Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 12:20:20 06/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2000 at 13:53:37, Hans Gerber wrote: >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 Seems to be you are unable to convince the CCC people that they are willing to believe (not even consider) the DB guys cheated (me included). It's a wall of granite you can't demolish. Ed PS, the match wasn't about science although IBM implied so, but of course you already know that.
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.