Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 04:29:50 05/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 15, 2000 at 06:05:01, Hans Gerber wrote: >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. > > I don't understand this point. Permit me to be a bit facetious, but surely by this argument I could claim to be World Champion on the grounds that when I lost to Polgar, Kramnik, Kasparov etc, I was intimidated by the fact that I couldn't understand why I kept losing. And when I asked them how they kept beating me they declined to answer. Surely I am the same player whether or not I am intimidated? If Kasparov was confused and intimidated, I think it was because he was ill-prepared for the match. And since he'd signed a contract accepting the conditions of the match, I would say that that was his own fault. I say this as a person who was hoping he would win. Andrew Williams > > >>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.