Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:32:18 07/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2002 at 19:27:51, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 18, 2002 at 15:39:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 18, 2002 at 14:46:50, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On July 18, 2002 at 13:37:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 18, 2002 at 13:17:29, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 18, 2002 at 12:10:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 18, 2002 at 07:57:15, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 18, 2002 at 01:00:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On July 17, 2002 at 17:30:01, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On July 17, 2002 at 09:23:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On July 17, 2002 at 05:24:50, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On July 17, 2002 at 00:03:24, K. Burcham wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>In game 2, Kasparov thought that there was human interference with this line. >>>>>>>>>>>>He requested the logs to see for himself that these two moves were actually in >>>>>>>>>>>>the Deep Blue eval. >>>>>>>>>>>>Kasparov did not think any program would play 36.axb5 avoiding 36.Qb6 or the >>>>>>>>>>>>move 37.Be4. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>But it seems that todays programs will accomplish what Deep Blue was trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>do in the game. >>>>>>>>>>>>Deep Blue opened up the a file and blocked Kasparov's play with 37.Be4, limiting >>>>>>>>>>>>blacks mobility. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Below in the examples you will see that two of todays strongest programs will >>>>>>>>>>>>also accomplish this same objective. Both Fritz7 and Chess Tiger 14.0 will open >>>>>>>>>>>>the a file and control the a file. also both Fritz7 and Chess Tiger 14.0 will >>>>>>>>>>>>play Be4 limiting Kasparov's mobility with black. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>All three programs, Deep Blue, Chess Tiger 14.0 and Fritz7 put the >>>>>>>>>>>>squeeze on black, blocked with the Be4 move, opened the a file, threatened to >>>>>>>>>>>>capture blacks bishop, forced black to protect the loss of pawns, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I started each program after Kasparov's move 35...Bxd6. >>>>>>>>>>>>after each program analyzed for several hours, I took the line from each >>>>>>>>>>>>program and played it through to the position after blacks move 40. >>>>>>>>>>>>This way we can cover both controversial moves> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>What is the error in such experiments? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Answer: You can't _prove_ something as authentic with repetitions on different >>>>>>>>>>>machines built-up _after_ the event. History of CC has shown that we could never >>>>>>>>>>>exclude special preps right on to the point. Therefore, logically, we cannot >>>>>>>>>>>accept such "proofs". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>You _can_ disprove Kasparov's main "claim". That "no computer would play ..." >>>>>>>>>>By demonstrating that at _least_ one computer _would_ play that move, his >>>>>>>>>>statement is disproven for all time. And the rest of his claim can therefore >>>>>>>>>>be taken with a mountain of salt. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Not that I _ever_ was or would be your teacher of English resp. American >>>>>>>>>English, but I must insist that Kasparov did _never_ say that no computer would >>>>>>>>>_E V E R_ play these moves. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>First, let's get the quote right. He did say "no computer _could_ play this >>>>>>>>move.." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What he meant was at the time being and he was >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>And here you go on a tangent. Not saying what he _said_ but what he >>>>>>>>"meant"... judge says "inadmissable, that is a conclusion, not a fact." >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No, I do not go on a tangent, because always we must interpret language. It is a >>>>>>>tour de tangent if you pretend to be able to prove exactly what a certain phrase >>>>>>>means out of itself. You are right, he said it. But what it means, what he said, >>>>>>>is a question of interpretation. Now, you have a _little_ problem. >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't have any problem at all. "no computer could play that move" is not >>>>>>open to "interpretation". Each word has a precise meaning. The >>>>>>"interpretation" that he later emphasized was "no computer could play such >>>>>>a move, so DB had human help in the background, somehow." >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>No computer - does this mean for you that no comp _ever_? >>>> >>>>"no computer" means "no computer". Since he didn't say "No computer for >>>>the next ten years" I take that to be absolute. >>> >>>A big mistake! >>> >> >>A big mistake to assume he uses Webster's dictionary to define his >>words? Or do we have to assume he has a Bill Clinton dictionary with >>an alternative definition of "is" or "no".??? >> >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>And then, just below you give us the main reason for the reason why Kasparov >>>>>politely asked after game two. I'll continue the argument down there. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>talking about DEEP BLUE 2 in the first place. Now back to the many tries to find >>>>>>>>>the moves with our commercial or amateur programs. Here I must insist. >>>>>>>>>Afterwards (with so many possibilities to interfere) you can never prove that >>>>>>>>>such progs could have found the moves at the time being. But with respect to the >>>>>>>>>position of Ed Schroeder I would say that even if some alien prog could have >>>>>>>>>found the moves, we are talking about DEEP BLUE 2 and we always were. Now - the >>>>>>>>>deconstruction was the worst thing that could have happened. Because now we >>>>>>>>>don't have any possibilities at all to corroborate or reject Kasparov's thesis. >>>>>>>>>This alone was and still is the biggest violation of all ethics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Just another thought to think about. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>See my comment to Amir. DB2 searched Qb6 and _every_ iteration the score >>>>>>>>dropped. Until it dropped all the way to +48 and the program decided that >>>>>>>>axb5 was better by about 1/10th of a pawn. No mystery. No magic. Just >>>>>>>>the opinion of the program, right or wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It's _all_ in the logs, if you just look. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You know the answer! You yourself explained what "logs" really could mean at >>>>>>>best. I don't want to re-open that can but I want to mention that after all what >>>>>>>happened IBM and DB2 team _still_ are in a state of emergency concerning >>>>>>>"explanations" and evidence. Ok, you can hold this open until the final >>>>>>>solution, but for me, excuse me, this is not ok. You are in a double bind. DB2 >>>>>>>team has to offer evidence, in special after the deliberate deconstruction of >>>>>>>the machine. Now we'll never be able to repeat some thought processes. Bad luck >>>>>>>for IBM/ DB2 team. They didn't pass the doping control. Their World Record can't >>>>>>>be accepted as valid. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>It can by those of us that know them. Otherwise _no_ computer vs human >>>>>>game/match can _ever_ be trusted. As I have said many times, there is _no_ >>>>>>way to be 100% certain there is no outside intervention... >>>>> >>>>>Ok. Thanks again. But this is the main reason why I am on Kasparov's side and >>>>>_not_ on DB2 team's side. No matter of how many contracts they signed. If you >>>>>cannot prove the output, then you'd have to deal the question with care. And you >>>>>won't offend the human champion - or you want to do harm and win the show on a >>>>>privat backyard (of IBM). I wrote about fair play and all that. Bob, it's here >>>>>with you as in the clubs where you analyse games. There are always some people >>>>>who shout a shout some two or three moves variations and then an expert explains >>>>>patiently that this doesn't work because of such and such. You know, your two or >>>>>three moves are absolutely ok. But in the context they are false. So, we have >>>>>the eternal problem of Yes and No at the same time. At first we should find a >>>>>mutual understanding on such interesting results of logic. Yes and No at the >>>>>same time, simply because levels or perspectives are mixed up. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>The problem is this. There have been _hundreds_ of computer vs human chess >>>>matches over the past 30 years. _hundreds_. Just as there have been hundreds >>>>of automobile races. But if a race is being held tomorrow, the "contract" >>>>will most likely stipulate the same things that a contract for a race last >>>>week stipulated. Because that _worked_. The "cheating" issue has been an >>>>issue since "the Turk" was done hundreds of years ago. It will remain an >>>>issue for all time. Because some things simply can not be controlled. >>>> >>>>Therefore, there is little point in arguing about things that are beyond your >>>>control, or anybody elses... >>> >>>This is a mistake. It's not about control, it's about research after the event. >>>In the 30 years before such a research was not necessary. For 1997 it wasn't >>>necessary because of Kasparov. He just had asked questions. The team was it. At >>>first GM Benjamin deceived everyone with his promise that he would give the >>>pre-games after the event. Then the team acted impolitely. And then the machine >>>was deconstructed! Three events I know of. >> >>And of course the logs are public and have been for years now. I have all >>6 of them here for example. > >A general remark. I do not understand why you hop from point to point without >keeping the overall view in mind. Can't you see that the logs alone do prove >nothing the moment you begin to doubt? I gave the three points above. Three >events is a bit much. To describe the whole situation you should comment on all >three, not just on a forth point, the logs. I asked you if the logs could have >been doctored. You said yes! You explained that the logs could even be doctored >in minutes. But you still believe in them. In science it's a good attitude to >take the other's arguments at their best shape. It makes no sense, if you always >take my perhaps weaker aspects of the points. Why not taking even these weaker >points and complete them with your own knowledge and then restart the debate? > > The point is, it is _impossible_ to prove you did _not_ do something. In this case proving they did not cheat is impossible. How can you prove something that you didn't do and have no evidence for? The onus is on Kasparov to prove that they _did_ cheat. Their log output is reasonable. IE using Crafty to search the position and evaluate both axb5 and Qb6, I see the following... For Qb6, crafty sees the score steadily drop. From almost +2.5 to +1.8. It goes down iteration by iteration, slowly. For axb5, the score is slowly climbing although it climbs faster in early searches and slower in later searches. It ends up at about +1.25. That tells me that the two moves are not that far apart, as 1.8 - 1.25 is about 1/2 pawn. I also notice that the better score is slowly dropping while the other score is slowly rising. I see nothing to convince me that the two won't eventually meet. At DB2's search speed, the meeting (and passing) just happened a lot quicker than it is for me. But it looks perfectly reasonable (to me). Saying that no computer could play axb5 because Qb6 wins more material is ridiculous, when the score (for my program, at 1/200th the speed of deep blue) is only 1/2 pawn different for the two moves. Crank up king safety a bit and Crafty might also change its mind and play their move... >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>At first they denied him the prints of the output and then after they "won" the >>>>>show event, they deconstructed the whole machine! No, you won't be able to >>>>>defend or help them out of the mess in a life-time. >>>> >>>> >>>>They _should_ have denied him the logs _during_ the match. He would hardly >>>>sit down with the DB team and tell them where DB had made mistakes, so that they >>>>might fix it. Why should they tell _him_ what DB was seeing so that he might >>>>find a problem and exploit it? >>> >>>You don't answer to the point. I didn't say what they should have done exactly. >>>A smart team has several choices! I would have known what to do... >> >>Me too. I would have said "no". You don't tell us what you are thinking about >>during a game. Neither should Deep Blue tell you what it was thinking about >>during the game by letting you see the logs. >> >>end of that story before it even gets started... >> >> >>> >>>> Have you _ever_ seen (say) a WC match where >>>>the two GMs sit down after each game and say "had you done this, I would have >>>>done this. Had you tried this opening move I had this trap ready to spring >>>>on you..." >>> >>>Bob! I didn't talk about opening moves or prep. The middlegame was the point. If >>>I did see such behavior? Yes! 1972! Wch!!! But I didn't start the WC debate. >>>Then all the show acts in Mainz or Frankfurt. >> >>Of course, you do _not_ see such behavior _during_ a match... > >I did! Fischer did this with Boris in 72 and 91 again. Fischer told Spasky what openings he had prepared but didn't get to use because Spasky chose a different line? I don't think so. Fischer told Spasky what his "evaluations" were for each move he made, which would show which positional features he thought important and which were not? Again, I don't think so. He might have shown him where he thought he went wrong, tactically or positionally, but that is not what the logs actually show. They reveal _everything_ about an engine. Just knowing the score for each move is a major revelation to the human player. I've seen it have a lopsided effect on games on ICC when the opponent can sneak a peek at the evaluation (not the PV just the raw score)... > >Only to demonstrate what I meant above, let me give you the argument of the >details again. At first they agreed and said they would give the logs. Then they >told him that IBM would permit and that was the offense for Kasparov. > So... somebody says "sure". Then when they think about it, they say "wait a minute, this is going to give him a lot of details he doesn't need to know until _after_ the match is over." I've made such decisions and then changed my mind later. It is not uncommon. It just shows that the _original_ decision was wrong, not that the "re-think/retraction" was an insult... > >>And you do >>realize that DB's logs could show multiple book moves that _might_ be played, >>giving away information no GM would _ever_ reveal until after-the-fact... > >Then they could have censored the book moves. You _always_ claimed that the >output of DB would be not to read by an amateur. So I already remarked in 97 >that the question boils down to the point that the team simply had to begin a >friendly conversation with Kasparov (where he could have asked his questions and >then the team could have shown him certain data that would refutate his >theiries). Why they didn't do this? I would have done it and DB2 wouldn't been >hurt IMO. But the friendly atmoshere would have been conserved. This is _still_ going around in circles. They _could_ have cooked the logs and given them to him immediately. They _did_ give them to a neutral observer to see if anything looked wrong. They just didn't want to give them to Kasparov to study. If they had chosen to cook the logs and given them to him, would we still be having this discussion? Of course, because I have explained many times that the logs don't _prove_ anything. They simply provide us with data that may or may not show what DB was doing. I believe they do. But I can't prove it. You might believe they don't. But again, that can't be proven either. Because there has been plenty of time to doctor the program to make it match the logs. Again, no way to _prove_ anything here... > >> >>IE Crafty's logs certainly reveal all the moves, the various probabilities >>for playing them, learned results, etc... >> >>Should a GM have access to that during a match, when he doesn't tell me _his_ >>move probabilities? I don't think so... > >Of course. But as I stated above, you seem to like the easy way in >argumentation. Please try to find the best for a change. The best explanation is >good enough! That's what I gave... > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Of course you haven't... and it shouldn't have happened in NYC either. >>> >>>Show events! Please do not support the upcoming delusion in computerchess. >>> >> >>What "delusion"??? Kasparov lost. So what? Would he lose again? Who >>knows. If he went into match 3 as psyched as he was 1/2 wat thru match >>2, he would have probably lost every game... > >Excuse my language. I meant the idea that comps would already be stronger than >human GM... I know that this is not your belief. No it isn't. It wasn't after the Kasparov match. It wasn't before the Kasparov match. And it isn't my belief today either. The comps are _getting_ there. But they are not there yet and won't be for a while yet. > > > > >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>We all know that DB 2 did not use the typical nullmove strategies of today's >>>>>>>>>chessprogs. It would be the least what you and your collegues could do, that you >>>>>>>>>elaborate what this could mean for the question of Qxb6 vs. axb5. Just for the >>>>>>>>>sake of our own class of debate. If we could show that DEEP BLUE 2 would have >>>>>>>>>been a much more difficult task to reject Qb6 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Just look at their log file, and the variation they produced (note that this >>>>>>>>is never the full variation on deep blue since the hardware does not supply >>>>>>>>a PV, meaning you only get the software PV and since it is from the hash >>>>>>>>table it is not completely reliable nor always complete. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The log shows why they rejected Qb6 quite clearly.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Maybe, maybe. Without doping control, not valid unfortunately. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Based on that logic, _nothing_ dealing with computers would be valid, because >>>>>>ensuring no outside influence would be impossible in the context of the match >>>>>>between a human and a computer. >>>>> >>>>>This is a typical mistake for beginners of scientifical methodology. Forget >>>>>about all the outside influences, if the machine had not been deconstructed, we >>>>>could check it out now. >>>> >>>> >>>>How? If they had had a human force a specific move, you don't think they >>>>could do a quick tweak to the evaluation function or search rules to make >>>>the machine _now_ play that move on its own? So you could prove _exactly_ >>>>what after the fact? Answer: zilch >>> >>>(Sigh.) That was exactly the reason for the research. Because the couldn't have >>>changed basics. >> >>I have no idea what you are talking about nor implying here. If I forced >>Crafty to make a specific move because a GM said "you must play this now" I >>could certainly, given a few minutes, tweak the program so that if someone >>asked "can you show us that position again and let us see why it thought that >>was good" I would be able to produce that move _without_ intervention the >>secomd time around. And there would be no prevention for such... > >Thanks so much for this clarification. I had read you to the contrary. A simple >misunderstanding. You can understand now why Kasparov wanted to talk this over >after game two? I'm sure that he had no knowledge of what you have explained >here! But then - this makes it even more important and easy to talk with him and >explain this. You can meet "paranoid" questions with innocent friendliness! >Anyway, Kasparov wasn't a psycho! Since DB2 was playing, I see no reason at all >for the team or one of them to talk with Kasparov _about_ the event on a meta >level! > Again, the question has to be "what would be the point of having the discussion since there is no way to prove _anything_." A discussion would be pointless under such circumstances. I suspect the DB team realized this and simply decided "OK... he made the claim, we can't prove we didn't cheat, he can't prove we did, if we drag this out it simply damages the result." >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>So once again, this discussion leads to nowhere... >>>> >>> >>>It's called subtle ! The results of our discussion are already there. >>> >>>> >>>>>If we had some games or variations from the prior-match >>>>>practice, we would also have much more insight, of course in addition with the >>>>>logs. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>If a frog had pockets, he would carry a gun and not have to worry about >>>>snakes, too. >>>> >>>>If... If... If... >>> >>>That's a bit unfair. If I try to explain something to you, I am forced to use >>>such technique. It seems as if you didn't like the points I could demonstrate. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Don't you see how far you must forget about your own experience to be able >>>>>to argue against my crystal clear logic? Because, only for younger readers, you >>>>>are by far _no_ beginner! You know exactly what went wrong with the whole event. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>yes I do. Absolutely nothing went wrong except that nobody likes the outcome. >>>>Nobody complained (yourself included) about the 1996 event. Same rules. Same >>>>secrecy. Same lack of logs. Same everything. Oh yes. The _result_ was >>>>different so it was ok. >>>> >>>>But in 1997, _what_ was different? :) >>>> >>>>only _one_ thing. >>> >>>Your memory is weak, but I can help you. IBM was sponsor and player! >> >>IBM was sponsor _and_ player in 1996 too. Or did you forget that? Yet >>nobody complained in 1996... > >I must admit that I was not aware of that. I thought that in Philadelphia it >wasn't IBM the sponsor. That event was prior to my time on the net. You are >right. Thanks for the correction. But then we have a draw after two matches??! >Then the deconstruction is even a bigger puzzle for me. > Depends on how you measure success. IBM said we won the match and that is all we wanted to do. I have absolutely no doubt that had things proceeded sanely, a third match would have happened at some point in time. But after the accusation, I think any chance of that was effectively killed. > >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>I do not talk about the question of who did what. But about the conditions of >>>>>the event. And you know exactly that in such a case of >>>>>not-to-prove-interdependencies you must hold up by force the friendly climate, >>>>>otherwise you'd end in self-betrayal. This stands above the contracts, and you >>>>>know that! >>>> >>>> >>>>_nothing_ stands "above the contract". You sign. You are "in." >>> >>>(Sigh.) Climate. Ethics. Your choice! >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> we would at least be able to >>>>>>>>>understand why our logic is shaky when we conclude that if some PC progs could >>>>>>>>>find the solution that then it might be possible for DB 2 as well. You know, we >>>>>>>>>must not take Kasparov as our scientifical God but we should take him as the >>>>>>>>>honest reporter from the chess angle of the problem. In other words. Even if you >>>>>>>>>were right, that his "claim" could be refutated, he could still be right. >>>>>>>>>Look, if that would come out in 40 years when you and me are dancing in >>>>>>>>>paradise, it would be a pity if the security patrol would catch you for being >>>>>>>>>guilty of supporting the confusion to the disadvantage of Kasparov, just because >>>>>>>>>you are a friend of many of the DB 2 team. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I would defend deep blue whether I was _friends_ with the team or not. It >>>>>>>>is their _reputations_ that cause me to defend them, not the fact that I have >>>>>>>>been on a first-name basis with them for 20+ years. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes, but it's five years ago now that I told you that they probably violated all >>>>>>>ethics of science, no matter if they were working for IBM or not. The details >>>>>>>after game two speak against them. They should have known better. Alas, when Hsu >>>>>>>Feng tried to get in touch with Kasparov we saw what his reputation was worth. >>>>>>>He left the field for good. He will never more be accepted from a top >>>>>>>chessplayer. What did Kasparov say? "You must qualify yourself, then come back." >>>>>> >>>>>>I wonder why Kasparov would not say "yes, I will play your machine for the >>>>>>easy opportunity to pick up a million dollars."??? >>>>> >>>>>Easy one, Hsu misused his confidence once. He wouldn't let himself be fooled >>>>>twice. For the reasons I gave you. He did it "for" computerchess, not for the >>>>>money, didn't you know that? Are you familiar with the psyche of a chess genius? >>>>>He's a chessplayer in the first instance and a bad politician. And as a >>>>>chessplayer he always liked and admired computerchess. That he didn't say what >>>>>you suggested _proves_ that he's primarily not after the money. He already had >>>>>enough money. >>>> >>>>If I thought I could win, I would play for $1,000,000 against _you_ and whatever >>>>machine you had. Regardless of whether I respected or despised you. It would >>>>be about the money. Unless I was somehow "afraid"... >>> >>>But you can see that you can't buy a Kasparov! He will do many things if (!) it >>>is ok with his chess interest. Here he's like Bobby who prefered to leave the >>>tournament for good if something fishy against the players cold be foreseen. >> >> >>Kasparov was bought and paid for _twice_. In 1996 and 1997. that happens >>all the time, in pro sports for example. Nothing wrong with using your talents >>to cause someone to hire you for whatever reason... > >I would like you commented on my remarks about their duty to trat him with >utmost friendliness since they wanted to see what their machine could achieve. >You never gave a fair comment on my accusing them of psyching him out. Just give >me you comment as a scientist. And then we could well differentiate how far >scientists could go in a sports event. But in social sciences you always have to >keep in mind the importance of the absence of disturbances. I think we agree on >this? Was Mr. Fredkin a scientist? I am not sure. I remember when the Fredkin prize was announced in the ICCA Journal, but I don't remember the specifics other than that he was somehow related to Carnegie-Melon University. Whether a donor, a faculty member or even a computer-scientist I really don't know. Remember about friendliness. It is a two-way street. Kasparov threw the first stone, then tried to throw a tantrum when they chose to fight back and say "no logs." Do you catch more bees with honey or vinegar? He tried vinegar and complained when there were no bees around. > >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I can think of several reasons why he wouldn't. And the main one _did_ have >>>>>>something to do with Hsu's reputation. Because Hsu told him he would have >>>>>>a machine another 30X faster. I don't think Kasparov wanted _any_ part of >>>>>>that... >>>>> >>>>>And I say that inspite such a monster chess machine Hsu had exactly nothing in >>>>>his hands _without_ Kaspy. Do you believe that Hsu had left the field if he had >>>>>something out of himself? You bet. >>>> >>>>Hsu needed Kasparov to make the next potential match interesting. Without >>>>Kasparov, there would be no interest. No interest means no financial backing. >>>> >>>>No mystery there. Why do you think IBM got into this? For the science? Or >>>>for the potential public relations bonanza? >>> >>>The point is this. You accept this logically, but then you must agree that >>>Kasparov is the more important figure of the whole CC ballyhoo and not the >>>machine! But you argue as if Kasparov had to grovel before Hsu et al. and to be >>>thankful. At least here we've found agreement. >> >>You have it backward. Kasparov was _the_ best player in the world, and that >>was what the fredkin prize was all about... He held _every_ card in the deck, >>and then he complains because he dealt himself a losing hand. That was hardly >>IBM's fault.... > >Excuse me if I repeat myself. Your cynism, surely unintended, doesn't look >ethically sober! As I wrote above, you don't want to paralyze your client only >to beat him in chess? Or did I misunderstand you? Kasparov wasn't "paralyzed". He was simply mis-prepared due to bad advice and bad advisors. What more can be said about that? IBM was out to win. That meant beating Kasparov. So there was a _natural_ adversary relationship there that everyone knew about up front. I don't expect my tennis opponent to tell me he noticed a loose string on my racket. If I play without noticing it, that is my fault, not his. If I am about to drag race someone, I don't expect them to tell me "hey, your nitrous tank is empth". That is my business to manage. I would expect them to say "hey, you have 3 missing lug nuts, because that is a safety issue. But I wouldn't expect them to tell me something that would help me do better in the race. That is "competition". I would look pretty silly complaining after losing a critical race "idiot should have told me my nitrous tank was empty, I know he knew because I saw him looking at it before we went to the staging area." > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>What does that mean? Oh, nothing but the _fact_ that only with the friendliness >>>>>>>of Kasparov your friends got the chance to play. And then they violated the >>>>>>>silent mutual acceptance that "normally" a show like that would never happen, >>>>>>>simply because it's unfair to the bones. >>>>>> >>>>>>You don't think the chance to win $1,000,000.00 had _anything_ to do with >>>>>>Kasparov's decision? It had _nothing_ to do with friendship. It had >>>>>>_everything_ to do with $$$... >>>>>> >>>>>>Otherwise don't you think Friedel would have set up a match between Kasparov >>>>>>and Fritz? Eh? >>>>> >>>>>(Laughing.) But Friedel did the gig with Kramnik. I already criticised Kramnik >>>>>for not letting Eduard play! But he wouldn't listen... :)) >>>>>The logic of Fred is that for FRITZ someone stronger than Kasparov had to be >>>>>found. (Laughing.) >>>> >>>>I don't think he has found that someone yet. Perhaps in 10 years... >>> >>>The irony is that Kramnik already was better than Kasparov, but during all the >>>FRITZ preparation he became weaker and weaker. Just joking. But he has beaten >>>Kasparov convincingly. 2:0! >>> >>>Please let's not debate without deeper thoughts. Give me something to bite! I >>>thought that you were defending the DB2 team and IBM. :) >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen >> >>I'm not defending IBM whatsoever. I am defending the reputations of the people >>involved in "the project"... >> >>IBM has nothing to do with any of this, other than they supplied a _lot_ of >>money to lure Kasparov into the match, and a lot of money to pay the group to >>do the development, and a lot of money to pay for the hardware, and a lot of >>money to do the pre-match publicity. In return they got more advertising >>and publicity than they could have bought by spending 100x that amount of >>money. Sound business, IMHO. > >I'm still under the impression of your old explanation that your friends were >bought by IBM and therefore they had to behave the way they did. In rgcc I had a >longer debate with some people who tried to defend the lack of ethics if >scientists were acting in shows or were simply just bought. I opposed that >ridiculous perversion. What is your attitude? For me no company for no matter >how much money could tell me what to do, when I had to disturb my client's >attention! I would make a clown out of myself if I inclined. > >Rolf Tueschen > Some decisions were no doubt made outside the DB team's control. Because higher-ups had put up a boatload of money and wanted to see maximal return on that investment for the next shareholder's meeting. that is pretty common. But I didn't see any decisions made that were made just to "show Kasparov" who was boss... >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You know, Bob, it's kind of strange, that you had to come forward with the >>>>>>>"contracts". Of course you are right with the contracts. But at that moment you >>>>>>>lost the track of the silent mutual acceptance. Their is a logic beyond >>>>>>>contracts. In special with contracts for simple show events! >>>>>> >>>>>>I was taught _long_ ago. "if it is important, get it in writing. If it is >>>>>>not important, then a wink and a nod is perfectly acceptable." Kasparov signed >>>>>>a contract after negotiating the details of that contract. If you sign a >>>>>>contract to buy a Rolls Royce, and after you get it, you decide "this thing >>>>>>isn't worth this much money" it is _too late_. You negotiate _before_ signing, >>>>>>_not_ after... >>>>> >>>>>Excuse me for insisting, but you're really a bit rigid. :) >>>>>We're talking about a little show event, not concrete economics or rocket >>>>>science. The contracts were mainly about the chess clock, the funny ambience of >>>>>the living room atmosphere and so on. The rest _was_ confidence among friends... >>>> >>>>Where did you get that? The contract stipulated when and where each game would >>>>be played, the time control, the number of rest days and where they would be >>>>inserted, who could go to the bathroom when, you-name-it... >>>> >>>>Don't blame a lack of contract negotiation by Kasparov as a trick by IBM. >>>>He _did_ play the previous year, _same_ contract rules... But there was >>>>a difference of course... the outcome. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Therefore you irony always was most unwanted. But what could Kasparov do when >>>>>suddenly these chess beginners went completely gaga and thought that there baby >>>>>could be stronger than Kasparov this time - in special after the famous first >>>>>game? Not to speak about the marketing elites of IBM who didn't even know on how >>>>>many squares they actually played in chess. (Just assumptions.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I think that this is the best possible description of what has happened. Without >>>>>>>insults. The facts alone speak their verdict. Against one certain side. >>>>>>>They changed a show act into a World Championship and then denied to pass the >>>>>>>doping control. The End. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>That is just your characterization. Not the general opinion. >>>>> >>>>>Thanks for the compliment, Bob. >>>>> >>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Friendship is one thing but Science >>>>>>>>>and Ethics is something more important. And I tell you, the truth will come out. >>>>>>>>>Now or in future. And you won't have a good excuse with the statement that >>>>>>>>>Kasparov made a scientifically wrong thesis. We all know that he's not a >>>>>>>>>scientist. But he's one of the best chessplayers we ever had. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>And one of the biggest sore losers as well... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>The deconstruction of DEEP BLUE 2 right after the event, in special with the >>>>>>>>>>>knowledge of the prior attitude of the DB team, which was one of secrecy (not a >>>>>>>>>>>single game score existing!), speaks against the validity of DB2 output. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>THe deliberate deconstruction invalidates DB2 results. Just compare it with the >>>>>>>>>>>refusal of passing the doping test directly _after_ the race. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>It's so basic! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0.01 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.