Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 18:14:23 06/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
Dear Pete R.! As it was mentioned your replies to my posts contained many most interesting details that gave us new insight into the matter. Since you have given me such a good communication I want to give you a _final_ answer to your (as final declared) post. Please give me your credits for my deleting of the parts in your post that had nothing to do primarily with our main topic. I hope that we could come back to this topic in case from either side something really _new_ would be presented. I think we both know that by no means all questions have been answered successfully. If you want we could continue to talk in private emails about the other topics you brought up. But this is only a friendly proposal. So now my answer to the topic. I want to repeat to whom it concerns that this is meant to be my _final_ post on that subject for now, until really new information should appear on either side. I want to add that I would personally be very happy of course if R. Hyatt would comment on points where he thinks or knows that I am _wrong_. For the sake of science and truth I would be happy if such a comment could happen. Science and truth will win in the end, that I am sure of. Hans Gerber On June 23, 2000 at 12:44:58, Pete R. wrote: >As to the actual topic at hand, Kasparov was interviewed by Maurice Ashley after >game 3 with the following exchange: "I don't want to put words in your mouth," >Ashley said to Kasparov, "but you're saying that there may have been human >intervention on the part of the Deep Team?" Kasparov paused and answered, "It >reminds me of the famous goal Maradona scored against England in the '86 World >Cup. He said it was the hand of God." Let me give my view. M. Ashley worked for IBM in that event. That's a fact. Now he didn't want to put words into Kasparov's mouth. As I already explained on the base of certain explanations R. Hyatt gave about possible cheating in computerchess, cheating could have happened from the _outside_ of the DB team. Since Kasparov did never mention the DB team do you see what M. Ashley did when he asked the way he did? Fact is also that Kasparov talked about his understanding about chess. He did never make concrete accusations against the _DB team_! If you have evidence for the contrary then please give it to me so that I could immediately change my verdict. (Please do also read my explanation adressed to Mr. Eugene Nalimov.) > >Again he had no basis to say this except for his irregular personality, which >seems to go hand in hand with chess genius (your hero Fischer is an excellent >example). Just by mentioning Fischer he must be my hero? >Here is another quote from Kasparov, which I think is good. This was >sent to members of Club Kasparov after the match: > >"This was a very tough match, which demanded a lot of my energy. It was also a >very interesting match, that captured the imagination of millions of people all >over the world. Unfortunately, they also got to see some errors on my part... " > >[true, and the important thing overall is the publicity for chess, which is why >I think a rematch is a good idea. IMO Kasparov's goal is and should be to use >his fame to increase the popularity of the game - hence it is also >counterproductive for him to appear to be a poor sportsman] I must strongly object. He did not appear to be a poor sportsman. Why should he? He started his 'thinking' after certain moves during the second game when he was leading by 1-0. If he had only behaved like this after the _sixth_ game you had a better standing with your view... > >"I admit that I was probably too optimistic at the start of the match. I >followed the conventional wisdom when playing computers of playing 'ugly' >openings [non-theoretical] to avoid early confrontation, to accumulate >positional advantages and then I was confident that my calculation would stay at >a high level once the confrontation occurred. > >My whole preparation was a failure because Deep Blue played very differently >from what I expected. My preparation was based on some wrong assumptions about >its strategy; and when after game 2 it proved to be a disaster, I over-worked >myself. I actually spent more energy on the games in this match than for any >before in my life. Every game in this match took a lot out of me. There was >enormous pressure because I had to keep my eye on every possibility, since I >didn't want to miss any single shot. " > >[the psychological pressure here is understandable, and not unexpected. It's >part of playing a machine.] Yes. > >"This is also partly why I lost this match. When Game 6 finally came, I had lost >my fighting spirit. I simply didn't have enough energy left to put up a fight. >At the end of Game 5 I felt completely emptied, because I couldn't stand facing >something I didn't understand. If I had been playing against a human whom I >knew, then it would have been different. For example, I was one game down >against Anand in the 1995 world championship, but I fought back. Here, I was >fighting the unknown. " > >[true and understandable, but irrelevant. He was not playing a known quantity, >but so what? It was not a condition he asked for until after the match. So of >course he could have played better. He realized the machine was stronger than >he expected, and he felt the lack of preparation against this specific opponent >was a disadvantage. Well, it certainly was. So what? This wasn't a legitimate >world championship match, it was an exhibition match that drew a lot of >publicity.] You are right. But if that is the case then the result does _not_ mean what most people think it means. As you also have stated already. So here we do not have any dissence. Let me just hold up that we see a discrepance. Many laughed at him because he just prepared with Fritz and Hiarcs. Do you see something better he could have taken? But I see a serious contradiction in his own process of reasoning. It doesn't make sense to me. As others have said he was not prepared at all. You give the reason why. It was just a show. My question then: why does he feel obliged to talk about (serious) preparation, when it is clear that he did not even ask for the possibility to have some training games. Others said that if he had insisted the DB side could not but have fulfilled his wishes. So, for me, all this is very strange. > >"Despite the score of this match, I am firmly convinced that this thing is >beatable. Having said that, I don't think there are that many players in the >world who would be able to beat it. I think only four or five players in the >world would stand a chance against Deep Blue You need outstanding chess >qualities to play it - you simply can't make comparisons with other chess >computers. " > >[here he completely contradicts himself and shows that his complaints in Game 2 >were simply due to his temper. He admits you can't compare DB to other chess >machines, and yet he has the nerve to cry "how can a computer not play Qb6?". He >knew the answer to his own question, but his temper made him accuse IBM of >dishonest play. Incidently Karpov said that Kasparov had no right to complain >that the computer found a good positional move after he made the terrible move >34...f6. ] You see you also found some contradictions! But to come back to the main question of DB's strength, let me speak about some things. I think there is a different interpretation as yours for the seemingly contradicting reasoning of Kasparov. Kasparov is possibly right with his assumption that only some few top players are able to survive DB's play. Why? Because weaker players than the few would be outplayed by DB's superior "understanding" of chess? Of course not, but because the overall required ply depth move by move to not oversee something, that is very tiring. Now you say that he contradicts his own disbelief for certain moves in game two. Not necessarily! The two aspects are different. Here the overall depth of attention needed (which caused tiredness) and there positional moves (who could be surprising but could not cause real trouble for Kasparov)... > >"Take my case: I have an enormous score in training against the best PC >programs, but it didn't help me to prepare for Deep Blue. As a matter of fact, I >think I made a mistake in doing that. In the future I have to prepare >specifically for Deep Blue, and play normal chess, as well as normal openings. " > >[certainly this would be a good idea for a rematch.] > >"Is there a future? Yes, I think so! I just challenged IBM for a rematch, to >take place later this year, under slightly different conditions, such as 10 >games, with one rest day between each game. Further, I want to receive ten >practice game played by Deep Blue against a Grandmaster, as well as the >nomination of an independent panel to supervise the match and Deep Blue, making >sure there are no suspicions whatsoever. If this match takes place, and I hope >it will, I am so confident I can win it, that I am even willing to play for a >"winner takes all" prize. My score prediction? 6-4 in my favor! - Kasparov" > >------- > >No disagreement with any of this last part, except to point out that there would >have been a brighter future if he had not lost his temper and acted like a poor >sportsman. To this day, long after all logs have been publicly released by IBM, >he still gives lectures where the first thing he brings up about the match is >this Hand of God garbage. This simply shows a lack of character and judgment. You are repeating the _jerk_, _idiot_, _crazy_, _lack of character_, _irregular personality_ sort of stuff. Can you be 100% sure that Kasparov can not have serious arguments out of chess itself? If you can not be sure, would it be not fair to keep this question open for later research? >He should have simply stuck with what he said in this speech, i.e. he was >unprepared for the strength of the machine, had no chance for specific >preparation against it, and got tired. All of this is forgivable for a human >player. Therefore he requests in the rematch that he should be able to study >games of the machine, play more games spread over a longer time period so that >he can rest between games, and have objective oversight of the machine, though >it's difficult to say this last part without treading on the poor taste of >baseless accusations again. Let me put it this way. Temper, bad character, poor taste, baseless accusations, all such characterizations of Kasparov and his behavior -- you have really gone through with the topic of Kasparov. How can you insist that Kasparov insulted the DB team with his accusations of cheating, after I gave you the explanation that cheating could well derive from the _outside_ of the competence of the DB team. If you want let us continue this discussion in private emails. 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.