Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:15:54 05/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2000 at 01:58:57, Ed Schröder wrote: >On May 07, 2000 at 22:00:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 07, 2000 at 16:09:13, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On May 07, 2000 at 15:18:56, Hans Gerber wrote: >>> >>>>On May 07, 2000 at 10:34:26, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>Yes, this was my point. By not giving the logfiles the scientists destroyed >>>>their own experimental setting because Kasparov no longer played "normal chess". >>>>In social sciences you analyse human behavior. The question was 'who played >>>>better chess', not 'the quality of the chessplay of Kasparov after being >>>>confused'. I hope nobody will deny that upsetting Kasparov in a very unfriendly >>>>manner was a _factor_ in the match. It's as if they had set Kasparov under >>>>drugs. Therefore the result of the match is invalid. >>> >>>From a scientific point of view the match was invalid, I agee. But from >>>the point of view of a normal chess match he lost. >>> >>>Ed >> >> >>I totally disagree. Kasparov asked for something he had no business asking >>for, something he would never have asked from a human opponent. If he was >>playing you, and suddenly said "drop your pants, I want to see what you have >>in there." Would you do so? He asked for something that was unreasonable >>to ask for. He got turned down. Asking in the first place was wrong. Turning >>him down was not. >> >>If he wanted the output that badly, he should have thought of that beforehand, >>and made it a contractural requirement... The match details were agreed on >>before the match started. He wanted to change things to suit him. It didn't >>happen. He ranted. He lost. End of story, IMHO. >> >>He'll lose to another computer one day. I only know that _I_ would never play >>him in any sort of match. Who wants that kind of grief... where even if you >>win, you lose... > >All fine with me as long as the match isn't labelled as scientific as Mr. >Tan (spokesman of IBM) emphasized in public. That was a clear lie as science >in its natural form wasn't practiced. And I don't buy Kasparov excuse "I >thought this was a friendly match" either, he is just too smart for that. > >Ed What makes this "not science"? Building the hardware was science. Writing the code was science. Playing him under basically the same arrangements as the first match was a scientifically repeatable experiment... He turned it into a free-for-all himself, by suggesting cheating. But the games were played between him and the computer. If he got himself into a mental state where he couldn't play, that was just a random scientific variable beyond anybody's (except his) control.
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.