Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 16:11:21 05/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 14, 2000 at 08:24:09, blass uri wrote: >On May 13, 2000 at 18:50:09, Hans Gerber wrote: > >>On May 13, 2000 at 15:09:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>The cheating allegation _was_ made in public. It was reported in every >>>major newspaper, etc. NOT private. PUBLIC. >> >> >>May I repeat my question, when and where Kasparov did that? You can understand >>that question? I didn't ask when it were in the newspapers for the first time. >>Very slowly I become a little bit bored after your continual turn-around of my >>questions. >> >> >> >>> >>>When he played Anand two years ago, and after several draws, Anand suddenly >>>threw a wild punch, connected, and beat him, did he ask Anand for proof that >>>he didn't get help? Did he ask Anand for the analysis he was using to play >>>the moves, so he could be sure Anand knew the plan and wasn't getting outside >>>help? >>> >>>Same situation... To suggest that he should be given the printouts is >>>pure bullshit. This was a game between two chess-players. They should >>>(and were) treated the same whether they were human or silicon. Only >>>Kasparov wanted an 'edge'. >> >> >>Ok, sir, now you've crossed a border of misbehavior I won't tolerate from you. I >>will answer this article here as good as I can and then the discussion is ended. >>Excuse me. >> >>But let me explain that I am very certain that it wouldn't guarantee equality >>(you brought this "edge" into the debate) if we treated the machine and the >>human _likewise_. In special in that event. Kasparov was invited as a guest to >>test the machine. His performance over the years was well known. However what >>the machine could do was not so well known. So, all the questions about control >>are connected with the machine. >> >> >>> >>> >>>He asked for something he shouldn't have gotten. They eventually said >>>"no". I don't see the problem. If I was playing him in a match, and >>>he asked me to drop my pants, I would also say "no". If he gets bent out >>>of shape about that and loses, that isn't _my_ problem. >> >> >>Ok, if you "don't see the problem" you can't no longer take part in our >>discussion. I am sorry. Question remains why you have shown so much interest. >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>>Were you there? Did you talk to people about the match? Did you read Hsu's >>>written account of the events? >>> >>>No, No, and No, I assume... >> >> >>I see. I forgot that you had to take part before you could ask questions. >>Completely new concept of science... >> >> >>> >>>For me, Yes, Yes and Yes. >>> >> >>:) >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>Does it matter whether he went bananas after game two or three? How so? He >>>did it on a stage, in front of several hundred press people. How would it be >>>different (and perfectly ok) to do it after game three, but not after game >>>two? >>> >>>This is a purely bogus argument... >> >> >>Argument taken. But let me be clear about this. Yes, it makes a big difference. >>And you know quite well why this is so important. Because you must delete the >>impression that the DB side started to talk in public about the question of the >>prints. When you had stated that it was Kasparov on the press conference after >>game two. B. Moreland already flew in for your help, declaring that this >>question was totally "boring and stupid". >> >> >> >> >> >>>I am certain it was _not_. The article in the NY times was written _after_ >>>the public allegation. Clearly so. He mentioned that Murray "shrugged the >>>allegation off." _clearly_ after the claim was public. _clearly_. >> >> >>IMO after the request for the prints in private. And please note that I do no >>longer debate about articles in newspapers. What I want is one little proof for >>the existence of a press conference after game two. Clear enough? >> >> >> >> >>(I had written:) >> >> >>>>I had thought that we all had theories... >>>> >>>>(for example you seem to think that because he's still utterly wrong right now, >>>>Kasparov must have been wrong in 1997... is that reasonable for you?) >>>> >>> >>> >>>Yes... >> >> >>I didn't expect your answer. Interesting logic. >> >> >> >> >>> >>>Nothing spooky. I can read. You think DB's team did something wrong. >> >> >>I don't think but I know it. The denial of the prints, an unfriendly act, >>destroyed their experimental setting. Hint: Kasparov could no longer play his >>usual chess. Convinced? > >I think that Hsu has the right not to give information but in this case he >should not talk about the match as a scientific experiment. Exactly. Only this "little" reflection was my point. R. Hyatt stated that it wasn't about science at all. That it was a chess match between two sides. Truth is that Hsu surely wanted to be seen as a scientist. And when it suited him he took science a an excuse why he couldn't "explain" anything in less than let's say two years... But when it comes to a debate about the standards of science and that Hsu et al didn't respect trivial scientifical standards, then suddenly it's declared as simply a match. But more! The one who brought up the question of science in this group was attacked as a troll, the questioning insulted as boring and stupid. That's how it works here. The fact that R. Hyatt didn't prove his theory that Kasparov had spread ugly accusations in public against the DB team and _then_ they denied him the prints, seems to be uninteresting. I know for sure that Kasparov did not start the public campaign, but it was the DB side. Over newspapers like the NY Times. So, for that question I am on Kasparov's side. In the question of cheating I think R. Hyatt made important explanations. If Kasparov realized that he would know that his policy was not so good. Simply because there will not be sort of drug test for a computer output, if someone wants to cheat nobody can prevent it... There is no possibility to talk about science if the results can't be controlled. I don't understand why chessplayers play public games against computers at all. As long as a minimum of seriousity can't be guaranteed, computers should not be allowed to enter tournaments or challenges where also money is playing a role. Depressing results of our debate... > >I read that deep blue Junior won the commercial programs of that time before the >match 38:2 >I think that the first thing that scientists should do after this impressive >result is to publish the games. > >It is important for other programmers to see the problem with their programs. >The fact that they did not do it convince me that they did not look at the match >as a scientific event. > >Crafty is a scientific project and the source code of it is free. > >If deeper blue is a scientific project then they should tell everything about >their evaluations and extensions. > >The fact that they only some years after the match gave their logfiles and that >they did not explain everything about the machine proved me that it was not a >scientific project. > >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.