Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:29:47 05/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2000 at 07:17:44, Hans Gerber wrote: >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. > > >Interesting debate. "Can a computer beat..." is seemingly an innocent >expression. In view of what happened the question "the computer under the >assistance of his operators and other adds" should be analysed. It is obvious >that Kasparov had a match against two classes of opponents. > How? DB played _all_ the moves. Kasparov ignored the operators pretty much. > > >>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. >> > >Still the obligation is there. Otherwise we get an almost meaningless result. How can anyone be obligated to do something that is completely impossible to do? > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>>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'? > > >We talked about the details after game _two_. > Did you see the press conference after game _two_? That was where the cheating _first_ came up. > >> >>They didn't violate any standard. They were trying to answer one specific >>question, which they did. > > >Well said, they tried. But they didn't succeed. Because they violated the >standards. Standard number one is to keep complete control of your setting >otherwise you do never know what your "result" in fact means. If you are mixing chemicals, you can control _everything_. If one of the variables is a human, then the experiment takes on an element of unpredictability that is impossible to eliminate. You can not control your opponent, other than on the chessboard. > > >>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? > > >What was first? Game two. I want to see the printouts as no computer would turn down winning a pawn with Qb6 rather than play Be4 as DB did. He accused them of cheating, in public. And he seems surprised that suddenly they no longer want to be as cooperative and friendly? hmmm... > >> >> >> >> >>> >>>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. > > >After game two? after game 2, yes. > > >> >> >> >> >>>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 destruction of their _experimental setting_. > the setting was as identical to the 1996 match as possible. when one opponent is a human, there is always variability. Otherwise we could just take Elo ratings, predict the winners, and forget OTB play. > >> 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. > > >Isn't it understandable? This "friendship" is over ... > >Please let's stop the debate. Otherwise we'll end in a similar dead-end. We've >just started to misread what we've written ... :)
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.