > >I will take your "honest operator" and offer him $100,000 dollars to do what >I ask. Or I will offer him $1,000,000. IBM had deep pockets. Are you sure >you can find an operator that will be honest enough? And remember, _I_ have >some say-so, because the operator has to be able to handle the possible >problems that can come up... such as entering the wrong move, or backing up >a couple of moves if the operator makes a technical error. > >There would be more than enough doubt in any operator, just because of the >potential for being bought and paid for... Thanks for the clarification. Now would you please join me in finding some objective _scientifical_ control?
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.