Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:36:42 05/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2000 at 10:34:26, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 Why? What would be the justification for letting Kasparov see how deep it was searching, what its evaluation was at various points... _during_ the match? Humans don't do that. Why does the machine have to? For Hsu/Campbell this _was_ about science. It _always_ was. For IBM, it was about marketing and revenue. It _always_ was. One doesn't preclude the other by any stretch. Otherwise "Intel Inside" would mean the pentiums are not about 'science'...
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.