Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 05:09:00 06/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2000 at 23:37:14, Albert Silver wrote: >On June 14, 2000 at 09:14:25, Hans Gerber wrote: > >>Topic: Certain details of the match between DB and Kasparov >> >>On June 13, 2000 at 22:57:09, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>>On June 13, 2000 at 18:08:16, Hans Gerber wrote: >>> >>>>>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). >> >> >>You are the first one to even think about the acceptance of that detail I >>repeated so oftenly. Over and over again R. Hyatt argued as if Kasparov went >>right into the public and accused the DB team of cheating. For the first time we >>can discuss that in detail. In any case already now I want to thank you for your >>patience and the good arguments. >> >>Now point after point! >> >>You write that the question is not what Kasparov could have gained by seeing the >>prints. Most recently this was also stated by R. Hyatt. But please do a little >>reading of the arguments back in 1997. At that time it was the top argument that >>Kasparov "of course" would have had an unfair advantage through the inspection >>of the logfiles. If it is true that he would have had not even a chance to >>understand the content of the logfiles we have here a very important detail. For >>the moment I want to leave it as such. >> >>Now the important question you brought up. Also in my opinion it is very >>important why Kasparov did ask for that "evidence" in the first place. Quick >>answer: we do not know the details. We could fantasize instead about all sort of >>spooky thoughts Kasparov might have had. But let us leave all that behind. Let >>us concentrate on what he declared later and even today! And please let us keep >>in our minds that he is one of the best chessplayers of all time! Please let us >>be aware of the fact that Kasparov knows more than perhaps 10 times or 50 times >>more about chess than GM Benjamin who was the main aid of the DB team. The >>numbers should only indicate the big difference between an average GM like >>Benjamin who had never achieved to win a major tournament and such a super GM >>like Kasparov. You can not define the difference in "numbers" because it's a >>whole world lying between them. >> >>Now you might ask why I am talking about such a question that nobody had asked >>for. Then let me explain what happened in New York in May 1997. They treated him >>like a chessplayer whom they could at least meet on equal grounds since they had >>GM Benjamin in combination with that monster machine. When the simple truth is >>that no matter what Joel Benjamin might have fuzzled around in many months the >>superiority of Kasparov could never be reached this way. We normal mortals might >>shudder if we read of enormous opening books and such, about month-long >>preparation by GM Benjamin, but on the height of Kasparov it all boils down to >>the question "Is there anything new they found that could surprise me? (Answer:) >>Surely not!" >> >>Please excuse me but it is difficult to explain a genius if you just are >>comparedly a dwarf in chess. However we can still analyse the aspects of such an >>event with a minimum of scientifical education. >> >>Why did Kasparov ask the question? >> >>I see a single answer. Because he was sure (as a chess genius and as a perhaps >>amateur (?) in the details of computerchess) that DB could not have played as it >>played. Kasparov still today claims that the contradictions are not to >>understand. >> >>Yes, I read all the examples where even microcomputers showed the same moves but >>for principle reasons (of science) I can not accept such examples as a proof. > >I see. The evidence presented is in contradiction with the state's internal >policy, so it will have to be destroyed. No, please! The reason for my objection is the trivial truth that such evidence _after the event_ can not prove what they pretended. (BTW it was R. Hyatt again who explained that too.) In other words, if someone wanted to cheat, he could. That is the main point in my thinking. The scientists of the team should have found methods to exclude the possibility of cheating. R. Hyatt explained why this could not be done out of principle reasons. (Because it was tried more than once.) But also afterwards evidence can not be accepted as a proof. So there we are. You are wrong if you believe that I am not interested in the truth no matter what it may look like. > >>The isolated solution of positions is not the same as a game of chess. Kasparov >>thought that certain decisions by the machine simply contradicted the typically >>machine-like style of playing chess. > >He thought so based on specific moves, moves that he presented. Why anyone would >expect a multi-million dollar computer chess project to play the same as Fritz >thinking all night is beyond me. Also, I'd like to know how Kasparov qualified >as an expert on what Deep Blue was capable of seeing in chess. If anyone knew, >it was Deep blue's creators. Yes, and the meaning of that? That they should have sat together... > >> >>Unless you do not want to accuse Kasparov of cheap tries to excuse his own weak >>playing you must take his questions for serious. >> >>(Please keep in mind this point for the other debate about the actual situation >>between computerchess and human chessplayers.) >> >> >> >>>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? >> >> >>Let me ask you in return: why should the Deep Blue team ask such questions when >>it is well known that they do not have the same understanding of chess like >>Kasparov? Why did'nt they accept his questions as quite normal coming from a >>human champion? Do you see my point? > >No, as I explained above. > Are you interested in science? >> You agreed that they should have treated >>him with all courtesy but then why they should have doubted any of his actions >>concerning chess and the whole event? Did you see a situation before where a >>computer rejected to win material? No please, not again the examples where also >>Crafty rejected such pills. > >What kind of examples do you want then? Examples for a machine's rejection of a clear material advantage... In connection with a whole game, not just the results of a special tuning for a concrete position! > >> >> >> >>> 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. >> >> >> >>It is interesting that experts like R. Hyatt stated that Kasparov might have >>gained _nothing_ from the viewing of the prints! If this is true then it is not >>to understand why they refused to show the logs. > >That statement doesn't constitute proof and if he stated that, he could also be >wrong. Kasparov is an intelligent man, and if he could discern the lines of >thinking and the evaluations the computer attributed to the positions, he could >learn much. I have no doubt about it. > Let me try to understand. Do you think it could be a disadvantage if Kasparov could _learn_? Are you believing in that concept of secrecy that allowed DEEP BLUE to survive against Kasparov in the three games with the two colors? Do you believe in the strength of the machine or do you prefer to rely on all sort of tricky strategies from the team of humans around the machine? I was always thinking that we had a match between a chessplayer and a machine... >> >> >>> 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. >> >> >>Of course! He thought that and still thinks that. And note, he still thinks that >>although the "prints" have been published. What does that mean? When R. Hyatt >>explained that the publication of such prints meant nothing to the question >>wheter there was a cheat or not? Why do you think the published prints would >>change reality? The reality Kasparov saw in 1997? Why don't you think about the >>possibility that the complete DB team might be innocent but others might have >>cheated? > >How? Please let us wait until R. Hyatt gives us further explanations. However that could be contra-productiv to give potential cheaters too much information. All I can say is that it was stated that in principle such cheating was possible. > >> We only have one fact and that is the astonishment Kasparov showed in >>view of certain moves. >> >>Let me confirm you that personally I would have behaved different if I had been >>the head of the DB team. I would have been highly interested in Kasparov's >>opinions and I would have analysed with him and the machine as long as needed. > >I don't know why you believe he was proposing to analyze anything with them. He >demanded to see the printouts, that's all. I am not a clairvoyant. I tried to imagine what they could have done. Very easily as scientists. > > >>Since when could I have a better aid to understand what my baby was able to >>achieve? Remember that I am a scientist. I am not a gambler! >> >> >> >>>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. >> >> >> >>Yes, and I hope he will not let it go for cheap resons or some extra money! >> >>Why do we have to make it so difficult? Only non-scientists can take offense by >>Kasparov accusations. Are you sure that you must interprete his questions as >>accusations? Please read again what R. Hyatt wrote about the possibilities to >>cheat in such events. For me as Hsu it is the simplest thing to sit together >>with Kasparov and to take his ideas for serious. Since I myself I don't want to >>win a match by cheating! I ask myself for how long I must repeat that a question >>is nothing negative. A question is always something positive and helpful. I know >>that nobody of my team cheated, so the more I would be interested what Kasparov >>might think about certain moves! >> >> >> >>> >>>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? >> >> >>Yes, of course! Since I have read the explanations of R. Hyatt!! Of course I >>would be highly interested in all kind of possible suspicions of unfair >>intervention in my own scientifical experiment! >> >> >>> 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. >> >> >>Now after all my arguments I hope that you see the mistake in your reasoning >>here. Why do you argue that Kasparov has accused the team itself? Where does >>your conclusion come from? > >I do not believe there was some secret plot involving cheating. I also don't >believe cheating could have occured without the DB team's knowledge. I don't >think the DB team would listen to this and think there was a mysterious plot >involved. I think that Kasparov's accusation had no substance whatsoever other >than what his imagination was able to provide. I must accept that as your thinking. All I can say is that I am astonished that Kasparov's thoughts on chess seem to count so little. > >> >> >> >> >>> 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. >> >> >>As above! If you think about Kasparov this way when it comes to chess, we have >>no further chance to find a reasonable solution. Where did you find out that >>kasparov accused the team of cheating??? >> >> >> >>> >>>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. >> >> >>Excuse me if I insist that Kasparov as a genius in chess had the suspicion that >>there was something strange. That is first evidence enough for me. The mere >>publication of some papers doesn't prove a thing in that debate. For exactly the >>reasons you gave yourself. >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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. >> >> >>I must excuse my sloppy language. Of course someone could prove it but not from >>the outside among the participants in such discussions here. .-) >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>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? >> >>Of course as I said, Kasparov's own statements are evidence enough. For me. >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>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? >> >> >>Deep thinking and such ... >> >>:-) >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>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, >> >> >>No, not at all. I am still asking myself why a scientist like Hsu is so blind >>to oversee the minimal connections between his behavior in 1997 (when he did NOT >>do what he should have done in my opinion) and his humpty dumpty style of >>communication in 1999. For me it boils down to the question when Hsu will >>realise that he needed Kasparov more than the latter needed him. Here we touch >>again a question that is very basic for the actual situation in computerchess. >>How talented technicians with little understanding of chess suddenly try to >>speak with the best human chess players, most of them individual cases of >>genius. Here it must be enough if I say that computerchess people should be >>aware that they do not belong to that class of players even if the machines >>could do certain things better than the players. Computerchess people should >>never confound the achievement of the machine with their own success. As long as >>we talk about chess the best programmer of the best machine is not of the same >>class as maybe much weaker chessplayers. >> >> >> >> >>>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? >> >> >>Interesting question indeed. >> >>Did you know that Kasparov mainly advised Hsu to develop his new machine and >>then qualify in normal processes in tournaments and so on? Get the drift? Until >>now we took Hsu and his machine as science. Now that we know that he is somewhat >>a man who wants to trick out the chessplayers and become Champion, we look a bit >>closer on where the main advantage of the machine did come from actually. >>Answer: through secrecy and month-long special tuning against a single human >>player without the publication of actual gamescores. >> >>As I said before, Hsu will come down to normal the moment he will see what he >>has lost when he treated Kasparov like an unwanted guest when in real Kasparov >>was the very special favorite who brought computerchess into the daily >>newspapers... The denial of the logfiles was the most stupid and shortsighted >>action the leader of a scientifical project (that consisted of a close >>cooperation between a single human being and a team of scientists) could >>produce. > >There was no cooperation. It was a match. A publicity stunt for all involved. >That is all. > >> >>How Hsu could have behaved better? > > >I doubt Hsu had anything to do with the decisions involved in the printouts >episode. > > Albert Silver This is a very delicate situation. Perhaps it would go too far if I continued to put my finger into that wound of bad behavior in science. As I wrote weeks ago the leading scientist of some project can not be satisfied if his setting is destroyed and suddenly a completely different motivation is dominating. Earlier it was the machine's strength that should be tested in a little match and now it was more a typical psycho war to weaken the strengths of the human player. Do you really think that the quality of the machine could be proven this way? Hans Gerber > > > > > Simply by being a real scientist and better >>end a cooperation if the human being was destroying the experimental setting and >>then try again with a new cooperation with another good player. But the way Hsu >>understood his win as a final answer for his project he can no longer be taken >>for serious in the world of chess. Nobody accepted DEEP BLUE as the now best >>playing entity on Earth. But that is only understandable by chessplayers and >>apparently not by computerchess experts. The games itself contain the answer. >> >> >>Hans Gerber
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.