Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 13:16:07 05/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2000 at 14:36:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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'... There are 2 kinds of science, the one about money and the orginal one which is about complete openness. Guess about which one I was talking :) Ed
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.