Author: blass uri
Date: 21:29:15 05/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2000 at 21:47:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 07, 2000 at 17:14:25, Hans Gerber wrote: > >>On May 07, 2000 at 16:16:07, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>I think you both are talking about different things. Let's take a look. It was a >>test for the strength of the machine. It was not about the question if the >>machine _and_ its helpers could outplay Kasparov psychologically. > > >No it wasn't. The question, clearly asked, was: > > "Can a computer beat the world champion in a match at tournament time > controls?" > >Nothing more, nothing less. Not "Can the machine work its way thru the >candidates matches first?" Not "can the machine beat the world champion >after playing a few hundred public games?" > >It was _all_ about beating the world champion. No-holds-barred. That is all >that was _ever_ asked. If you want to ask a different question, feel free. >Perhaps someone will try to answer it. But for Deep Blue, the question that >was being asked was as given above. Not with all the qualifiers that Kasparov >wanted to add after the fact. (I want program output. I want more games. etc.) > >> >>Scientists constructed the machine. As I said they forgot the question of the >>control of the output of the machine. > >What you ask for is _impossible_ to provide. That is the very nature of >computer software. It is very easy to change. > > > > > >> >>Scientists have a certain reputation no matter if they act in science, in a test >>or in a match. >> >>By upsetting Kasparov they violated their own standards. It was not just the >>denial to provide Kasparov with the prints of the output, it was the way this >>has been done. Very unusual behavior for decent scientists. > >Hmmm.. did you _see_ the press conference after game 6? Would that make _you_ >want to cooperate with your opponent? After he called you a cheater? After >he implied DB had 'help'? > >They didn't violate any standard. They were trying to answer one specific >question, which they did. Not trying to answer other questions that people >want to get the answers to. Just the one question at the top of this post. > > > > >> >>It was said that the IBM officials and not Hsu et al. were responsible for that >>indecent behavior. > > >Who was responsible for Kasparov's indecent behavior? > > > > >> >>Anyway, the scientists and chess experts around Hsu should then have protested >>against such a method. Because the results of the match would no longer be >>valid. They should have explained that IBM had invested so much money for >>nothing if they treated Kasparov in such an unfriendly way. >> > >After the way he acted, IBM responded _exactly_ in the same way I would have >responded. I would not have said "no". I would have said "hell, no" to his >request to see the output. > >I don't think IBM was unfriendly at all. They refused a ridiculous request, >made in an insulting way. > > > > >>I don't understand why these scientists gave their consent to the destruction of >>their own experiment and probably their own reputation. > > > >Their reputation is doing just fine. DB wasn't destroyed. The chess processors >are sitting on a shelf. Newer SP machines are rolling off the assembly line. >But if I were them, I wouldn't play Kasparov again. He acted like a jackass. >Let 'im stew in his own juice after the antics at the various press conferences, >and the public statements he has made since the event. He doesn't deserve a >'rubber match' with them. > >I don't even think he really wants one. He refused an offer from Hsu already. The problem is that Hsu only wants to play with Kasparov. I believe that he can sell many deep blue chips if it can beat one of the >2700 players that is not Kasparov in a 6 games tournament time control match. Uri
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.