Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 07:34:26 05/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2000 at 23:16:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. >> > > >It isn't dead at all. This was about playing chess. After game 2 he suddenly >decided that he needed to see inside the DB machine, in a way that he could not >hope to do if DB were a human instead. His request was bogus. As were his >outrageous claims/statements about the game... > > >>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? > > >They didn't neglect a thing. The way they played Kasparov was the way _all_ of >computer chess has been playing games, for years. We change programs between >rounds. We all show up at ACM tournaments, or WMCCC tournaments, or WCCC >tournaments, with code that is new and has not been seen by others before. > >They did nothing 'different'. They didn't do 'bad science'. Believe what you >want, but if you want to make statements, at _least_ make them based on fact. >And the facts of the match are pretty much public knowledge. > > > > >> >>So, we have the complicated situation, that the applauded "result" of the match >>is invalid. > > >The match was _not_ invalid. Right, the match was not invalid. However the point Hans is making is that the match was presented (by IBM) as being "science" which is to laugh about. If it was about science the request of Kasparov to see the logfile should have been granted 10 minutes after the request and not 2 years later. Ed
This page took 0.01 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.