Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: About control and authenticity of data in computerchess

Author: Hans Gerber

Date: 13:28:45 06/27/00

Go up one level in this thread


On June 27, 2000 at 15:20:20, Ed Schröder wrote:


>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.

First of all I want to thank you for your comment.

1. Yes, this was not about science (obviously!).

2. However the members of the DB team and Hsu are scientists. My only
conclusion: they had to avoid that their testing person for the machine would be
irritated by the team's own behavior. If the person itself would be
uncontollable, the whole event should better be terminated. In either way the
result would not make sense for the question of the machine's strength. BTW I
studied several incidents where you in your matches against chessplayers behaved
much more careful as if half a point here or there would not be worth the effort
if at the same time the chessplayer would risk to lose say his temper, his
'face'. How could that be of importance in the development of computerchess when
the machines will be stronger one day anyway!?

3. Honestly, please believe me, I do _not_ believe that the DB team cheated.
This is absolutely not to imagine. So what I am trying to do for weeks now: to
show that the DB team, not even IBM are the only possible sources for cheating.
Perhaps you remember that R. Hyatt did well explain that a cheating from the
outside could not be prevented, while now suddenly he declared that the team had
all under total control. How could this be if they are not even able to present
immediate data about the authenticity of the thinking process of the machine.
Herefore my point was that the scientists should have followed Kasparov's
requests. Not even IBM should have prevented that successfully because the
scientist could have easily explained why it would make no sense to begin a
psycho war.

Why not discussing the points? Not to spoil the DB team or IBM. But for the
future of computerchess and fairness towards Kasparov.


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.