Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:37:20 05/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2000 at 16:16:07, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 Sorry but 'science' is _all_ about secrecy, until the deed is done, and the results are in. Try to get a peek at Intel's next cpu, without signing a non- disclosure. Ditto for Cray, MIPS, Sun, HP, you-name-it. Secrecy doesn't mean 'no science'. It is all about being 'first'. And it is hard to be 'first' if you tell all before it is done. I don't see a thing 'new' here.
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.