Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:13:18 05/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2000 at 06:38:41, Hans Gerber wrote: >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. You are not addressing the issue. Hsu and company did _everything_ Kasparov asked for. They _had_ to as they wanted to play him, and not vice-versa. There was no animosity at all until he made his claim after game 2. I don't blame them for becoming 'unfriendly' at that point. After all, had not Kasparov fired the first shot across their bow?
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.