Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:53:13 06/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2000 at 06:43:16, Hans Gerber wrote: >On June 27, 2000 at 21:44:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 27, 2000 at 19:51:09, Hans Gerber wrote: >> >>>On June 27, 2000 at 19:35:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On June 27, 2000 at 19:24:43, Peter Kappler 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>When did Kasparov deny that IBM produced the logs? If you have read this in >>>>>print, I suspect it came from an old interview given before the logs were >>>>>released (remember that it took 2+ years), or possibly just a bad >>>>>Russian-to-English translation. >>>>> >>>>>--Peter >>>> >>>> >>>>Someone posted quotes here that were dated within the last 6 months. Where he >>>>said "IBM _still_ has not provided the game printouts." I pointed out when the >>>>quote was posted here that the logs had been on IBM's web site for quite a >>>>while. >>> >>> >>>This is not true. Kasparov said something else. He said that "they did not prove >>>that" ... the machine played the crucial moves. This is out of my head, not his >>>exact words. You see the difference. >> >> >>I believe he said that moves are still not understandable. Yet we went over >>the logs, and explained _everything_ that he doesn't seem to be able to >>understand. Why it didn't play Qb6. Why it took so long. Why it seemed to >>change its mind right at the last second. All was quite obvious and natural, >>and as I pointed out at the time, it looked _just like_ the output I see from >>Crafty _all_ _the_ _time_. > >Three questions: > >1. When did you discussed that? Could I find the debates in the CCC archives? I don't remember the date. I discussed this both here _and_ in r.g.c.c. I explained in great detail how the DB decision to not play Qxb6 made perfect sense, and I then gave some crafty output where it behaved _exactly_ the same. IE it liked a move for a good while, saw the score drop at the last minute before it was to make the move, and then use more time. And at the very last second it found and displayed a brand new move that had not been shown before. It was all quite logical if someone with computer chess experience looked at the output, _and_ if they _wanted_ to understand the output rather than try to continue to propogate a conspiracy theory. > >2. Was it difficult to come to the conclusion that all was natural? If that was >easy why the DB team did not communicate with Kasparov during the exhibition >match? (Perhaps you could also include the question, why it was reasonable to >treat Kasparov in such unfriendly manner. Was it by intention that they wanted >Kasparov to believe that something was not normal? If yes, then that is exactly >what I call a psycho war.) It was not difficult at all. I had seen the same thing happen in Crafty for thousands of times. All perfectly natural, normal, and explainable. As far as communication _during_ the match, I would not do that myself. Kasparov didn't tell them _anything_ about what he was thinking or planning on doing, why should they give him detailed information on what DB was thinking? This goes _both_ ways. > >3. Finally a science question. At the time, on the last press conference, it was >said that the logfiles could not be understood, that it took time to present it >to the public. Now you say to my surprise that the output looked like what you >"see in Crafty all the time". Why this contradiction? Both can't be true. >Perhaps your detailed answer could also help Kasparov to understand and >hopefully terminate all the questioning for good. \ There is no contradiction. If you look at their logs, they have a lot of garbage characters in them, characters that probably are ANSI sequences to make the display appear in a specific way on a CRT display device. To see what I mean, crank up crafty like this: crafty >log book off st=30 ponder=off e4 quit and look at the log file. You will see lots of stuff that is _very_ difficult to read, because it has ANSI escape sequences to address the cursor and update the screen in a way that makes it look good when viewed on the console, but these same characters make it very messy to look at this log file after the search is done. They posted clean and original logs. You can look at the original, and then at the cleaned up logs (hand-edited to remove the escape sequences and stuff) to see why they thought the originals would be hard to read. They are messy. >In any case I would beg you to >try to find a tamed language when you characterise Kasparov. I think _he_ is not >responsable for all the irritation about the 'logfiles'. Under the assumption >that he was successfully irritated and therefore was not able to play his best >chess, then what would that tell us about the strength of DB? Nothing? That is >exactly what I tried to explain about the mistakes of the DB team, who were >scientists. Kasparov asked for something that nobody had ever asked for before. They should not have given him the logs during the match, as it would reveal things about DB that he doesn't reveal about himself. If he got upset because he didn't get something that he wouldn't have gotten from any other player in the world either, then _he_ has a problem. Not the DB team. Do you think _any_ GM would sit down with him after game two of a 6 game match, and tell him of the opening preparation they had done, what they were planning at each stage of the game, etc? Of course not. > > >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.