Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 07:41:29 05/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2000 at 22:55:11, Hans Gerber wrote: >On May 06, 2000 at 20:57:44, Pete Galati wrote: > >>Specifically what "iron rules of scientifical methodology" are you referring to? > > >A little bit difficult to explain to laymen. Let me answer this way: If you >construct a machine you should be able to control the output of the machine. >Otherwise how (worst case) could _you_ understand if the machine is doing what >you wanted it to do, and how could you demonstrate to _others_ what the machine >is doing. How could you even discuss the results without having exact knowledge >of the 'nature' of the output? How could others repeat and understand your >experiment? To give just a few aspects of a complex problem. > > >> 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. > > >Only if the beast was constructed this way. Why so much confusion? If the moves >of the machine would be so strong to cause big trouble for one of the best >chessplayers, then why the need to make the output so confusing? Intention or >impotence? Unbelievable aspects in science ... > > >> >>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. > > >Good one. But it's not so difficult to explain why this was science. _Because_ >Hsu Feng and some of his aids are scientists. They are "forbidden" to violate >the rules of science. What if they did? Well, they would lose their reputation >as scientists. However they could still cooperate with David Copperfield ... The match had nothing to do with science, not from the IBM side, not from the side of Kasparov. Kasparov earned in 2 weeks more money than in 2 years. I don't know about the scientific feelings of Hsu and co. Ed >> 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 > > >If DEEP BLUE could have been regarded as the best chessplayer of the World >beyond any reasonable doubt, the destiny of the machine would have been >different.
This page took 0 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.