Author: Pete Galati
Date: 00:09:53 05/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2000 at 21:17:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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 thing about the cheating issue is just like in a court of law, who's the burden of proof with? IBM doesn't realistically _need_ to prove that they're not guilty of cheating, because _nobody_ has proven that they _did_ cheat. Kasparov & his people speculating speculating or claiming that IBM has cheated means absolutely nothing at all because they don't have any proof. Pete > > > >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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.