Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:41:28 07/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2002 at 16:41:58, Matthew Hull wrote: >On July 19, 2002 at 15:50:08, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On July 19, 2002 at 11:50:51, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>> >>>It seems that most of the controversy can be boiled down to the axb5 vs Qb6 >>>issue. >> >>Objection. >> >>That was Kasparov's reason for his question for the logs, yes. But it's not the >>biggest challenge of the DB2 team. The biggest examination came from me with the >>miles higher levelled questioning of their experimental design and ethics. >>Please read all the exchange of arguments between Dr. Hyatt and me. The point is >>that the logs seriously do not prove a thing. >> >> >>> This was the ONE BIG evidence Kasparov had of possible cheating. It >>>seems in fact that this is the only thread by which the cheating allegation >>>hangs. If that could be demonstrated, then who knew how many more moves in the >>>match would have been "corrupt", yes? >>> >>>But we find that logs from other chess engines show a similar DB2-like regard >>>for the two moves over time in that the two evaluations show a trend toward >>>intersection. This greatly weakens (if not completely destroy's) Kasparov's >>>strongest evidence of cheating. >> >>Objection! >> >>Why do think that completely different entities could be taken for refutation or >>corroboration of DB2 play? That is comparing apples and peas. (That is why I >>demonstrated the importance of the deconstruction of the machine. It simply >>destroyed all possible evidence. The rest is speculation. At whose costs? The >>team of DB2 is guilty of.) >> >>> >>>All the rest of the arguments about courtesy, politeness, friendliness, supposed >>>sinister motives (please provide Hsu's and Murray's brain logs for evidence!) >>>and goodwill do not strengthen Kasparov's axb6/Qb6 contention, by which the >>>entire cheating allegation hangs. That is the only thread Kasparov ever had. >> >>In science truth is not depending on some individual's limitations. As I said I >>did make the main accusations! In your collection above you forgot to mention >>ethics of scientists. And this is completely independant of Kasparov. It's a >>'must', a duty, of the team. Unfortunately they failed. Perhaps you don't >>understand it at first. But then read please my exchange with Dr. Hyatt. The >>main reason lies in the early stages of their experimental design of the >>machine. Perhaps the whole question could be led back to the early times of >>tournament computerchess. At the time the protagonists simply missed the >>question of documentation, because it was just an academic fun at weekends where >>all parties had the same good status just by their participation in the new >>research. The chess itself was not the most important factor in these days... >>simply because it was very weak chess. Even the operators were sometimes >>stronger than the machines. :) >> >>And another important point was the long-distance connection to the huge machine >>power. So, the question of cheating would have led to nowhere - because anything >>in fact was possible. But to what purpose? That's why the question wasn't top on >>the agenda in those ancient days. >> >>>And his contention has been scientifically undermined, if not completely >>>destroyed. >> >>Objection. >> >>> >>>_That_ is science. If it's good enough for other engines to find the evaluation >>>trend, if not the move itself (given the un-avoidable technological >>>disparities), then the DB2 log validity is only strengthened, not weakened. >> >>You must read what Amir wrote about it. The question is if DB2 would reject the >>present of three black pawns! Of course PC machines can be instructed to reject >>it, but facts speak a different language - that comps still are a bit too >>greedy. >> >>>That's where the true scientific evidence points. End of story. Game over. >>> >>>Yes? :-) >> >>No, I'm so sorry. :) > >I think I see what you are saying (and I did read all the threads first) and all >the stuff about documentation and oversight sounds great in 20/20 hindsight. > >But weighing all the arguments in the balance, it just seems to defy common >sense that these reputable programmers would stoop to cheating. PLease! What are you saying? I think you miss the most important point here. Kasparov didn't say that they cheated. I didn't say it! It was the team itself who brought this up. Someone, whose name I've forgotten talked with a newspaper and there he showed embarrassment about K's incredible insinuations. He didn't use these words, but he put it into cynical language, arrogantly and as if K was just a clown. This is for me the moment when the team went on the wild side. These aggressions are telling. Absolutely against all ethics of scientists. Are you still there? Let me continue. The evil was that K asked a totally innocent question. Perhaps he was totally _wrong_ and the team reacted as if they were hit right to the mark. Very telling. BTW already in 97 I was the one to state that you could _see_ the irritation, the cynism, the arrogance and their being at a loss - on the final press conference! Very telling the grinning of the team official. Just try to get the video sequence. And on the other side take Kasparov. He didn't know what was going on, he was confused, but - - he gives you the impression that he's completely honest. He simply asked questions. He already talked about the re-match and that now the game for childs had come to an end and that he would now strike back with all his might... All very honest emotions and at the same time a complete missing of the ugly side of the medal - IBM sole goal! And the violation of ethics by the team. Because you must not forget that they were interested in Kasparov. He was their choice. Their most welcomed client for the test. And then? I already stated it, if either the logs didn't prove a thing they could have talked with Kasparov, or if the logs had shown too much for the match situation, they could have talked too. But ther fact alone that they started a psycho war (my wording from 1997) proves that they had something to hide. Or that they were in a war against their partner. Incredible events with scientists involved. And because the psyco war has been started the innocent questions of Kasparov were twisted into something like the ultimatum during the crisis of Cuba! Something strange, impolite and absolutely uncommon for a chessplayer. Excuse the long chapter, but you get the idea. Kasparov did never, either during match nor later accuse them of cheating. He simply repeated over and over again that they couldn't provide the output. And there you just read what I explained. He's right. The logs, they presented later, don't prove a thing (Tueschen), because they could have been doctored in some minutes of time (Hyatt). But the deconstruction, oh yes, is the proof that speaks against the team! And it can't be repaired. Therefore my idea of a reformation of computerchess! See the forum R.G.C.C., the archives in google. Because the DB2 team are no cheaters! They became a victim of the traditions of CC itself. >It just wasn't >necessary. They had proved, from Chiptest to DB1 that the machine could play >very good chess, better than any other machine extant. Match 1 showed some >significant weaknesses, but also surprising ability. The next hardware >iteration (DB2) would be even more impressive. > >I remember seeing some years ago a Nova documentary on Deep Thought, back when >Karpov was one of the IBM consultants. Hsu was talking about the considerable >abilities of DT and that he envisioned DT being shrunk to a chip, and then >running 1024 of them in parrallel. "That ought to do it" were his exact words. >It was really kind of humorous. He was literally going to throw chips at the >"problem". (The eventual design ended up not having 1024 chips.). Why would he >allow such a great experiment and opportunity to be spoiled by cheating. If >that were the intent, the team could have expended far less on a really good >"The Turq" type of device, with GMs really in control. Good reflection. But then it's only a little step for you to understand the whole truth. Take for granted for a moment their naivety in relation to CC traditions. Then you become aware of the hole in the whole fairy tale. I agree with you and everybody who believes in the strength of DT and DB1+2, but the secrecy and the lack of undisputable documentation spoils the whole performance of the machines. And that wasn't about cheating! It's about professional blindness. Read Tarrasch and others on that subject. Exactly to prevent such blindness we have certain regulations in science, probably completely unknown to the team members... and the whole CC. > >The only credible motive's I can imagine for them cheating would be: > >1. DB2 turned out to be a real turkey of a chess player and needed serious help >to avoid embarrassment. > >2. Evil marketdroids, not trusting the fruit of their own project, compelled >the team to accept GM intervention at critical points of the game to ensure the >best possible result. > >There's no evidence that #1 was the case, based on over a decade of successful >technological progression. Sure? And why game one in match two was so much laughed about in circles of experts? Bob was talking about bad luck and a narrow result, but experts said that DB2 played a lot of nonsense. That's undeniable. And then suddenly... in game two. The rest is history. You didn't speak about Amir's "three pawn theory". Why not? >And, it doesn't seem logical that the team--based on >Dr. Hyatts more intimate knowlege of their character--would allow #2 to corrupt >their most interesting experiment and lifes work (so to speak). This was a debate in 1997 and later. I think it was Bob again who explained how this could be accomplished with keeping the team completely innocent! Know, what I mean? This is the incredible situation in CC. Inside and outside intervention is not controlled! And again nota bene, here not only the team is guilty. It's simply a tradition in CC. > >If Kasparov hadn't brought up the axb5/Qb6 issue, this whole argument would >never have happened. In the end, DB2 didn't have to play brilliant chess to >defeat Kasparov, because he just blundered the match away. To me, that's why he >lost. The evidence is very clear on that point, at least. You are right, but ask yourself why he blundered. In his words, the match was over after game two! Don't forget to analyse game one! Kasparov had it completely under control! > >Anyway, that's how it looks to me. :-) Thanks for your interest. Rolf Tueschen > >Regards, > >> >>Rolf Tueschen >> >>> >>>Regards
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.