Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 03:38:41 05/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2000 at 21:55:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. I see almost no difference between your statements here and my view. The only one is the one I mentioned before, that Kasparov participated as a _friend_. His personality was well known in advance. My point was that his friends on the "other" side, Hsu et al., did _not_ behave like friends. But I agree with you, that this aspect, friendship and the integrity of scientists, was nowhere mentioned in the contracts. So my only point is still there: was it sober, and was it good for the validity of the outcome, to treat Kasparov in such an unfriendly manner? Thanks for the interesting discussion.
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.