Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:31:49 05/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2000 at 00:29:15, blass uri 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. >>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 The problem would be getting an investor to spend the money. DB has already beaten Kasparov. They would be unlikely to fund a chess machine to beat someone ranked lower...
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.