Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:55:28 05/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2000 at 21:03:41, Hans Gerber wrote: >On May 06, 2000 at 23:16:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >> >>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. > > >I don't understand the meaning of the argument. Because they did it like always >they didn't neglect a thing? > >Perhaps there is a difference between computer tournaments and a match between a >machine and a human chessplayer? > Your point would be? Computers have been playing in human tournaments since the early 1960's. I played in many myself from 1970 through 1988 or so. I was _never_ required to provide program output. I was _never_ required to do anything other than show up and operate the program. I don't see how this match was any different. It was _just_ a chess match between two players, one of whom was a computer. > >> >>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. >> >> > >Let's not get into too personal arguments. > >Could you explain then why they at first aggreed and then denied in the question >of the logfiles? Here is what happened. He asked. At the press conference. Someone said OK (he asked for output for two moves in game 2). They decided that this would take some time to get and they were not sure they wanted to give it to him. However, within the week, Ken Thompson had the printouts in his posession, for the two moves in question. The output was published in the NY times, in fact. I don't think it appropriate to give him _anything_ during the match. Why does he get to see inside DB's head, when DB can't see inside his? > Do you see the disturbing effect the denial had on Kasparov's >play? What had all this to do with the strength of the machine? Do you think >that the final result of the match had something to do with the denial? Not being a psychiatrist, I won't go there. I don't know what went thru his mind. However, the last time he lost a game vs a human, did he start accusing the human of having outside help? Did he demand that the human explain exactly why he made a couple of moves, to prove that the player knew what was going on, rather than getting info from outside the playing area? Seems like he was trying some mind games of his own, in fact... > >Would you please explain why the result of the match is valid? What has been >shown? The strength of the machine or the psychological cleverness of the >operators? :) DB beat Kasparov in 6 games. He prepared poorly. He got terrible advice about how to prepare. It blew up in his face. He found himself in a war with a machine that was tactically unlike anything he had ever seen. I think the pressure got to him. All matches have pressure it seems. Some real, some imagined, some self-conjured up.
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.