Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:45:13 08/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2002 at 22:35:25, Peter Hegger wrote: >On August 22, 2002 at 18:19:17, Keith Ian Price wrote: > >>On August 22, 2002 at 10:04:37, Peter Hegger wrote: >> >>>On August 22, 2002 at 08:10:27, Matthew Hull wrote: >>> >>>>2. Hsu's creations _slaughtered_ the computer competition...ALL OF THEM! >>> >>>They did? Where are the game scores? I know that they claimed to have scored >>>around 90% against other programs during testing, but no game scores exist for >>>these games. >>>Are we to simply take their word for it that these games actually happened? >> >><snip> >> >>>Regards, >>>Peter >> >>I talked to Hsu and asked him specifically about this. He said he did not save >>the game scores. I listened to his answer while looking him in the eye and I >>believed him. What do you base your assertion that he is lying on? I am inclined >>to take a person's word without the personal interview, but in this case I had >>that added benefit. I don't really care if DB would beat today's programs or >>not, since it does not exist any longer, but I do not like people calling Hsu a >>liar with no evidence. If you have some, please post it. >> >>kp > >Proof? Evidence? I'm not the one who made the claims about my programs prowess. >But if I did, then I'd surely have game scores to back myself up. If I didn't >have the scores then I would keep my mouth shut. >As I stated in the part you snipped, time on a supercomputer doesn't come cheap. >Atleast not cheap enough to play dozens of games just for fun. >Peter As I said the main argument against Feng Hsu et al. is the necessity of documentation in science or for scientists. It's absolutely basic with no room to debate. But I see this lack of documentation as a symptom only. Without concrete data it's difficult for me to judge it but it seems evident that such a negligence is pointing to a typical difficulty if you are the absolute leader in a certain field. They simply did it the way they did. They were so much stronger than usual commercial progs that it was just the expectance of absolute superiority. You and me, as chessplayers, we are astonished! The data from such events with the participation of programs who are distributed over the whole world have importance out of its own. Even if it was total superiority we would like to see the gamescores and analyse the games. So we have a second point after the scientifical negligence. We recognize a lack of chess culture. The recording of one's games for whatever purposes in future is basic. How could we explain this deviation? For me the real core of the issue is the seperation in the sense of isolation of different processes and a loss of conscience for the general meaning of one's own behavior. If your focus is concentrated on performance you might be in danger to lose control over interdependencies with the original field, here chess. You simply spend no thoughts on the mental states of chessplayers for instance. That is the same with all research, also the development of the Atomic Bomb. This known defect of scientific research in combination with the danger for the whole human race enforced a complete reformation in ethics for scientists. Only a few percents of such philosophy would have been enough to show Feng Hsu what the obligations were if he entered the world of chess. I would say that the whole crisis during the second match in 1997 would not have happened if Feng Hsu and his team had realized what they really were doing in the relation to a human chess champion. Just to keep this short I stop here. I hope that it's clear by now that this is not a debate about lying or cheating, these are terms for a behavior the team was incapable of - here I agree at the instant with Bob Hyatt, although I for one don't know them in person. But we must see that scientists have certain duties to do. Rolf Tueschen
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.