Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 18:58:32 06/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 2000 at 17:29:52, Pete R. wrote: >You speak from a difference experience then, I have never seen a top programmer >claim to be the equal of his own program in playing strength, let alone the >equal of a human GM. Surely not but I have seen many examples where computerchess programmers took something mentioned against their programs as if it had been adressed against themselves. Now again that thing with the language. I have read often enough when programmers spoke about "I played GM so and so" or "I think he should have played this one, program X says so and so" that you could believe that they really could understand what they were talking about. I spoke of "observations". Of course I have no permission yet to examin the programmer's brain. But let me ask you in return. Is it for you alright if programmers with a very low rating behave as if they could argue with GMs when it comes to chessic details? Of course we have the example of this Dutch programmer who is almost a masterplayer in chess. But he might be the exception. The American Hans Berliner is another famous exception. Also David Levy. If these persons give some lines I would take it for serious. It is not that lines others report from their program's display should be less good. It is the general lack of understanding that prevents these persons to give such lines on the base of general judgments about chess positions. E.g. a single comment by a master "here N is better than B" or "this opening by cxd4 is weakening" is better than pages of copied lines. Because the reader is lost in the overflooding of data. >Who is important? Chess is just a game. One of the amusing things to me about >the internet is how there are millions of little ponds of interest, and in each >pond there are the big fish who are revered in that pond, but are irrelevant >elsewhere. This is simply the internet mirroring life, but for some people the >world's greatest chess player is just a game player. Or it may be fun to try to >make a computer a chess GM, but it's just a hobby. Important is a matter of >opinion. If a programmer thinks the challenge of making a strong chess program >is a greater intellectual endeavor than playing the game itself, that's his >choice. But this doesn't mean he is a great player without his program, and I >have not seen any such claims ever. I could react with a famous wordplay that you might only see what you are used to or what falls in sectors of your experience. It is the attitude again what I meant. If all here could follow you with your somehow relaxed and smiling way of reasoning, I would not have had a chance to make the observations I was talking about. But why going into details. What you have said right now is perhaps the treatment I was searching for against the illness I had observed. So it may do his good work... > >I see nothing wrong. Somebody has to operate the machine. To you it seems >ridiculous, but that's just your view. As for what programmers "should" and >shouldn't do in the world of chess, who are you to say?? For the first time in our short communication I am a bit dissappointed. Did it sound so brutal to you that you have taken offense by my ideas? I didn't want to say that operating is a ridiculous activity as such. But I am convinced that we must find a sort of standard for the operator. What happened with Fritz and its programmer was object of many discussions in the Dutch championship. >Of course, but you are describing a winged unicorn to me, I have never seen such >a programmer in the real world. Neither I did but I read many things from such persons. So it might not exist in a puristic sense but again the tendency was there... > >>Of course they should!! But reality is different. Here in CCC it is possible >for certain people to stop whole discussions just by ad hominem hints... In my >case the underlying attack that I am not even the one who I am! That it would >be making no sense to debate with me at all... > >Hmmmm. Now that you bring this up, I do recall a certain crazy individual who >used to harass Hyatt incessantly on r.g.c.c., a group I haven't read in years. >He posted from the same German ISP you use. I have a very good memory, and I >confess that when I read you use the word "chessic" elsewhere in this thread the >thought of this person flashed in my mind. :) I don't care about your "real" >identity, whether or not it is what you say it is, but of course you see that it >is offensive to accuse simply based on suspicion, which is exactly what Kasparov >did. :) The German ISP has several million members. BTW would it be better to say chessical? Anyway I will try to disguise that I should be a crazy individual in your conviction... (You have a tendency to use such words, idiot and crazy.) Further I must strongly object your idea as if Kasparov had made accusations based on mere suspicions. >They gave Kasparov the printouts he requested the Monday following the match. >He was not satisfied with this. Possibly for good reasons. We had this already. >Kasparov clearly implied that he wanted the printouts to rule out the >possibility of human intervention. This is equivalent to saying that Benjamin >and Illescas may have helped the machine, and anyone else in the DB "war room" >would have to maintain silence about any such help and so would also be guilty >of deceit. There is no other reason to ask for printouts except to see if they >show something other than what the machine actually played, which can only be >the case if there was cheating. Just because he did not use the word "cheat" >doesn't change the implication. Here you have a too narrow approach, excuse me. How could you say that it was about the "war room" and the people there present? If I understood what R. Hyatt has explained here, the intervention could have come from the outside of that room. So again we have the point where the team itself should have shown greatest interest for Kasparov's statements. In a certain meaning I have the impression to talk with someone who once made up his mind about the topic and who now must defend when there is no room for defense. Simply because there was not even the attack or accusation as it had been allegedly made by Kasparov! >He took part because there was $700,000 prize for the winner and lots of >publicity! Come on. This was not a scientific experiment, it was a chess match >and a big show. I see. You can't believe that Kasparov was deeply interested in the machine's capabilities... Please do not misinterprete what I said about a scientific experiment. Of course it was a show. Also about money. What I wanted to explain was that DB was a scientific project. Now they had invested into many months of GM tuning. And the team wanted to see what their machine could achieve. Is it so difficult to accept that the team of scientists should have behaved along the standards of science? Of course it wasn't a study in a lab. But they should have taken care of that they tested the machine's performance alone and not their own performance in psyching out Kasparov. Even if you don't agree in that question you must accept that they should have avoided to get a confrontation with Kasparov. The example of Fischer should tell you that a chessplayer is always very concerned about the conditions for the game. Here in this case we had the bad situation that the sponsor was at the same time the opponent of Kasparov. So there was no third, neutral part who could have told the team to do this or that. As R. Hyatt said Hsu and his team stood under the order of IBM. However this does not justify that Hsu tolerated the destruction of his test.
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.