Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:17:14 05/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2000 at 13:25:03, Hans Gerber wrote: >On May 05, 2000 at 10:12:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 05, 2000 at 06:40:51, Hans Gerber wrote: >> >>> >>>Just a few thoughts. >>> >>>There are at least two possible levels of discussion. There is one with quick >>>and smart reactions, sort of short-cut winning points, that is the - let's call >>>it the - non-historical one. The other one is the scientific/ historic level, >>>the one with always integrating at least all the known collected facts and >>>already made arguments. >>> >>>The point here with these alleged "print-outs" at the IBM site is simply that it >>>was already mentioned long ago (in 1997!) that if IBM had wanted to fake these >>>print-outs, they could have done it in _less_ than an hour. In other words, they >>>could never be a proof. It was R. Hyatt BTW who explained that. >>> >>>Back to the main question. >>> >>>The ball does not lie in K.'s court. It is in the court of those who promissed a >>>detailed publication of the output of DB in a scientifically sound manner. What >>>does this mean?? Well, that the output is analysed _and_ (most important) proven >>>as the real/ original output of the machine. Does anybody believe that this >>>proof has been presented somewhere? Even more: Could this be done - >>>theoretically? >> >>How does the ball lie in IBM's court. They released the files. Now they have >>to do the impossible and prove that the logs were from DB? How? Couldn't they >>(by now) have modified the DB software so that it _would_ produce those exact >>moves and evals? This is impossible to prove. > >Exactly. But what does this mean? That the non-scientist Kasparov of course had >overlooked to give the IBM scientists the _duty_ to guarantee the laws of >science (also the moral) in that scientifical experience. He didn't do that >because he was sure (unfortunately!) that Hsu et al. would feel obliged to >follow those laws/ rules. > >A specific example. During the "match" K. had the impression that something was >wrong and he asked for the prints. If the IBM team had given him the prints at >that moment, the whole irritation afterwards would have been omitted. After the >match, after two more years, the whole data doesn't prove anything. I agree. > >But whose obligation was it to prove that the machine gave that original output? >Did Kasparov forget another rule for the match? I don't think so. >He couldn't expect that the scientists suddenly would deny him the objective >data. > I see no obligation for anything, other than to push pieces of wood around on the table, and then say "I resign" or "thank you when your opponent resigns." I have played a lot of chess. I have never seen an event that would _require_ that my opponent give me a post-mortem session after I lost a game to him. I might ask, but if he said "sorry, but no" I would hardly feel offended, and I certainly wouldn't accuse him of "Aha! you have something to hide. Prove that you didn't have a receiver in your ear and an accomplice outside the room operating a computer." >This alone however is enough for doubts in the scientifical integrity of the >scientists around Hsu. The denial of the prints was more a psychological weapon >which led to K.'s understandable paranoia. Scientists in a friendly exhibition >match, called experience, called Man vs Machine by the massmedia, are not >expected to make use of such instruments. For moral reasons and genuinely >scientific reasons. Because they could never more prove the authenticity of >their data. This however is the least one could expect from a scientific >experience. > >Baseline. Perhaps it's not the ball lying in their court, but Hsu et al. lost >their scientific image. Not to most of us. They accomplished something we have dreamed about for many years. Kasparov lost the 'image'.. not Hsu... > >> >> >>> >>>IMO in a certain view, Kasparov's points of critic are still open, unanswered >>>and unsolved. >> >>What is open. The fact that he is a whiner and sore loser? Those are pretty >>evident. The fact that he might be the best chess player of all time? There >>is plenty of evidence to support that too. The fact that he is the worst sport >>of all time? Plenty of evidence there too. But there is no evidence to suggest >>DB didn't play all of the moves. Most of them were reproduced by >>microcomputers. The logs look sane and support the games completely. > >However no proof. There will _never_ be any "proof". It is _impossible_ to prove they didn't cheat. _impossible_ <period>. If they had had the display on the wall in the analysis hall, they could _still_ have cheated had they wanted... this is a useless argument point. Whether they provided the logs during the game, after the game makes no difference. If they had provided the logs _before_ the game, there might have been reason for suspicion, of course. :) > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>>The only ball in K's court, that is the one of the impossibility of explaining >>>the difficulties of such 'questions' to average people. So, it might _look_ as >>>if he, G. Kasparov, is the unsportive poor loser. As if he had the obligation to >>>solve the difficult problem which was and still is genuinely the one of the IBM >>>researchers around Hsu ... >>> >> >>It might "look like his is a poor loser"? I don't think there is one >>scintilla of doubt. >> >>But even worse, he _continues_ the nonsense. > >'Nonsense' because he can't prove that something wasn't quite kosher? >Interesting view ... That Hsu et al. didn't behave like scientists, Kasparov is >to blame for? As I said, of course he looks like a sore loser. _But_ he isn't. >Hsu et al. did something, scientists are forbidden to do. They look worse than >just sore losers. Perhaps to you. Not to me. Cheating was never a possibility. Poor sportsmanship was definitely in evidence, of course. And not by IBM... > >The question of that exhibition match was what the machine could achieve >_chessically_ against Kasparov or vice versa. The question Hsu et al. did answer >is, could Kasparov be irritated by some clever psychowar tricks (by the human >beings of the team, not by the machine!). The answer is "Yes, he can be >confused". And of course he can, because he's a human being. But was that really >the _question_ of the match? I don't think so. I didn't see any "psycho-tricks". He ran into something he had thought he could prepare for by sparring with Fritz. He was badly mistaken...
This page took 0.07 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.