Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:40:50 05/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2000 at 15:11:37, Hans Gerber wrote: >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? I have been as clear here as I know how. There is _no way_ to provide the kind of control you want. It is _impossible_...
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.