Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:16:48 07/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2002 at 09:58:45, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 19, 2002 at 21:38:27, Robert Hyatt 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. >> >>Nor would they _ever_ have proved anything. So the discussion again revolves >>around a "pointless issue". > >Wishful thinking. Now, this is the proof for the total end of traditional >computerchess. You stopped the main discussion about these ethical questions in >the debate with me and you come here (into a debate with someone who never was >in the debate, at least not with his name) to "declare" the whole question as >"pointless". Excuse me if I say that this isn't sound. For me it's completely >unbelievable that you can't understand the consequences of your own statement >(the principal unsuitability of the logs for for proofs and validity). At least >the logs of DB2. You completely miss the consequence that your friends, the DB2 >team would've had the duty to design a water-tight and well documented output. >That is the bad side of the simple questions of Kasparov. And _you_ could give >us no answer. > > We can argue for all time about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" But since there is absolutely no way to measure the size of an angel, no answer can be proven correct. Discussion is pointless. In chess, we have the same problem. It is simply impossible to prevent outside intervention in a game, and it is also impossible to detect that it happened in every case. If you can't prevent it in 100% of the cases, and you can't detect when it has happened with 100% reliability, The "interest" in the issue wanes a bit... Should we argue about how long it will take man to reach Alpha Centauri? I claim zero time. And I leave it to you to prove me wrong by showing with absolute perfection that exceeding C (speed of light) is impossible under _all_ conditions... Many discussions are pointless. Trying to "interfere-proof" the DB matches falls into that class... >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> 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.) >> >> >>Several reasons why your objection is overruled. 1. Kasparov said "no computer >>could play axb5 instead of Qb6" which he claimed was a larger material win. He >>was wrong. > >As I said already Kasparov didn't mean what you are trying to imply. But even if >he did mean it it won't help you and your friends in the DB2 team for the >question of their behavior during the event in 1997. Not to speak of the >deconstruction! They are obligated to keep a multi-million dollar computer around for your personal edification? The machine was sold. It was sold _before_ the match, but delivery was delayed so that they could use it. Cray did this for _me_ many times.... Nearly every year Cray Blitz played in an event, had you asked to see the machine to test a position a few weeks later, you would have been out of luck as the machine would have been shipped and installed at a customer site... > > >>I demonstrated that _one_ program thinks the moves get closer and >>closer with deeper searches. One exception is more than enough to disprove any >>statement that says "no computer can..." Because if one can, it is is false... > >You know very good that your experiment is not a proof against Kasparov. Your >experiment does not answer the question why CC and the DB2 teamm as well never >discussed the question of a safe output. The sole purpose is to create alien war >fields to prevent that many people finally understand what is wrong in the >tradition of CC. Why don't you support the reformation of traditional CC? What >is the reason why you support false methods? Because "safe output" is an oxymoron. A contradiction. A physical impossibility. Any of the above. All of the above. Etc... If it doesn't exist, and can't possibly exist, then what is the point in discussing it ad nauseum??? > > > >> >>Just because Crafty _might_ switch to axb5 given enough time does _not_ prove >>that DB actually did that without human help. There is _no_ way to prove that. > > >This is not true! All we could state is that traditional CC did never search for >such security measures. In the past for understandable reasons but after DB2 in >1997 and Kasparov's questions we have a new situation. We can state that such security measures are, by definition, impossible. Again, which makes the discussion pointless. > > > >>But it is easy to prove that _some_ computer might well play it given enough >>time. > >And the necessary ingrediants had been implemented... ;-) > Hence my argument all along... the machine is far too easy to modify to make any attempt to "security" 100% reliable. > >> And it _has_ been proven that the two moves are within 1/2 pawn of each >>other, which is more than close enough for a few differences in evaluation to >>change the move. >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>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. >> >>That is why the "question" has not been an issue in 30+ years of comp vs >>GM matches... > >For good reasons of a non-question of honesty, but this has changed after DB2 >team in 1997, Bob. GM no longer believe in mutual respect. They want control of >the whole matter. Look how Kramnik proceeds with FRITZ (not joking!). :) No... what you see is a Kramnik with better advisors. And a Kramnik that _knows_ that ChessBase needs _him_ and not vice-versa. Therefore he dictated the match conditions as favorable to him as he could imagine. Kasparov _could_ have done that or more. _could_ have... > >I have general questions for you. Why do you think it preferable that the whole >question must be confused? Why can't we discuss ethical questions? Why the >methods of the old days must be good methods for these days too? Are these >methods, or their philosophy connected with economical importance? Why something >bad or unsuitable must be presented as undisputably the sole solution? Can't you >see the desaster such hopeless deadend tries will spoil the thought processes of >our young computerchess experts? Questions to think about. > I don't spend a lot of time worrying about things that I can't do anything about. For example, I don't have any meteor protection over my house. I don't think I could build anything big enough to protect me from any reasonable size of meteor. There is no way to make a machine totally immune to outside intervention, if the people that build the machine are intent on doing such. So I don't give it any thought. There is no way to detect such intervention with any reasonable reliability. So I don't give that any thought either. I think most understand that. Unless they don't _want_ to understand it, due to an agenda... > >Rolf Tueschen > >> >> >>> >>>>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. :) >>> >>>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.