Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 03:05:01 05/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 14, 2000 at 23:00:19, Dave Gomboc wrote: (snip) >I was attempting to be arrogant earlier (and I had thought I succeeded, but... ><shrug>) because I was attempting to juxtapose that behaviour with Murray's >allegedly arrogant behaviour, with the aim of convincing you that Murray's >comments were not arrogant. Whether I succeeded in that aim or not, though, >that particular attempt is over. Yes, but for obvious reasons, here down under, you should not use such "methods" at all. > >Regarding the broader issue of the curbing (if you'll permit the substitution) >of cheating in computer chess: why do you believe that it should be possible? Astonishing question! Dave, for a whole week right now we were discussing that point. It was not me who suspected that cheating should have happened. I was the one who claimed that in science scientists should guarantee that _no_ cheating should be possible. But then the surprise. R. Hyatt explained that this could _not_ be done. Cheating could not be prevented in computerchess. My point after that was that _therefore_ the DB team around Hsu should have felt the obligation to find a modus vivendi with Kasparov in 1997. Because Kasparov in 1997 and probably still today is convinced that he had discovered a special point. But where _he_ saw a possible cheating, R. Hyatt explained, no cheating was even needed. My point again, that then they should have had the obligation to explain all that to Kasparov. Now the question perhaps why they should have done that since it was a chess match. My point was that the whole match result was meaningless because the machine DB did no longer play against the strong chessplayer Kasparov but against a very confused and intimidated human. And this had nothing to do with the machine but with a psychowar by the DB team, and/or the IBM officials as R. Hyatt suggested. >IMO it is very difficult to curb cheating in "real life", so to speak. Do you >agree? If so, then on what basis do you believe it is easier to curb cheating >in computer chess competition (irrespective of whatever form that competition >might take: tournaments, SSDF list, etc.) that it would be in "real life"? > >Dave Dave, this is also the wrong question to me. Because I didn't talk about real life, but I talked about the standards of science. Short explanation again: If you want to see how a machine could do against a very strong human, it's helpful at least to let the human play as good as he normally can. The moment 'you' (as member of the machine's team) try to irritate or worse try to make upset he human opponent, you have difficulties to interprete the data of your results. Was it because of the strength of the machine or because of your psychowar... Well, probably both, but that is not how scientist should experiment. Next question: You don't believe that it was science at all? Well, then read the declarations, the excuses to need much time for explanations, the attention of the public waiting for the "holy" books of the actors like Hsu. R. Hyatt argued as if the published logfiles of the machines could be read by average people but this is not true. To understand the difficult terminology of the documents you must be expert in computerchess. It's a special language, typical for scientific research. In 1997 that difficulty or let me say non-triviality was the excuse of Hsu to _not_ quickly publish and explain the whole output. Now in 2000 I could read that there is still no satisfactory explanation for the whole output. My point again that scientists normally had the obligation to explain and substantiate their data. I don't favor any result of that process. Hope, I could answer a few of your questions. Hans
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.