Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Amir Ban article from rgcc - cheating by DB on move 36 ?

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 12:17:23 10/02/97

Go up one level in this thread


On September 27, 1997 at 14:28:27, Chris Whittington wrote:

>
>
>Hmmm, this seems an interesting conspiracy theory .......
>
>
>Amir ban wrote:
>
>>Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>
>> When they publish details, we'll find out.  By the way, for Rolf,
>> who is always nagging about why they have published something, here
>> is an important question:
>>
>>   "Have *you* ever published something in a significant scientific
>>    technical journal?  (of course not)  Do you have *any* idea of
>>    the lead time from writing an article until it is published in
>>    such a journal? (of course not)  Here is a clue:  the typical
>>    lag from submission to publication is over one year.  One year
>>    is considered very quick turnaround, while many journals operate
>>    on a 2-year delay.  So back off and give them time."
>
>
>In view of the huge amount of commentary, analysis and whatnot by
>anyone
> reomotely close to this match during the match and after it, even you
> Bob m ay admit that this yours is a weak statement. What kind of
> preparation and lead time is needed to give some meaningful comments
>on
> what everyone is asking ?
>

it seems to me that they are giving comments.  IE bruce attended a
lecture
by Murray.  Other microsoft employees got some sort of lecture as well.
So they aren't being "silent"... they just aren't talking where we
happen
to be listening, maybe...

you couple this with IBM's (especially Mr. Tan's) statements of
> say-nothing gibberish, and IBM's very obvious policy of
> keep-your-mouth-shut before, and amazingly, after the match, you will
> understand that it is NOT the case that some annoyingly slow editors
>of
> some obsocure journals are keeping the story from the world while the
> the Deep-Blue team is biting its nails in frustration at the delay.


again, they are talking.  Hsu spent a month in Asia talking about DB
and the match.  Sort of like the old "if a tree falls in the woods, and
no one heard it, did it make any sound?"  ANd the answer is always
either
yes or no.  The classic definition of sound is energy transmitted thru a
fluid medium of some sort.  Others say it is the result of this energy
hitting our eardrum.  But it is likely there anyway...

So just because *we* don't hear much, doesn't mean *they* aren't saying
much...  just that they choose to stay away from the r.g.c.c hell-hole.


>
>Please remember we are not waiting to hear details about the SP
> architecture, or IBM's marketing hype on molecular biology. We are
> waiting to hear something on computer chess and the match.
>
>The world has noticed, and IBM are well aware, that Kasparov has
>raised
> the suspicion of cheating, with the 2nd game in mind. Rather than
> discuss and reveal everything they have on this remarkable game, they
> chose to deliver a few pages of cryptic dumps marked "IBM
>confidential"
> to Kasparov and his aides eyes only. Since Kasparov asked us to
>decipher
> those, I have seen them (I understand something was also published on
> the NY Times. I don't know if everything or only part of it). The
> interesting part of it were the printouts of the 36'th and 37'th
>moves
> of game 2 (axb5 and Be4).
>
>Garry's cheating theory was that there was a "go-for-second-best"
> button, and that this may have been used at the 36th move. This is
>quite
> possible to implement of course, and may be quite effective. In this
> regard Kasparov said something that is very significant I think: "If
>an
> expert is allowed to override the computer just once in any game, I
>am
> already in trouble". This still doesn't mean that this kind of
>cheating
> took place. I didn't find any evidence for this, but I cannot rule it
> out in view of what the printouts tell.
>
>The printouts show that Qb6 was the move considered all the time. DB
>did
> well to see Black's best counterplay after Qb6, throwing 2 or 3 pawns
>to
> open lines and attack the white king, as shown by the PV. The
>evaluation
> throughout was around +0.5 pawns for white and dropping slowly.
>Finally
> axb5 was accepted without a PV with a value of 0.4-0.5.
>
>There were several things the needed explanation in the deciphering:
>
>- There was no explanation why the Qb6 score dropped so low with
>white
> ahead by 2 pawns or more. I mean, it's not like you could see the
> material regained or a decisive king attack mounted. The only
> explanation was that the evaluation function gave the compensation,
>in
> contrast to all PC programs who evaluate white to be more than a pawn
>up
> there. So it seems that DB is not so much the calculating giant as
>the
> positional wizard ?
>
>- No PV for axb5 (but that can happen of course).
>
>- Time management mystery: I think I could make out DB's time
>management
> policy, but could not understand what happened in this move. The
>normal
> time allotment was only about 3 minutes, but a move was not played by
> that time, although in other moves, DB would always play a move at
>the
> planned time. There was no obvious reason not to play the move at the
> normal time, which was still Qb6. Instead DB went into a procedure it
> called "panic-time", where there started a countdown to about 14
> minutes. Several minutes into "panic-time" DB switched to axb5. Some
> time later, not connected to any event shown in the log, with the
> panic-time countdown still with 7 or 8 minutes to go, DB announced
> "panic-time" and played a move. DB still had other moves to consider
>at
> that ply level. So what happened ?
>
>  In the previous move, the 35th (Bxd6) DB thought for 15 minutes. It
> seems cleat that the "panic-time" mechanism was activated there (for
> some unknown reason), and the machine thought until "panic-time"
> interrupted it. This is significant I think. Was DB malfunctioning at
> this point of the game. Could it be that an operator, seeing the
> depressing "panic-time" messages appearing for the 2nd move in a row
> really panic and push the "Move Now" button ?
>
>There is no reason to rush into any conclusions here, but the DB team
> needs to give answers to the these questions:
>
>1. What was the basis for preferring 36. axb5 over 36. Qb6 ?
>
>2. Why was "panic-time" activated in the 36th move and why was a move
> played when it finally played ?
>
>Amir
>



This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.