Author: Albert Silver
Date: 14:41:17 05/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2000 at 14:06:55, Hans Gerber wrote:
>On May 12, 2000 at 13:28:56, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On May 12, 2000 at 11:07:04, Albert Silver wrote:
>>
>>>On May 12, 2000 at 06:16:13, Hans Gerber wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I wasn't there personally, so I can't say who attended which meetings, and I
>>>>>don't plan on bugging Hsu to ask for recollections about what happened.
>>>>>
>>>>>Clearly by round 3 he suggested something was wrong. Little doubt about how
>>>>>to interpret the comment Albert gave you a link to. A direct accusation...
>>>>
>>>>Two aspects: 1) the exact moment of his question and of the denial of the
>>>>prints, 2) the difference between events in reality and the reality of articles
>>>>in newspapers about "events". Let us analyse before we make our conclusions.
>>>>
>>>>You hypostated a direct connection between his _public_ question (which in
>>>>itself is accusation and insult in your view) and the (therefore justified)
>>>>_reaction_ of the DB team and IBM. Up to this moment I don't have any proof that
>>>>Kasparov made any (public) accusations after game two.
>>>>
>>>>The article by B. Weber allows the ref went into the public with Kasparov's
>>>>request. Thus the request was stamped as impolite and based on a kind of
>>>>confusion. But _if_ it was made in discretion and in the belief of friendly
>>>>terms of talking?
>>>
>>>Kasparov isn't really know for his discretion, and if it had been printed
>>>against his will, he would not still be making this accusation _publicly_ until
>>>today. Here is a link to a speech given before the students of The Humanitarian
>>>University, St. Petersburg just now, April 10, 2000:
>>>
>>>http://www.clubkasparov.com/serve/templates/folders/show.asp?p_docID=4954&p_docLang=EN
>>>
>>>It speaks for itself. His argument still goes: if a PC program never plays the
>>>move, then DB couldn't have either. BTW, make sure you get the whole link as
>>>many browsers cut split it after the '?'.
>>>
>>> Albert Silver
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>This is _still_ utter rubbish. Complete logs from all 6 games are public.
>>He says they have never been released. The logs for the key moves are easy
>>to understand, even though he says they are not (I believe part of this
>>confusion was caused by Amir's comments about the logs).
>
>
>Fact is that the DB team did do nothing to prevent such a confusion, if it's a
>confusion at all. This is not the way scienctists should behave...
>
>It's time to look through the confusion we have here in our debate.
>
>Kasparov is one of the best chessplayers but he is not a scientist nor a famous
>expert in computerchess. We should not doubt his honesty when he makes his
>claims.
>
>It doesn't look "good" to read "jerk" in your articles on and on. The question
>must be allowed if you are still an objective scientific observer and thinker
>for the whole question. A teacher, sure, can accuse his pupils of being dumb
>nuts, but does this analogy is allowed in case of Kasparov, the chess genius? It
>seems as if you wanted to continue the impolite, arrogant and aggressive style
>of Murray Campell in the NY Times' article... Why?
>
>Kasparov said that "from all what we know about computerchess" no computer would
>play such and such moves.
>
>Now -- if this is completely false, why not contact him or one of his
>confidentals to give him the opportunity to update his knowledge -- if you are
>sure that he is badly wrong?
Do you really think this hasn't been done? First he doesn't even bother to try
to back up his claim of 'all we know' with anything so substantial as an article
or a quote from someone from the field of computerchess. At no moment since he
began his accusations, have I read or heard anything to substantiate his claims.
What I did read, thus constituting his 'all we know', is that even after days,
neither Fritz nor Hiarcs ever played some of the moves played by DB. He even
gave specifics of such moves, such as a particular h5 played by DB as black in
the opening (I'd have to look up the specifics). This was almost IMMEDIATELY
shown to be absolute rubbish as Junior 5 (at the time) played this move without
any qualms or encouragement. This was undoubtedly shown to him as he gave up on
this and went back to his ranting. IBM released the information requested on the
moves where cheating was suspected, but this wasn't enough to quiet him and he
has gone on and on. Now he is a little less direct about his accusations and
states that DB wasn't designed to play the best chess, but just to beat HIM. I
have no idea what this means. He plays the best chess in the world. No one
doubts this. IBM least of all, else they would have sought that other best
player to match DB. He wasn't trapped in any opening other than the 6th game,
and that was his doing alone. So what was the secret formula that IBM fed to DB
to beat him other than playing the best chess possible? He never says. Instead I
keep reading about how it was designed to beat him specifically. I'd LOVE to
understand how this could be done without playing the best possible chess. I say
this without the least bit of sarcasm.
Regarding his partnership with computerchess: what partnership? The minute they
became a serious threat he refused to confront them. Did you read his comments
on his refusal to play in Frankfurt if Fritz were a participant? He said that he
clearly remembered the difficulties he encountered when he played Genius in
London years before. He certainly uses computers enough and has said so on
innumerous occasions. Regarding his preparation against Anand last year, he said
that there had been a time when he would have been afraid to enter such
positions, but no more thanks to the exhaustive analytical capabilities of
programs that he used. He has also stated many times that his continual training
with programs has seriously improved his own analytical capacity, and even
mentioned that his classic book 'A Test of Time', which he had considered to be
immaculate for many many years was now shown to be so full of holes that it was
almost embarassing. These holes were revealed by his PC programs.
I completely agree that he is very human, but his human failings have been
stomping all over people that he believes made him look bad. HE lost the match
against DB. No one lost it for him. His human failing is that he will NEVER EVER
assume responsibility for this. The only time was right after resigning the 6th
game, when he explained that he had been afraid of the computer, but after that
he changed his speech: It's IBM, it's the DB team, it's Hsu himself. They were
out to get him and poor Kasparov hadn't realized it. When it seemed clear that
he was not going to get a rematch, he went on and on about the injustice of it
all. Yet when Hsu picked up all the marbles in order to try to grant him just
that, and at the same time probably revolutionize computer chess and the chess
world by putting DB on a PC card, he suddenly wasn't interested. It was this, it
was that. Uh-huh. Right.
Albert Silver
>
>This afternoon, following A. Silver's hint, I visited Kasparov's site and tried
>to send him "feedback" about the crucial question. Unfortunately the
>transmission didn't function.
>
>This was my text:
>
>quote:
>
>Actually there is a debate going on in CCC about the match against DB in 1997. I
>want to invite either Gary Kasparov himself (perhaps with a pseudonym) or the
>editor of this site to take part and to argue against the statement by Robert
>Hyatt that "it is wrong what Kasparov always is repeating, that 'all what we
>know about computerchess is NOT made to explain why DB played the way it did in
>the second game'".
>
>It was mentioned that even micros find the moves in question. What are further
>arguments from the side of G. Kasparov?
>
>
>Sincerely Hans Gerber
>
>end of quote
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>At the time of this newspaper's article, the request was not
>>>>even known in public. So, the article documented a turning point, initiated by
>>>>the DB team and IBM, in person of M. Campell, the second man behind Hsu. Perhaps
>>>>you are right that the later official statement was given by Tan, but in this
>>>>article there is a clear presence of the DB team to be seen...
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.