Author: Albert Silver
Date: 19:57:09 06/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2000 at 18:08:16, Hans Gerber wrote:
>On June 13, 2000 at 11:00:45, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>On June 12, 2000 at 23:45:33, Hans Gerber wrote:
>>
>>>On June 12, 2000 at 17:33:57, Joachim Denzler wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>Outside the marketing reality perhaps.
>>>
>>>In the meantime I did install the program.
>>>
>>>First observations.
>>>
>>>1. The display looks very inviting. Similarities with the WIN version of GENIUS
>>>are obvious.
>>>
>>>2. I could not find a cconcrete description of the engine.
>>>
>>>3. The help file with F1 is opening as a HTML.
>>>
>>>4. What a surprise! Right on the first page you can see a photo of Stefan
>>>Meyer-Kahlen with his wife Anna, both holding a trophy in their hands.
>>>
>>>5. The text is not exactly telling that you have SHREDDER on your PC. This
>>>"missing link" is mentioned but not openly outspoken.
>>>
>>>6. Let me describe the tricky method. Above of the page you read "World
>>>Champion". Then the photo. Then the text. Again Stefan Meyer-Kahlen is mentioned
>>>who has won the championship in June 1999 with his computerprogram SHREDDER.
>>>There you have it. So, if you have here the 'World Champion', it is clear that
>>>you "have" SHREDDER, since SHREDDER became World Champion in 1999.
>>>
>>>In reality you do not have SHREDDER, the one of Paderborn, because e.g. the
>>>endgame CDs are not included. Still you can read that you hold in your hands the
>>>winning program that ran on a "normal" PIII with 550 MHz. The method is the same
>>>as above. If you are the owner of such a PC and you did install SHREDDER, excuse
>>>me, the WORLD CHAMPION of course, then you play with the winning program of the
>>>last championship.
>>>
>>>In reality you do not play with that program because of the missing endgames.
>>>
>>>
>>>Conclusion
>>>
>>>The more the version of the here presented program differs from the "version"
>>>(must be version 4) at Paderborn 1999, the more the text (on the box, on the CD
>>>and in the files of the program) does not tell you the truth about itself.
>>
>>As I recall, Shredder 4 is not what won Paderborn in 1999, but a version
>>somewhere in between Shredder 3 and Shredder 4. The fact that Shredder CAN make
>>use of the endgame CDs does not mean that the CDs are a part of the
>>engine/program IMO. Yes, they come with the more expensive Shredder 4 package,
>>but I consider that as a bonus, and not an inherent part of Shredder itself. My
>>curiousity is to how far or close the engine is to Shredder 4, and how much it
>>differs by.
>
>
>
>At the end of your message below you write that there is "no false advertising"
>involved. Now please take a look at the following arguments.
>
>It is common knowledge that a chess program can play better games if it has
>endgame tables included. For that reason alone the advertising (that you 'have'
>the Paderborn version of SHREDDER/ WORLD CHAMPION) is false advertisement.
>Because in Paderborn the winning SHREDDER had the endgames included. So would
>you agree with me that we have a clear case of false advertisement?
Depends.
A race car that won an important race is up for sale. It is advertised as the
same race car that won that race. Everything is there, down to the tires.
However, the special racing oil used to improve lubrication and that also helped
improve its performance is not there. Is it false advertising?
How is this relevant? I see the _engine_ as being the World Championship
program. Even if the GUI used at Paderborn were completely different from the
commercial package, and I believe it IS different from the commercial package
though only Stefan could say, I would still agree that I had gotten the WC
Shredder. So if you stand by the argument that Shredder isn't really Shredder
without the tablebases, then we'll just have to agree to disagree here.
>
>As to the engine. The same. Stefan M.-K. has already confirmed that the WORLD
>CHAMPION is _not_ the strongest SHREDDER version.
>
>The text on the box and in the program does clearly state that it _is_ the
>version of Paderborn.
>
>
>
>> As I said earlier, though I have never seen anyone mention it here
>>or in RGCC back when, I have seen an official boxed version of Genius 3.5 making
>>claims to being an improved version of the engine that took down Kasparov in
>>London. Bastard versions aren't unheard of, and if the engine is indeed the same
>>as the one that won Paderborn (which is why I suggested testing it alongside
>>Shredder 3 and 4 in order to compare), you got a heck of a deal for $7. This
>>does bring back your other question as to whether it was normal to see a program
>>that was World Champion only a year ago for such a paltry sum, but I wouldn't
>>consider there to be any false advertising involved.
>>
>> Albert Silver
>>
>>P.S. I remember the Deep Blue discussion quite well, and I don't remember you as
>>being the one to keep to the big picture whereas others remained glued to
>>details. There was a long series of posts in which your only concern was whether
>>Kasparov had indeed made his accusations right after the second game or after. I
>>dropped the thread because I couldn't see what difference it made as it was
>>already clear he had made his statements by the third game. In any case, it was
>>clear that Kasparov was the one who had started the mud-slinging.
>
>
>As to the Kasparov and Deep Blue topic we can agree to disagree. For you it is
>clear that Kasparov was the one who had started. For you this _clear_.
>
>Now the whole debate between R. Hyatt and me was about whether Kasparov began or
>IBM (and the DB team).
>
>My theory still is that Kasparov asked them in private for the prints. Then they
>went into the public by launching a New York Times article (where Weber
>interviewed Campbell). Then they refused (in private) to give the files to
>Kasparov. Only then Kasparov went into the public himself after game three.
>IF that theory is true then you could not blame Kasparov. If you agree that the
>DB team should have paid Kasparov some respect (since he was their wanted
>candidate as the best human player), then it is even clearer that Kasparov did
>not break any rules of good behavior. Because they should not have treated him
>like someone who asked for the 'impossible'.
Of course they should give him every courtesy, but the question isn't on what
Kasparov could have gained by seeing the printouts. The question is _why_ he
asked for the printouts in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, that's the
starting point of it all. You see, my theory starts and evolves a little
differently. Kasparov asks for the printouts. Privately (I recall nothing being
said about Kasparov asking for them publicly, but rather on his accusations that
something was amiss, which would be after of course). The Deep Blue team is
confounded. Why does he want the printouts? He never asked for them in the first
match, nor did he request them either before or after the first game, so why
now? Furthermore, the printouts will certainly reveal _much_ to GK just by
allowing him to see what the computer thinks of key positions and the analysis
that led it to those evaluations. That's quite a lot. Naturally they ask him. GK
may beat around the bush a little, but eventually he will have to tell them. I
don't believe they would have swallowed a cute little speech about scientific
truth by him. Not there and then, in a match with a million-dollar prizefund.
This may be coffee change for IBM, but it isn't for GK, and there is no reason
to just hand the match to him. So he tells them. He doesn't even have to be
rude. Let us imagine he is as tactful as possible under the circumstances: he
can't believe a computer could play some of the moves it did. Only a human could
play such moves. And lest you say that GK would never say such a thing, I'd
suggest reading the interview he gave to Playboy magazine some years back. His
opinions on what women could or could not do were straight from the Stone Age.
In any case, it may have been eloquent but it is still an accusation of
cheating. If you have a different theory on why he asked or what he would say to
justify it, please say, but remember that he stood by his accusations in public.
I never heard any denials from him.
So there it is. The world champion wants to see the printouts to make sure no
cheating is going on. How would you have reacted? Do you believe that courtesy
should also go that far? So the request is heard by the DB marketing team from
IBM (I doubt Hsu was empowered to make that sort of decision). They basically
are being asked to give up vital information in the beginning of the match in
order to satisfy GK that they aren't cheaters. Frankly, I would not have given
them to him, world champion be damned.
In the US, there is a constitutional right under the 4th amendment that protects
a citizen against unlawful searches. If an officer of the law were to ask you to
turn out your pockets in order to be certain you didn't have any drugs or
weapons, it is your right to refuse to do so. That request only becomes an order
if the officer can prove he had probable cause (other than having an overactive
imagination), otherwise they are the ones breaking the law.
For the public record, IBM did release the printouts on the key positions after
the match was over. Yes, they could have been doctored or plain made-up, but
there is no evidence to support this.
>
>Now back to R. Hyatt. He is a scientist. I take his arguments for serious. If R.
>Hyatt pretended that Kasparov had thrown with mud (your expression) directly
>after game two on "that press conference" - and I can prove that there was not
>even a press conference with Kasparov after game two - then this seemingly so
>unimportant detail becomes important. Not because a scientist could not make a
>mistake but because a scientist should not quarrel for a whole week proposing
>that I should examin certain data records here and there... Not enough. Such a
>scientist should neither spread all sort of insults against another member of
>this club if he, the scientist, is unable to find proofs for his claim.
>
>I am sorry that this takes so long but perhaps you might now understand that the
>question is difficult to answer whether Kasparov is guilty of what you have
>said. Because if the DB team and IBM started the public campaign against him
>they are guilty in my opinion.
>
>Therefore the detail (when exactly Kasparov went into the public) is important.
>
>Now look at the press conference after game three.
>
>The questions of the masters (who also worked on the stage during the games)
>show that they are not surprised by Kasparov's declaration. GM Seirawans memo of
>that event (now on the IBM webpages) shows that he must have thought about that
>topic before. But he was like the other masters working for IBM! Please make
>your own conclusions.
>
>Of course nobody can prove who started where and when.
I don't believe that's true.
>
>But please think about the following arguments.
>
>If you read the text from that press conference now in 2000 you must think
>different about it. Today we know (thanks to R. Hyatt's explanation) that
>"cheating" would have been no problem at all! Even if they had given Kasparov
>his wanted prints the files could already had been prepared and Kasparov could
>never have discovered something strange. It was even argued that Kasparov and
>his allies (Friedel!) would not have understood anything detailed of the
>logfiles...
>
>Now please make your own conclusions.
I did and I don't see them as arguments. Yes, they could have cheated. Easily.
So what? I see no reason to presume they did. Is there any evidence whatsoever
to support such a belief?
>
>Is it so difficult to understand why I (therefore) talked about a psycho war of
>IBM vs. Kasparov? Since, if the files would not have meant much to the chess of
>that match, why they denied to give them to their guest?
>
>In my opinion for a single reason. They knew that they would insult the pride of
>the human player.
>
>If you go back into 1997 and examin the discussion of that time you can find R.
>Hyatt strongly object the giving of the files to Kasparov because this would
>have been a big advantage for him in the match. Is it not interesting?
>
>The complete debate in 1997 and afterwards missed the main point. _IF_ the DB
>team would have felt normal after game two and after Kasparov's plea they would
>have told him something like this:
>
>"Garry, we understand that you are irritated by the moves in that game. But
>look, if we give you the prints you won't understand much better what you are
>searching for. Look, if we wanted to cheat we could do it and nobody could prove
>it. Neither Ken Thompson nor nobody. We invite you tonight to come with us and
>make some experiments with the machine. You may try some variations. Sure, you
>might profit a little bit for the next games, but we, Hsu and all the scientist,
>we do not want to win a match by tricks, if we win we want to be sure that it's
>only because the machine could play better chess than you! Maybe we don't win
>this year. Ok, for the best of it. Then we have many re-matches in future. But
>the day will come when our machine will be better than you. Are you interested
>in that sort of thing?"
I would have had Hsu, or anyone involved, commited to an asylum if I had
witnessed such a speech.
>
>As we all now they didn't do this.
Yes.
>The DB team thought that by psyching out
>Kasparov they could demonstrate that the machine already was better than
>Kasparov.
How was this conclusion reached?
>
>The bad side of all that is well known. The whole world of experts knows that DB
>was _not_ better than Kasparov but that Kasparov played way beyond his normal
>chess. And Kasparov himself? The computer experts around Hsu did insult his
>pride so deeply that he is lost for that chain of rematches. If you have
>followed the comic tries of Hsu at the end of 99 to come into contact with
>Kasparov you know who's the real loser of the whole event.
I have yet to see how Hsu was to blame. Furthermore, the statements issued gave
conflicting versions of what had happened. On the one side we have Hsu making a
direct appeal to Kasparov and stating that this was done in the most civilized
manner, and on the other we have GK's manager declare that Hsu's letters had
been hostile and belligerent. Unless the letters are published, we'll never
know. It could also have been a result of a less than perfect English on Hsu's
part. Still, the declaration didn't state this as the reason for ending the
discussion, but that the DB chip and its rights that were now in Hsu's sole
possession was not the DB that had beaten GK at all. An identical circumstance
to the Shredder episode now appears: is Deep Blue the chip and its creator, or
is it the company and the computer that housed the chips?
>
>
>You might say that all this is old news. But then look at FRITZ in Holland and
>the whole mix-up of protests and denials to play the machine. The DB team has
>destroyed much more than the pride of Kasparov. They have shown to the human
>players that the computer people have no respect for the human genius. And that
>they want to triumph over the human players although they do not understand the
>game of chess at all.
How were these two last conclusions reached?
> Sure you will always find some humans or organizations who
>will invite computers to participate but mainly it's a question of money either
>by sponsorships or by higher numbers of spectators. The mutual respect for each
>other however has been destroyed by the behavior of the DB team in 1997. By now
>the human players do know how far the computer people are ready to go for a
>win...
I don't agree.
Albert Silver
>
>
>
>Hans Gerber
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Question again, who is to believe? The Stefan Meyer-Kahlen of CCC or the Stefan
>>>Meyer-Kahlen as one of the notified responsibles for the mentioned product?
>>>
>>>Important note. The whole theme does not go about really big money. The point is
>>>the importance of a certain style, a hopefully scientific attitude as a
>>>programmer and the moral of people in the chess business.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hans Gerber
This page took 0.01 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.