Author: chandler yergin
Date: 17:45:48 04/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2005 at 21:06:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 22, 2005 at 18:03:10, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On April 22, 2005 at 09:16:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 21, 2005 at 18:15:50, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On April 20, 2005 at 12:50:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 20, 2005 at 12:30:55, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 20, 2005 at 08:51:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 19, 2005 at 21:23:56, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On April 19, 2005 at 19:14:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On April 19, 2005 at 12:05:58, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On April 18, 2005 at 12:17:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On April 17, 2005 at 10:33:57, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On April 16, 2005 at 07:49:08, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On April 15, 2005 at 20:51:07, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Five years ago , Hsu's open letter to the world regarding a possible rematch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>with Deep Blue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/feng.html >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Mike, the whole topic is uninteresting. The point Hsu didn't get five years ago >>>>>>>>>>>>>and earlier in 1997, is the fact that he and his team (IBM involved this way or >>>>>>>>>>>>>another) cheated on Kasparov during the process of the whole rematch in 1997. >>>>>>>>>>>>>For me it's so basic that they offended their own (pretended or not) defined as >>>>>>>>>>>>>science experiment. They wanted to show the class of DBII in its chess over the >>>>>>>>>>>>>then best human chessplayer. But what they proved in effect was not the >>>>>>>>>>>>>machine's superiority in chess but their success over Kasparov's psyche with >>>>>>>>>>>>>classical tricks from psycho-wars. Kasparov will never agree with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>interpretation because "complete control" is his obsession and he couldn't live >>>>>>>>>>>>>with the truth that they "psyched" him "out". So he worked with the absurd claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>that they did never prove their authentic output of the machine. But make no >>>>>>>>>>>>>mistake, Kasparov wasn't responsible during that match - for NOT being >>>>>>>>>>>>>vulnerable what psychology is concerned. Because he simply believed Hsu et al in >>>>>>>>>>>>>advance that they - even if they wanted to win - wouldn't cheat him, what they >>>>>>>>>>>>>did as a matter of fact. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Hsu et al (plus IBM of course) cheated >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>a) on Kasparov as their human client for the experiment which alone is indecent >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>b) on their own science responsibility for the experiment, which didn't mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>winning by all means but winning through the better chess >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>c) on their own interests, because they made all further experiments obsolete >>>>>>>>>>>>>with their participation, because everyone would know by now that they would >>>>>>>>>>>>>cheat on you with all tricks they could organize. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>d) on the silent contract for purposes of the massmedia: in 1997 it was clear >>>>>>>>>>>>>that from a chess point even the strong machine DB II still wasn't able to play >>>>>>>>>>>>>chess so that such a strong player as Kasparov normally could have been beaten. >>>>>>>>>>>>>That was only possible with tricks which led to the development that Kasparov >>>>>>>>>>>>>was psyched out or worse, that Kasparov was confused about the real strength of >>>>>>>>>>>>>the machine. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>All of the resources available were used to specifically beat ONE Player, >>>>>>>>>>>>Kasparov! Feng-Hsu made specific Chip modifications.. GM Joel Benjamin >>>>>>>>>>>>'tweaked' the Program after every game, changed the Opening Book, all >>>>>>>>>>>>for Deep Blue to beat Kasparov. They knew that Kasparov used the Commercial >>>>>>>>>>>>Programs during his analysis.. and thought Deep Blue used the Commercial >>>>>>>>>>>>Opening Books. He was Naive.. didn't realize how he was being 'sandbagged'! >>>>>>>>>>>>So there was human intervention. I call that cheating! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>In that light, _all_ computer vs human games will have cheating in them. Why? >>>>>>>>>>>Last time I looked, _every_ program was developed by a human programmer (or team >>>>>>>>>>>of human programmers). Of course, I suppose it is perfectly OK for the human >>>>>>>>>>>players to have assistants to do opening preparation for them? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>this is a red-herring that is way off the mark of sanity... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>You miss the point, as usual! You're the red herring here.. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Millions of dollars spent to beat one man; rather than just play chess. >>>>>>>>>>That is a bit off the mark of sanity also... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I miss the point? You _totally_ miss the point. IBM didn't spend millions of >>>>>>>>>dollars just to beat Kasparov. IBM spent millions of dollars to get tens of >>>>>>>>>millions of dollars of free PR. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>THE GOAL WAS TO BEAT THE WORLD CHAMPION! ARE YOU DENSE? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Perhaps I am, but clearly nowhere near as dense as you, apparently. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The goal of the DB team was to beat Kasparov. >>>>>> >>>>>>YES! Paid for by IBM! There would NOT have been a Match unless IBM had >>>>>>great confidence that the Deep Blue Team COULD Beat Kasparov! >>>>> >>>>>Wrong. The consensus among experts in computer science and computer chess was >>>>>that the second match _would_ be won by Kasparov, just like the first. IBM only >>>>>wanted the publicity from the matches, which was nearly priceless. The result >>>>>was not the important thing to the company. It was important to the "team" that >>>>>worked on the project of course. But the "team" is _not_ "IBM". >>>>> >>>>>Until you can grasp that, you will continue to run around in circles, making >>>>>lots of noise, and looking like an idiot. >>>> >>>> >>>>Since you said bye-bye to science for this question you can't preach about >>>>sanity and similar problems. The truth is simply that IBM lost interest in that >>>>chess thing when they saw that their team couldn't win without cheating science >>>>and Kasparov. >>> >>> >>> >>>I have no idea what that means. The "science" in this was designing the >>>hardware, developing the software, and so forth. So DB itself was most >>>definitely a product of and based on "science". >>> >>>The match was simply a demonstration of that scientific product. I didn't see >>>anyone at IBM say anything else.. >>> >> >>Ok, let's call it demonstration. So what can be demonstrated of your baby if you >>leave a normally optimal client in his - let's assume for a moment - >>self-induced confused state of mind? Is this a too difficult question? Where >>then remains your chess question? Or do you make the statement that DBII was a >>genial psychological weapon in the game of chess? Would surprise me. >> >> >> > > >Not sure what that means. But one thing for certain, if I were playing a >serious match against anyone, man or machine (using crafty) you can bet that the >version they play against would not have been seen prior to the match. That I >would have tuned, prepared a special opening book, etc. would be taken for >granted by anyone that knows me. > >I'd equally expect my opponent to have prepared some things based on >observations made on earlier versions. That would be perfectly fair IMHO. > > > > >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Kasparov was on science while the team and Hsu were on >>>>unscientifical dope. Proof, they simply should have answered Kasparov's >>>>questions - in time.> >>> >>> >>>How does one answer an accusation of cheating? Anybody involved in such >>>demonstrations would realize that there is _no_ way to prove they didn't cheat. >>>The minute Kasparov made that claim, it became a "lose-lose" situation for IBM. >>>If they said nothing, they lost. If they said anything, they could not prove >>>they didn't cheat, so they lost. >> >>I agree insofar if Kasparov had have plans before to spoil the whole party with >>such a clame. But actually I believe that Kasparov was (probably for the wrong >>reasons you always explained in r.g.c.c.!) honestly and seriously confused by >>certain data and interpretations in his own team (Friedel!). My clame is that >>Hsu and team should have tried to explain the situation to be able to continue >>the experiment. But by simply reacting the way Campbell did react, it was bad >>for their own goal. And here I dont mean winning no matter how, but through >>chess. If your opponent is confused you don't win if you win by your chess >>alone... All that is trivial, no? > > >Too many personalities involved, too many unknown factors involved. Trying to >predict what "might have happened" or what "could have happened" is an exercise >in speculation and/or futility... > > > > >> >> >>> >>>That is why there were no further matches. Why would they violate the "fool me >>>once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" mantra??? >>> >>> >>> >>>> Kasparov didn't insult with his fair questions to Hsu and >>>>his team. >>> >>>Please. He _directly_ accused them of cheating. That wasn't a "fair question". >>> It was a direct accusation of cheating, made in public and not in private, >>>standing on a stage, in front of news media. >> >> >>Please! This was from a man directly after the event. Did you ever coach someone >>in sports and talked to him/her right after it? Wouldn't you be careful in your >>interpretation? Anyway, all that proves what I say that the team spoiled the own >>thing by losing control over the intended factors. Chess as number one. I >>suppose you forgot the details. They could well have talked to Kasparov even if >>they had wanted to hide their output by all means. But they didn't talk to him. >>Why? > > >You speak of kasparov as if he acts like a normal person all the time. That's >hardly reality... > > > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> But scientist Hsu believed in getting away with such a misbehaviour >>>>because he believed that Kasparov would prefer to sack the money without opening >>>>his mouth. Hsu lost that game! Do you really believe that IBM wouldn't have sued >>>>Kasparov if they had known that Kasparov was plain wrong with the allegations? >>>>You bet. >>> >>> >>>Sure they could have. And what would that have accomplished? "big bad company >>>sues disgruntled world chess champion over cheating claim?" They already had >>>enough bad P/R. Why put the cheating claim in every newspaper, magazine, TV >>>news broadcast, etc??? >>> >> >> >>You agree that it was BAD P/R? Thanks. That is what I'm saying. But you always >>said that the only thing what mattered was that Kasparov was a poor loser... >> > > >Let's make sure we are on the same page. Kasparov _was_ a poor loser. And his >cheating claim turned this into a giant wad of "bad publicity"... > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> - Hsu was simply naive believing that he could treat Kasparov in such >>>>a distasteful manner. - You still didn't understand the main point. You knew >>>>already at the time (and explained this straight and fair to me and others) that >>>>Kasparovs question couldn't be answered in a judicially relevant style. So, if >>>>Hsu, who must had known this too, had told Kasparov exactly this - Kasparov >>>>could have found a new playing motivation - for the best of the event. That was >>>>the least the science responsible of the show should have given his client in >>>>the experiment. But no, Hsu and in special Campbell thought that they could get >>>>away with denouncing Kasparov's quests as nuts. Hsu got the bill for that >>>>unbelievably stupid offense 6 years ago, when Kasparov didn't even answer him - >>>>did you hear soemething from Hsu since that time? >>> >>>On a few occasions, yes. He's moved on to other VLSI projects. But for >>>clarity, Hsu was right. The claim was "nuts". >> >> >>No, even if the claims were what you think, then Hsu should have clarified the >>situation by TALKING. > >Why? Someone says "you are cheating". There is little to be gained by talking >about it. Just more accusations and such. Far better had Kasparov not made the >claim in public, and handled it privately in a less confrontational way. Who >knows how that would have worked out? We'll certainly never know since he >didn't take that route. > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>You are Naive! If the Team LOST, the Publicity would be Horrible! >>>>>>IBM would be the laughing stock of the Century! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>So after 1996 when they lost the first match, IBM became the laughing stock of >>>>>the century? Do you now see why it is impossible for anyone to give any serious >>>>>consideration to your statements? You are not firmly grounded in reality, or >>>>>you would have remembered that they had _already_ lost a major match to >>>>>Kasparov, yet the project continued, and IBM was promoting DB to the hilt. And >>>>>had they lost in 1997, we would have seen chapter 3 the next year. Losing was >>>>>_not_ a problem. At least to those of us that understand what was going on... >>>>> >>>> >>>>Did you ever hear of the fatal consequence of an unjustified win? I doubt that >>>>Americans can understand that. Because it's opposite to all the rules of >>>>practice Americans believe in. As I said, chess has a different ranking of honor >>>>than the Americans believe in. Here I assist to Chandler. Why IBM/Hsu didn't >>>>simply play their chess and tried to improve it - the way you do it with your >>>>Crafty? Because they confused winning ugly with winning at chess. Something you >>>>never did, Bob. So why do you defend Hsu and IBM? Why? >>> >>>We played a similar match against Levy in 1984. We prepared the same way, by >>>preparing a special book, by tuning the program to avoid blocked positions. We >>>still lost. But we did the same exact sort of preparation. There was nothing >>>dishonest about it, because David also admitted that he had studied computers >>>for many years and had specific plans to beat both us and chess 4.x, which he >>>did. >>> >>>The only difference was that in 1997 DB won... >> >>Because Kasparov was beaten in a psycho war. > > >perhaps so. After all chess is a mental exercise above all else... > > > > > >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The goal of IBM was to take >>>>>>>advantage of the free publicity of such a match, win lose or draw. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You notice >>>>>>>that after the first loss, they didn't fold their tent and run. The PR was too >>>>>>>good to walk away from. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>AT THE TIME IT WAS KASPAROV! >>>>>>>>THE PR WAS OF COURSE EXPECTED! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>That isn't so hard to grasp, is it? Do you think Sonic pays those two morons >>>>>>>>>lots of money to look stupid? Or to bring attention to their fast-food chain? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It was _never_ about "beating Kasparov". That was a goal that I had, that >>>>>>>>>Thompson had, that Slate had, that Hsu had, that every commercial program author >>>>>>>>>had, etc. But IBM didn't have that as a goal. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>OF course it did! >>>>> >>>>>Of course it didn't. >>>> >>>> >>>>Just for clarification: >>>> >>>>you and Thompson believe in machines playing sound chess and this way winning at >>>>the moment when machines could play "better" practical chess against humans. But >>>>IBM and Hsu believed anno 1997 that the time was ripe to win by cheating their >>>>own science basics. Because winning ugly in chess isn't winning in chess. It's >>>>more a character defect or insanity. Don't you see that when you yourself follow >>>>that moral and logic in your own practice as a chess programmer!? Why then do >>>>you defend the misbehaviour of Hsu and IBM? >>> >>>I simply don't see any "misbehavior". For any contest between two competitors, >>>you first form a set of rules, then you hold the contest, and you verify that >>>the rules are followed. Can you cite any rule that the DB guys didn't follow??? >> >>Yes of course. They violated number one rule of science. If you want to find out >>about x (chess of the machine), dont test factor y, you can't control! Isnt that >>trivial? >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>THe Heck they didn't! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Glad you agree with me... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IBM's goal is to make money, >>>>>>>>>make stock dividend payments, and keep the stockholders happy. Nothing more, >>>>>>>>>nothing less. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>To make $$$$$$$$$ YES! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>By Beating the World Champion, they expected to make a BUNDLE, and they did. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You do realize they "made a bundle" after the _first_ match? How did that first >>>>>>>match end? Oh yes, a loss. It was the _playing_ of the match that generated >>>>>>>the world-wide interest. Winning made it even better, but had they lost, and >>>>>>>Kasparov kept the cheating claim in his hat, there would have been a third >>>>>>>match. And a fourth. But not after the insult hit the street... >>>> >>>>How a fair questioning the scientifical details could be insultive? Arent you a >>>>scientist yourself? >>> >>> >>>Ever heard of "praise in public, chastise in private?" The correct approach >>>would have been to ask Carol to check on this specific move, privately. I'd bet >>>that Hsu/Campbell/Hoane/Tan/etc would have provided the data with no questions >>>asked. But he did it in public. In an attempt to divert attention from his >>>poor play and onto the DB group with an accusation that could not possibly be >>>defended. >>> >>>"When did you stop beating your wife?" >>> >>>How to answer that? >> >> >>Not exactly that similar. How they should have reacted? Easy one. The declared >>in public "we have a serious problem of faith on the side of our client Kasparov >>but we will try to settle that in every thinkable manner that could help to >>solve the problem for Kasparov - as soon as possible before the next game has >>started!" The rest in private. But not the way Campbell replied: somehing like >>"he must be out of his mind..." That was NOT a university seminar but a real >>life situation where utmost care from the science side should have been applied. >>Not to give Kasparov a bully but to save science. It's so trivial. >> >> > > >way too little way too late. Once the claim was made, it was front-page news. >any resolution would be too late. > > > >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I notice you won't respond to the point about the first match. Which simply >>>>>shows that facts have no place in your arguments, just nonsense. >>>> >>>>Why he should respect the facts if you as a scientist is denying them too?! I >>>>answered you your question. IBM was interested as long as "they" were believing >>>>that this worked on scientific grounds. When they saw how Hsu et al spoiled the >>>>whole myth of a scientifical challenge IBM was forced to leave it in their own >>>>interest. Because the PR had turned against them. Winning ugly, cheating science >>>>(and their client Kasparov), that would have negative PR... That's the simple >>>>answer. It is true that a simple loss to Kasparov would have been positive PR! >>>>And so the first match was no problem for IBM. If Hsu et al wouldn't have played >>>>dirty a loss in the second match wouldn't have bothered IBM neither! Answer good >>>>enough for you? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>Not even close >>> >>>The two matches were played the same way. Same kind of preparation by both >>>sides. The only difference was the final result the second time around. >> >>By chess or what? > > >by _result_. The thing everyone was looking at... > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Kasparov was "Sandbagged" every step of the way! >>>>>>>>If you don't believe that you are Naive! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>One of us is "something". And it isn't "naive" either... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>IBM got a Billion dollars worth of publicity from that, so it was obviously >>>>>>>>>>worth it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>They got _exactly_ what they paid for, yes. Nothing more, nothing less. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Since the Program was specifically tuned to Kasparov's evaluation & Openings, >>>>>>>>>>other GM's with a different style would probably have Beaten Deep Blue easily. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Impossible to say. No way to tune a program _specifically_ to beat one player. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>That's NONSENSE and you KNOW IT! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Nope. But then again I have actually written a couple of chess programs. I'm >>>>>>>not guessing. >>>> >>>> >>>>You're not telling the whole truth because of course you can tune a machine for >>>>a three games event (for both colours). >>> >>>Perhaps you can. I can't. The chess tree is simply too large. I can't even >>>prepare a book that is safe for 6 rounds against the same opponent. >> >> >>You're not a chess GM like Benjamin. Of course I'm even less than you. >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>It's also a gamble. You do know that you >>>>dont do this in your experiments against GM on the net. Because it would suck. >>>>You know quite well that only chess counts over longer periods. But Hsu could >>>>gamble. That was the job of Benjamin. >>> >>> >>>I see GM players lose against Crafty all the time, even though they out-play it >>>on occasion, because of the clock. Is that cheating or dishonest? I see Crafty >>>win or draw due to endgame tables all the time. Cheating? I see Crafty lose >>>and I tweak something so that it doesn't lose that way again. Cheating? Sounds >>>like exactly what the DB guys were doing to me... >> >>You filter your own story about your very distinctful manner to handle a >>conflict for Dzin. All what I want is that you get it what I'm intending. That >>the guys should have avoided playing dirty. For the sake of the whole event. And >>possibly future continuations. >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Programs are specifically tuned to beat other Programs... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>"other programs" != "humans" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Changing the static positional evaluation is simple and easy! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You are being dishonest here! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You are being ignorant, since you haven't done this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>They knew that Kasparov valued the two Bishops more than the Knights, and >>>>>>>>also how he evaluated Rooks, and GM Joel Benjamin 'tweaked' the Program weights >>>>>>>>for these & other factors! >>>>>>>>SPECIFICALLY FOR KASPAROV! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Horsecrap. _everybody_ values two bishops higher than knights. It is mentioned >>>>>>>in every chess book ever written. >>>>>> >>>>>>ONLY in certain Positions are Bishops better than Knights! >>>>>>Even a Beginners Book tells you that! >>>>>>The more advanced Books tell you why! >>>>>> >>>>>>I suggest you review a few... >>>>> >>>>>I'll wager I know more about good and bad bishops than you do. I seriously doubt that! Very seriously! And in 99% of >>>>>the positions the bishop pair is better. In certain blocked pawn structures the >>>>>knights are better. Good players preserve the bishop pair until they see an >>>>>unfavorable pawn structure, because it is not possible to anticipate the final >>>>>pawn structure at move 10 in many openings. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You might prepare openings, but it was pretty obvious in this event that any >>>>>>>>>opening preparation was not going to work since Kasparov played things he had >>>>>>>>>not played before. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>He used "Anti-Computer" play as part of his plan... >>>>>>>>It worked; perhaps he should have stuck to it! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>He did and he lost because of it. >>>>>> >>>>>>NO! He gambled and lost... HSU in his book explains that! >>>>>> >>>>>>He did not continue his anti-computer strategy. >>>>> >>>>>Then you watched a different match than I did. He even gambled on the last >>>>>round by playing an opening that commercial programs of that time-frame could >>>>>not win from the white side. >>>> >>>> >>>>Bob, you dont address the Benjamin issue. Why did Kasparov play that horrible >>>>variant in the Spanish Opening. It's a losing choice. Why did he play that? >>>>Because he wanted to prove how weak DB II really was? What's your opinion? >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>I believe that the answer is one of the two following ideas: >>> >>>1. He just screwed up by playing an opening he was unfamiliar with, he >>>transposed two moves, and lost as a result. >>> >>>2. He had tried that opening as black against Fritz, and won easily, and >>>thought the trap would work against DB. It didn't. >>> >>>Which is true doesn't matter. In neither case is DB at fault. You can blame >>>idea 1 on Kasparov's preparation and decision to play an opening he didn't play >>>much. you can blame idea 2 on his chessbase advisors. But he picked them. He >>>listened to them. It blew up on him... >> >>See the correction by Uri and me. (The opening was played in game 2) >> > > >I am talking about the opening played in game 6... with the h6 move that >exploded. > > > >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>No wonder they didn't want a Re-Match! Kasparov had learned from his games. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>This match did not prove machine superiority over a human! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It proved DB's superiority over Kasparov for a week back in 1997. >>>>>> >>>>>>Total NONSENSE! It proved NOTHING! >>>>>>Kasparov gambled and lost.. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>You consider a Match of 6 games significant in any respect? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Yes, considering that no world champion had lost any sort of match at long time >>>>>controls to a computer prior to that event. So it definitely has significance. >>>>>At least to most of us. >>>> >>>> >>>>Not in chess circles! Every expert in the sciene knew that Kasparov wasn't >>>>playing as Kasparov. If one can call this gambling? >>> >>> >>>All I can say, is that this has gone down in history as the first time that a >>>world champion (human) lost a match to a computer, played under tournament time >>>controls. Nothing more, nothing less. >> >>Under what circumstances? Against a sane opponent or a confused one? What did >>the result mean in truth? - All important questions. Also in chess. And you know >>that! > > >You miss the point. The general public perception is "machine beat man, end of >the story." > > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>A loss of the last game to a stupid Computer is not significant! >>>> >>>> >>>>Chan, it kicked IBM out of the field... So it was a significant ugly winning the >>>>match for IBM. <g> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nothing more, >>>>>>>>>nothing less. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>That is not my personal opinion but the verdict of several commentators out of >>>>>>>>>>>>>the GM scene. People who can read the game and its problems. In Germany at first >>>>>>>>>>>>>GM Unzicker criticised the match for its chess content and later GM Hübner >>>>>>>>>>>>>showed where Kasparov played out of fear. So that scientifically, I conclude, >>>>>>>>>>>>>the whole event didn't prove anything about the 1997 strength of a chess machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>in a meaning of superiority over human race. Its chess simply was too bad. With >>>>>>>>>>>>>the exception of the game two, where God's hand might have come into play... or >>>>>>>>>>>>>human interventions. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Hsu's and DB II's main defender here in CCC and usenet, Prof. Hyatt, did always >>>>>>>>>>>>>point out that this was a match about winning. And this way it was in accordance >>>>>>>>>>>>>with all what makes American sports and spirit for fight so lovable. Bob always >>>>>>>>>>>>>explained that this wasn't about science, alone because of the leadership of IBM >>>>>>>>>>>>>that mainly had commercial interests. But we in the World of chess we do know >>>>>>>>>>>>>what we read and saw in the massmedia and we defend our hero Kasparov, about >>>>>>>>>>>>>whom we did well know that he was easily to irritate by suspicious details. That >>>>>>>>>>>>>was the only weakness he had. But therefore winning against him by such >>>>>>>>>>>>>hokuspokus disturbances did NOT decide who was the stronger chessplayer, since >>>>>>>>>>>>>all the pychotricks didn't come from DB II but from the ingenious team around >>>>>>>>>>>>>Feng Hsu. And therefore it's over for Hsu. He should challenge FRITZ, SHREDDER >>>>>>>>>>>>>or DEEP JUNIOR! But no more human chessplayers. Period.
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.