Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 11:57:37 04/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2005 at 06:21:16, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On April 25, 2005 at 20:46:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 25, 2005 at 19:05:57, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On April 25, 2005 at 15:31:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On April 25, 2005 at 14:39:40, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 22:56:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 18:59:35, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 15:42:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 13:13:22, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 10:13:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 05:14:48, Peter Berger wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On April 23, 2005 at 23:52:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Several of us have looked at the logs for the games, and game 2 looked perfectly >>>>>>>>>>>>normal and the program even reported a fail low and "panic time" where it >>>>>>>>>>>>searched longer than normal because of the fail low. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>This is a red herring and crap. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>When was the first time someone independent had a look at these logfiles? Have >>>>>>>>>>>you and the several others had a chance to look at the logfiles right after the >>>>>>>>>>>games took place, say May 1997? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>The logfiles IBM published eventually mean nothing at all. This was more than a >>>>>>>>>>>year after the games, wasn't it? Even I could produce most impressive logfiles >>>>>>>>>>>given that much time .. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Yes. Several looked at the log right after the event. I believe that Ken sent >>>>>>>>>>me the section from the game although I don't remember whether it was the Qxb6 >>>>>>>>>>(not played) or the Be4 position. I believe that Amir posted something about >>>>>>>>>>the position early, but his comments were based on either not understanding what >>>>>>>>>>DB's log output meant, or something else. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>This was about the "fail low (panic time)" that caused DB to search much longer >>>>>>>>>>than normal and may have been on the Be4 move although I simply don't remember >>>>>>>>>>much about it since it was not a particularly significant event in my mind >>>>>>>>>>because at the time I posted an excerpt from a Crafty log that looked >>>>>>>>>>_identical_ in concept. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Nothing ever looked strange about the log stuff to me... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The point is that you explained at the time that it would cost almost no energy >>>>>>>>>to fake the output so that it looked koscher. So - what do you want to say with >>>>>>>>>the above. In truth the later outputs mean nothing in a judicially relevant >>>>>>>>>sense. The question is why they didn't discuss the thing with Kasparov in time >>>>>>>>>before the following game so that the event could have been continued as >>>>>>>>>planned. If they didn't have to hide something. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>OK, we go full circle. I could certainly produce a fake log to support any move >>>>>>>>that anybody would want to see Crafty play. As I said back in 1997, it is >>>>>>>>_impossible_ to prove they didn't cheat. But, the other side of the coin is >>>>>>>>that it would be possible to prove that they did, all one needs is to know the >>>>>>>>methodology or catch them in the act, or whatever. But this was never proven. >>>>>>>>In fact, no methodology for cheating was ever mentioned. Normally when you >>>>>>>>accuse someone of cheating, you state the violation clearly. "He spit on the >>>>>>>>ball". "His raquette head is too big". "His golf club face is improperly sized >>>>>>>>or weighted" and so forth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Exactly, and that does prove at least to me that Kasparov didn't exactly accuse >>>>>>>them of chesting. How could or should he? All he did was making public his >>>>>>>astonishment, his disbelief. Wouldn't it have been ok if they had cared for him? >>>>>>>In what style or with what material they should have done this, that is a >>>>>>>different question. But why a player like Kasparov shouldn't have been allowed >>>>>>>to express his confusion? Exactly with your explanation from that time Kasparov >>>>>>>could have been given back his peace and new motivation to continue the fight. >>>>>>>Without any humiliations. And with the hope to get a valid result of the match. >>>>>>>(Perhaps I'm missing a specific lingual undertone in your messages to me, so >>>>>>>that I'm still missing your exact position in the debate, but I can't figure out >>>>>>>why it should be so difficult to get the sense of what I'm saying. Couldn't you >>>>>>>explain, why in your eyes my science argument isn't good in respect to the >>>>>>>original question of the research, namely could a machine play better than the >>>>>>>best human? Why do you throw it into the bin? Are you really believing that a >>>>>>>win, also a win with certain unfair methods, could prove anything at all?) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>As I have said before, it proved just one thing. That the human world champion >>>>>>could be beaten by a computer in a standard time-control match on that >>>>>>particular day. There are plenty of other questions that could be asked now. >>>>>>But the question back then was asked, and answered... >>>>> >>>>>I disagree. That wasn't proven at all. If you psyche out a human chessplayer >>>>>with denying talks then you can't claim that your chess was better and therefore >>>>>you've beaten him. This is impossible to conclude at least in my books. Remember >>>>>that we are talking about machine vs human chessplayer chess, we are NOT talking >>>>>about normal chess. Of course there the psychology is part of the game. But NOT >>>>>between machines and humans. Why? Because machines have no psychology and a team >>>>>of human operators is making the psycho job. Which is fair enough in >>>>>championships but NOT in science events... Simple, no?! >>>> >>>>Nope. When you play chess, you have to play no matter how you feel on the day >>>>of the match. Personal problems? Deal with them. Illness? play or forfeit. >>>>You simply have to play, period. And that is a part of chess. I've played >>>>tired, because I had to drive a long distance prior to the start of round 1. >>>>I've played tired because of staying up too late the night before the round. >>>>I've played with a fever. That's just a part of chess. Not a part that the >>>>computer has to deal with of course, but then computers lose due to remote power >>>>failures, or communication failures, or outright program bugs, etc... >>> >>>Of course - I agree with you. This is chess and also computerchess of machines >>>against human chessplayers if it's for a form of championship. Of course then a >>>human player would never accept 6 games in 8 days. - >>> >>>But NY 1997 between IBM/Hsu and DBII and Kasparov, that was NOT about a >>>championship. Therefore Kasparov didn't take it too seriously, simply because he >>>KNEW for sure that this machine couldn't be stronger than him. >> >>I don't know if I'd take the "not too seriously" very seriously. There was >>$1,000,000.00 at stake. Speaking only for myself, I'd take that _very_ >>seriously... :) >> >> >> >>> It was a science >>>experiment. Kasparov figured as the client from the human side, just to guaratee >>>a high level of human chess skills. Suddenly Kasparov felt confused because in >>>his opinion the machine played something strange. Kasparov demonstrated his >>>disbelief. >> >>The problem here is that nothing "strange" happened. The moves were reproduced >>by other programs, in 1997. I remember Crafty finding Be4 for example, although >>it took an overnight search on hardware of 1997 to find it. There simply was >>not anything that looked wrong to knowledgable observers. In fact, more DB >>moves were criticized during the match, although the moves were sometimes later >>found to be the best. h5 (DB was black) was one such move where later Kasparov >>said "that was the only viable try there..." >> >>I think he felt that this thing was not going to roll over like 1997 Fritz did >>when he practiced, and a loss of touch with reality led to the "OK, it can't be >>me, and the machine can't possibly be that good, after all Friedel said it was >>no better than Fritz, so they must be cheating somehow." Of course they never >>explained who could have possibly given the machine any advice, in real-time, >>when they were already playing against the strongest human around. That is >>often overlooked. Would I want to suggest a move to DB when playing Kasparov? >>Could I? Could it possibly be a move good enough to beat him? It's not even >>worth thinking about.. > >BTW thanks for all the details of your input here. I'm very thankful that I >could have this discussion with you over so many years since 1997. It was almost >like a long game in chess. Thanks to Peter Skinner who allowed to hear the radio >interview you gave fm-chess (Heisman) I have a better chance to understand you >now. Through the written speech alone this was impossible for me because I have >no sense for the melody of the American language. From my experience with >talking extensively to American students on many occasions in 1970 etc. I was >misleaden to the belief that American English is very easy to follow, because >Americans' speech is so straight forward and directed. But in our debates, also >political ones, since 1996 I observed that I had no clue of this language, in >special when it comes to disagree-modes. So, the whole debate about DB for me >was more a journey to meet Bob Hyatt. Now I know that we could continue like >this for years, but still we couldn't come to agreement over the 1997 event. > >The paragraphe above is a good example for our patt. At the time we had longer >debates about the question how DB could play even stronger chess. I remind you >of the so-called Dreihirn expert Althöfer who was convinced that even he - with >Elo 1900 or such - could make DB play better if he could interfere one or two >times during a game. Logically a GM could do that even more effectively. The >influence at crucial points of a game would improve the play even of a tactical >monster. This is because of the character of the game of chess. Humans can grasp >the overall/ general of a situation whose concreteness the machine could only >evaluate to a limited depth. So, yes, if Ingo could than you could do that too! >Of course you could. > >To better understand Kasparov you must think as a chessplayer. With Friedel >Kasparov had seen that a machine can be stupid like an empty nut - in certain >special situations. And from human chess it's very difficult, if not impossible, >to get a feeling for the overall strength of a machine, which is so damned dump >at times. Humans think with a tendency to "Ganzheiten", we could translate this >in "whole-nesses". A human chessplayer does know that his opponent who had shown >such and such weaknesses could never beat him in a longer game if only he >avoided to fall into a trap in a period of the game where this opponent has his >strengths. - So, if there's no doubt about the "real" dumbness of a machine, >it's not so trivial to be motivated as a human player in the same degree as he's >motivated against another strong human opponent. Above all you must not forget >the old truth that in sports you can't win reputation if you beat "weak" >opposition. - You know all this yourself and still you don't care about the >difficulties a Kasparov had to master. It's for all a difficulty in perception. >Neither the different opperators nor the machine itself can motivate the best >human chessplayer to mobilize his last ressources. Just as an idea: it can well >be that Kasparov's questioning the authenticity of the moves was a try to get >into a better motivation to fight. At least in human chess this could be an >option. Such "irrational" issues at first sight are never taken for serious in >all what you write. In your mind someone is either sane, then he doesn't use >such nonsense, or he's mad as hell, then of course you can't take him for >serious at all. With such a dualism you won't get near to sound interpretations >about Kasparov (or also Fischer). - > >After so many decades in chess yourself, you seem to be unaware of the >suspiciousness of chess itself which is a mental state of all chessplayers. Now >my little argument is simply that you can tune that vice either to the better or >worse, depending on how you behave towards such a chessplayer. I'm sure that a >few friendly words would have clarified the situation after game two. But the >team of scientists either didn't know the implications or didn't want to behave >properly as scientists. > >My position certainly requires the scientifical knowledge of all possible >factors of such a show event (called match) between machine and human >chessplayer. You are noit enough scientist if you concentrate on your machine >(plus your software) alone. You must realise the situation and all its >factors... here also your human opponent. > > > >> >> >> >> >>> Now how the team of scientists reacted? - They saw that their human >>>player was confused. "So be it!" "This is a good chance to kill the guy, the >>>scientists said. Let's offend him even further and deny him any talks at all!" - >> >>That is assuming things that are (a) not proven; (b) unprovable even today; and >>really nothing more than "dark-side speculation". Why do you assume IBM had >>dark motives here? I know the people involved. I played such a match against >>David Levy in 1984. David would tell you today that we were never "adversaries" >>in that sense of the word. We wanted to win. He wanted to win. We both played >>by the rules, and respected each other during the match. I don't believe the DB >>team were the ones to "vary" from this. After all, Kasparov took off the gloves >>first and accused them of cheating, in a public forum, leaving little chance to >>smooth things over since the Genie was already out of the bottle... >> > > >For reasons of style and language I always talked of the duties of the >scientists but if you ask me for the reasons why the team should have played >nasty, then I must correct my speech into winning ugly OR behaving with complete >unawareness of the important factors of the *whole* situation. Now we could >discuss for months about the importance of factors... But the fact as such can't >be denied. Namely that scientists can't just do something like engineers until >the bridge does collapse and a thousand dead people have to be counted. I hope >we agree. That is the old question of trial and error. Factors which are widely >known can't be negated. The psychology of human chess is known. >So let me add naivety to dark motivations. I'm just searching for the truth. I'm >not pretending of knowing already what the truth is. > > > >> >> >> >>> >>>Now that is exactly what is incredibly stupid in my eyes. Because, first, DBII >>>wasn't stronger than Kasparov in 1997. So why should the fathers of the machine >>>attempt to beat Kasparov right now? They would beat him in the nearer future. >> >> >>You can say that all you want. But all the evidence we have is 6 games played >>in 1997. They suggest that DB was better, because DB won more games... > >In chess we also speak of losing games. That is when the winner didn't really >win. This isn't really new for you, no? > > > >> >> >> >>>But no, they played dirty and suddenly the event changed from a science thing to >>>a killing party. >> >> >>Again, a wild stretch. How did "they play dirty" when they were accused of >>cheating, a multi-billion dollar company with an impeccable reputation, and now >>they stand on the stage and are accused of cheating in front of the entire >>world? And "IBM played dirty"??? That I can't reconcile with events that >>actually happened in 1997. > >If naivety of the scientists is added, then you could probably better rethink >the situation. I'm NOT saying that they intentiously committed fraud! > >> >> >> >>>You came and assisted them: "THat is totally conform with the >>>rules of the "match"!" - Yes, fine, but what is with the science research thing? >> >> >>There were two components to this match. >> >>1. Hsu and company (not IBM company but his associates such as Murray, Hoane, >>etc) wanted to build a chess machine and beat Kasparov. That was their goal in >>life. >> >>2. IBM watched interest in computer chess over the years, and saw an >>opportunity for some publicity and public relations opportunities that would far >>exceed the potential cost of underwriting the project. The company would prefer >>to win, for the marketing advantage the free publicity would generate, but they >>were happy to play in an event that everyone cast in a positive light, to >>showcase their hardware and their interest in "tackling difficult problems with >>innovative technologies." >> >>So Hsu wanted to win. IBM wanted publicity. That's all there was to it. Oh >>yes, IBM wanted _positive_ publicity. When things turned sour, as I was talking >>with Monty on the phone, we both said "this will be the end of these no matter >>what happens." That was prophetic... > > >Overal thanks for all the historic details, Bob! The only thing here that >frieghtens me is that you never speak of factor five or six, and that is why >Kasparov was in the whole thing... > > > >> >>There was no grand scientific experiment to beat the best human with a set of >>rules you or others would like to see. For this experiment, the goal was to >>throw massive amounts of hardware at Kasparov to see if it would beat him. Not >>beat him after he had a chance to test against the thing for months. Not beat >>him after he had a chance to study games played against other opponents. Not >>beat him with any kind of boundaries on the contest. The goal was simply: >> >>"beat kasparov". >> >>Period. > > >Yes. And when I read this now I ask myself why I haven't found out earlier that >this is the crucial mistake in the whole story. They wanted to beat Kasparov, >but Kasparov never was a factor as such in the whole experimental design of the >team. Well, clocks and colors of the ceiling, yes, but not Kasparov as a human >chessplayer... And people say, well, this is all Kasparov to blame for because >he could have asked for all possible things that could have made life easier for >him during the match. People who say that completely oversee that Kasparov was >convinced like me and millions of spectators that the science team had all >factors under control. And that they wouldn't suddenly get hysterical about a >possibility to nag Kasparov as if he were a (Viet)cong in the late sixties. > > > > >> >>Later other questions might be asked, such as "could the thing play through the >>candidate's cycle and work its way up to challenge the world champion for the >>real WC title?" And so forth. But that simply wasn't the question, nor the >>rules, nor the interest at the time. Until then, the WC had _never_ lost a >>serious match against any computer. It was not expected even in 1997, although >>many of us knew that the DB box was very strong and it wouldn't take much to >>cause a human to cave in to it... But we didn't expect it to happen in 1997... >> >>Most of us had predicted this to happen somewhere after 2000... > > >Many thanks for that paragraphe here! And no irony whatsoever included from my >side. I'm so happy that you give these replenishments. Normally you avoid to add >arguments that could be used against your main position. Which is BTW in Europe >known for the judicial but NOT science scene. Also in science you occupy >yourself with the strongest and not weakest argument of your opponent. > > > >> >> >> >> >> >>>Ok, let's make suicide with DBII, let's win ugly the match and then leave >>>computerchess for good...! And Bob says (still in 2005), well, DBII was better >>>than Kasparov, just during that w2eek, probably not overall, but for the period >>>of these 6 games! >> >> >>I stand by that. Because _all_ the evidence we have supports that conclusion. >>Kasparov lost the match in 1997. Hence for that 2 week period, DB _proved_ it >>was better OTB. Didn't prove it was better than Kasparov at his best, or >>kasparov at his worst, or anything in between. Just proved itself to be better >>over those 6 games... >> >> >> >> >>> >>>Bob, you as a scientist, you can't do that. Please, don't do it. Come back to >>>science. >> >>It is the only thing any _real_ scientist could conclude, sorry... >> >>6 games is not a lot, but if you look at what we have, the games certainly don't >>prove Kasparov was better. > > >Of course the first game in 1997 did prove that DBII still wasn't the better >player. Kasparov had everything under control. That is what the chess experts do >say. Forget the "experts" - take a look with your own eyes: [D] 3rr1k1/1p6/1qp4p/4nPP1/pP2p3/P3N1P1/1BP1b1B1/R1Q4K w - - Shredder 9 says: 13/15 0:01 -0.45 2.gxh6 Nf7 3.c4 Qc7 4.Qe1 Bf3 5.Bxf3 exf3 6.Qc3 Qe5 (471.474) 355 14/39 0:22 -0.65 2.gxh6 Qc7 3.Nf1 Nf3 (8.245.411) 361 Does this look to you like a position where black just gone done playing 8 or so "?" moves while white was in the meantime playing 4 or 5 "!" moves? I didn't think so. Yet, for some reason this is the widely circulated script about game 1 from Kasparov-Deep Blue, '97. Vas > >Perhaps we delay the continuation of the debate until some news may come in from >either side. Hopefully before we must leave this playing field. > > >> That would be blatantly ignoring the actual data... >>The games don't prove DB was better than Kasparov, although there is a >>suggestion that is true. But the games _do_ prove that for that two week period >>of time, DB was better than Kasparov, whether he was at his best or not is not >>an issue...
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.