Author: Pete Galati
Date: 17:57:44 05/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2000 at 17:44:53, Hans Gerber wrote: >On May 06, 2000 at 03:09:53, Pete Galati wrote: > >>On May 05, 2000 at 21:17:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>> >>>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." > >>> >>> >>>Not to most of us. They accomplished something we have dreamed about for many >>>years. Kasparov lost the 'image'.. not Hsu... >>> >>> >>> >>>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 >> > >We have interesting points of view. Both of you reject my giving priority one to >_science_. > >Of course your are right that a) in chess between chessplayers there is no place >for the obligation to inform the opponent about one's preparation and tricks, >and b) as a matter of justice, a cheating has not been proven yet. > >However let's take a look into science. Many times we see a lot of tricky >experimental settings. Most of the time the real goal of a research is hidden, >in social sciences. Here in our case we have scientists with their machine, and >the machine should play chess against a very strong human opponent. The first >question that should be examined is if the machine really does play the game >without influences from the outside. The second if the machine should be able to >play _a whole match_ on his own. Depending on the goal of the research, this >should be clearly defined. Likewise the output of the machine should be >objectively controlled. If this control is impossible to attend, then the whole >attempt is condemned to end without reliable data. Since scientists were the >actors, not just chessplayers, we can hold them responsible for such a bad >outcome. The proof of "cheating" however has not been achieved. In science you >loose your reputation a bit earlier than in a courtroom trial. If you have >missed to follow trivial rules in science, you are responsible for a bad >outcome, for any kind of possible irritation about the "results". > >If I understand Kasparov right he seems to be dissapointed by the behavior of >scientists who treated him like a friend during the whole time before the match >and the first match. To always repeat that Kasparov had his fingers on all the >rules of the match is at least misleading. Why should he have spent a minute on >the reflection that these scientists could try to cheat him or to treat him >badly? So, this argumental line is a dead one. > >Why is it so difficult to understand that the suspicion (due to the faults of >the scientists) of a cheat fires back onto these scientists, who had neglected >the iron rules of scientifical methodology? > >So, we have the complicated situation, that the applauded "result" of the match >is invalid. Specifically what "iron rules of scientifical methodology" are you referring to? Because I don't really see any conflicts myself. If you are referring to those log files not being able to prove that IBM didn't cheat, I see no problem here, I only see that as the nature of the beast. Labeling any of this science is a little bit hard for me to swallow, this was by no means a piece of cake to pull off, because there was enormous amounts of work involved, but I'd rather label it the greatest publicity stunt I ever saw, than science. What I did find somewhat suspicious though was that Deeper Blue was never used again after that match (that I know of), so I'm unhappy with IBM about that. Did they create that beast only to play against Kasparov? A waste. Pete
This page took 0.05 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.