Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 13:33:04 06/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2000 at 11:01:11, Albert Silver wrote:
>On June 15, 2000 at 08:09:00, Hans Gerber wrote:
>
>>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:
>>>>>
>>>>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...
>>
>
>
>Meaning his accusation isn't based on an expert opinion but based on his
>over-active imagination and lack of information.
About different perception in communication
___________________________________
As I tried to say before, a question is not an accusation per se. Of course
anything could be an insult even a politely put concerned compliment. All
depends on the reception of the receiver of the message.
My point was (excuse me, it's about science again) that scientists, leaders of a
scientifical project should be able to step back and should not act openly as
part of a wargame.
How could you know what was the motivation of Kasparov? Also here in this debate
we should not let us drive too far with emotions. Kasparov is a chess genius.
Interesting how you try to interprete his behavior. Even stranger: you accuse
him for his lack of information, when at the same time you accuse him that he
made accusations, when he asked for more informations. Complicated...
Standards of science
_________________
It goes beyond my understanding why it is so difficult to understand that
scientists have to respect certain basic standards, also and more so if they
take part in a sports event or maybe a billion dollar hoax. The standards are
immovable, unchangable -- eternal.
If you want to see what a machine coulod do against a chessplayer, it is simply
and trivially nonsense to irritate the chessplayer so that he can no longer play
his chess. _Not_ because certain morals or my personal liking of Kasparov but
because you can simply no longer take the results as significant, valide or
reliable. Of course if you say that sports is sports and that point is point,
then ok, but then try to forget about possible next similar events...
Chessplayers are not stupid.
I want to declare that the event in 1997 was not a clinically sober experiment
of science. Not at all. But a scientist should always behave tactfully,
diplomatically and with courtesy to his clients even in a pure sports event.
You seem to have difficulties in understanding that the above is to be expected
even if Kasparov would have behaved like nuts. Instead Kasparov asked politely
for some evidence that he really was playing the machine since he couldn't
believe some moves in game two.
-----------------------
I do not know if you are a chessplayer but I could tell you several stories
where I myself saw my opponent walk away from the table, then talk and laugh
with some people ... of course I was disturbed, maybe I was disturbing myself,
but the worst thing in a game of chess that could happen to you is the feeling
that you had to fight against more or other people than just your opponent in
front of you. This has nothing to do with paranoia. It is a concrete threat.
Because in a game you become familiar with the thinking of your opponent, you
can make probable assumptions about his choices, sometimes you can exploit a
narrowness in his understanding. Now if someone from the outside could give some
advice, then suddenly you are playing a _different_ opponent... Not funny at
all.
> He isn't saying, "Based on my
>expert knowledge of what computers (supercomputers) are capable of doing, and
>the limitations of what programming and technology can bring, these moves could
>not have been made by a machine." Instead he is saying, "Nice moves, cheating
>must be involved." Based on nothing.
You dissapoint me! We are both no clairvoyants but you do know what Kasparov
exactly said? Perhaps you are too much involved in computerchess and you react
therefore a bit oversensitively but I can guarantee you that to the best of my
knowledge Kasparov did NOT ask the question as you quoted it. He asked in the
style of your first quote. And I am even sure that he would NOT pretend that he
was a greater expert in computerchess than Hsu.
Fact is that Kasparov did never say or write a sentence as you gave it above. In
special he did not say something similar on that press conference after game
three. Although M. Ashley tried to put such ideas into the air. I think much of
these insinuations what Kasparov might have said was coming from the spontaneous
reception of some people who misinterpreted Kasparov's statements.
Until now I did never read something from Kasparov where he concretely accused
the DB team of cheating! However, some scientifical details speak against Hsu
and his team. I tried to explain why.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>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?
>
>
>Yes, what does that have to do with it?
>
A scientist is a fearless researcher
____________________________
Because in science or as scientist you simple are never afraid of questions.
Never! Because if someone saw something you did not see, for the best of it! If
you are interested in science you must have a tendency to like that attitude. If
not you might think different.
In science you can favor theories. Most of the time you can never totally prove
a theory. So you must be aware of new discoveries that destroy your theory. A
single contradiction is able to destroy a theory. But you are always searching
for such discoveries yourself. You always want to improve your theories.
In 1997 Hsu had the good chance to get valuable information from Kasparov. If he
had given him the prints. Hsu could have explained the logfiles and Kasparov in
return could have explained his thoughts about chess. All that could quite
easily happen during such a match. Because Kasparov was playing the machine and
not Hsu. So Kasparov might have found the evidence he searched for (very
speculative thought by now) and his play would not have been affected. Hsu would
have helped to bring his guest back into good shape and the tests for the
machine could have continued.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> 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!
>
>It happens all the time. Neglecting a material advantage in order to avoid a
>positional disadvantage or worsening of the position is not uncommon, plus I
>have seen many instances where the program would forego winning material to
>increase the pressure. Deliberately sacrificing material to open lines or gain
>another positional advantage is also more and more common.
This is good to hear. It would help the understanding if we could analyse such
games.
Very important is however that we have complete games and not only singular
positions or typical test results. Because it is common knowledge that you can
tune an engine for positions and tests.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>
>What tricky strategies? Here is the computer: want to play? Kasparov never had
>any problems playing computers in the past. He played Genius, he played Fritz,
>he played Deep Thought, and a first match against Deep Blue, and NEVER did he
>say, "show me your printouts". So why now, when the computer did no better than
>draw against him (the fact that he resigned is his own problem), should
>everything be different?
>
For me it is apparent that Kasparov acted the way he did because he felt sure
that something was wrong. This had nothing to do with anxiety or the actual
standing in the match. The point is that in game two Kasparov played a horrible
opening and still managed to almost outplay the machine. But then suddenly out
of the "blue" DB played no longer what it had prepared on the queenside but he
started to play positional chess. Kasparov simply wanted to see the logfiles for
that turning point.
You do not refer the correct chessic content. You assume as if Kasparov suddenly
was and had to be frightened by some spectacular play of the machine. As if the
machine had brought him near to a loss by sensational play. This is not true.
The truth is that Kasparov played a horrible opening with no active prospects
whatsoever where each GM would have crucified him head down! But the machine was
still in great danger to lose the game although _objectively_ it had a won game
almost from the beginning. And then the sudden turn-around. Very confusing, even
for Kasparov. It was not the move Be4 itself that confused Kasparov, it was this
move after all the other moves before.
>>
>>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.
>
>Without any of the DB team knowing? I doubt that very much unless you concoct a
>scenario akin to a Mission Impossible episode.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
>They DID all they could do: "Jim, go ask the IBM marketing crew if we can give
>the printouts of Deep Blue's thoughts on these moves."
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>
>Not chess, computer chess. He is the foremost expert on chess, not computer
>chess. There are many people in this forum who are better qualified to say what
>a _computer_ can or can't do in terms of chess.
>
>>>>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.
>
>I don't believe in any Psycho War. Any problems caused by this episode were
>instigated by Kasparov alone. The conditions of this match compared to prevous
>ones were either identical or better, so his sudden antics were possibly a part
>of his own psycho war tactics, not the DB team's. I think he was just preparing
>(unconsciously) his long list of excuses as he was getting very nervous and
>realized the machine was stronger than he had anticipated.
You don't believe in a Psycho War but how can you explain why the team at first
said yes and then said no for the logfiles? This and then the ridiculizing of
Kasparov -- no Psycho War?
I do not understand you. After game one and then game two, you want to say that
Kasparov should have been surprised by a strength he did not expect before??? I
do not understand why this should have been the case since DB played horrible
chess. Just take a look at the GM commentaries.
> At least he was
>honest enough in the immediate press conference after game 6, when he admitted
>to having been afraid. He never again repeated that though, and commentary went
>along the lines of cheating, plots to take him down, etc... If we play a game,
>and you make a few moves that impress me deeply, should you have to prove you
>aren't guilty of cheating? That is all I see here factually, nothing more.
>
In human vs. human chess? No! But in computer vs. human chess, yes! If you want
to take part with machines you must undergo special control mechanisms, that is
for sure. No offence or insult meant of course. But if you want to go for the
top with a machine then you should qualify "yourself" just like a normal
chessplayer. You can't exploit the exhibitional tradition of skittles in chess
and become World Champion just by playing one or two good players in six games.
Let's see how your machine will do after many games are known and the human
preparation has begun.
Hans Gerber
>
> Albert Silver
>
>>
>>Do you really think that the quality of the machine could be proven this way?
>>
>>
>>
>>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.