Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 10:53:37 06/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2000 at 09:00:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 27, 2000 at 08:27:12, Hans Gerber wrote: > >>Kasparov said: >> >>"Let's just say this: IBM categorically refuses to submit any proof that >>this [cheating] did not occur. No one can really prove this, but the information >>we have at hand..." >> > >Let's just say this: "Kasparov is an outright liar." He had the output for >a couple of moves he wanted, within a week. The _entire_ set of game logs >has been on the internet for close to a year now. Yet he _continues_ to >make this same false statement. > Please! Honestly I do not understand you. This is a very unfair attack on Kasparov again. It was shown by you yourself that the outlogs printed one hour or one week after the initial event could very easily be changed and nobody would discover it. Now, I do not say that because this is possible that IBM did it. I am more so convinced that the DB team, most of them scientists would never cheat this way. This is the one side. Now let's talk about the other side of the medal. If it can not be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that DB and IBM "could" not cheat the logfiles even if they wanted, the logfiles as they appear on the IBM site is not proving that no cheating had happened. Could we find aggreement on this? > > >> >> >>1. >>We have n sources for a possible cheating. IBM and DB team are two of them. When >>Kasparov is talking about a possible cheating why he must have meant IBM or DB >>team? Why is it assumed that n=2? Is this a new technology to reduce complexity? > >There is no other alternative. IBM would _have_ to be in on this (IBM or the >DB team). There would be _no_ other way for cheating to occur, since the DB >team had total control of the hardware/software. Is this your opinion or is it hard evidence? How about your own declaration that unallowed influence from the outside could well happen via all kind of wave transmissions. At least I had understood you this way. Look, now you say that "the DB team had t-o-t-a-l c-o-n-t-r-o-l of the hardware/software". Then we have a new problem. Because if this would be true, then why the DB team can not prove beyond all reasonable doubt that at least not from the outside no cheating could exist. Next problem, why the DB team can not prove the authenticity of the logfiles? Do you not remember that you declared a couple of weeks ago exactly that they simply could _not_ prove this! Out of principle reasons. Please make a clear decision about what is the case. Hopefully you are aware of the consequences if they had "total control". Because we have the old and still unanswered question why they (the scientists!) did not avoid the development of a psycho war against their own testing person? Some weeks ago you said that the logs would not have helped Kasparov for his questioning the authenticity of the moves. So we have the next problem, why did the DB team not provide a convincing method to prove that? As I said, this is not about the question of trust, this is about the standards of science. Since the times of the historical Turk the question of authenticity is well known in chess and computerchess. Could we find agreement that the team should have guaranteed a simple method to prove the authenticity? > > > > >> >>2. >>R. Hyatt explained that no output in computerchess in general could prove >>anything. Simply because it could have been manipulated already in the machine >>itself. By consequence output presented days or months later (the famous >>logfiles on the IBM site) can not be regarded as proof. Why it is still assumed >>that IBM has already done what Kasparov is asking for? On the other side is it >>not easy to understand why the quick deconstruction of the machine is even more >>disadvantageous for the question of proof? Is this a new technology to establish >>proof through insufficient data presentation? > > >It is _impossible_ to prove a negative. They can _not_ prove they "didn't >cheat". In general this is possible in science. Simply with the exact documentation that allowed others to receive the same results for a comparable setting. Why the DB team and Hsu in special did never care of? They had plenty of time, whole years, to think about. > And the way he is trying to prove they did, by using other micro- >computer programs and showing how _they_ can't find some of DB's moves, is >ridiculous on the surface. > He should be trying to prove that they _did_ >cheat, not demanding that they prove that they didn't. If Kasparov has read what you have written about possibillities of cheating he will not try this. Didn't you explain that such cheating could not be proven nor prevented? However it is well known in science that scientists should take care of that their setting is controllable. If it is true that they had _total control_, then they should be able to prove what Kasparov is demanding -- for a couple of years by now. (As to the rest of your post, I want to ask the moderation board if they could find a way to prevent you from opening over and over again such ad hominems instead of remaining on computerchess.) 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.