Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:02:49 05/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 23, 2002 at 13:41:05, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On May 22, 2002 at 11:54:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 21, 2002 at 21:16:15, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>Did you know that you are one of very very few who are thinking about such >>>factors? Thinking and talking about. >> >> >>I don't think so. _several_ have mentioned "motivation" repeatedly. It takes >>a lot of motivation to go out and do something that is very difficult. Such >>as trying to push a computer off the board. You only have to look at the >>last Deep Blue vs Kasparov match to see just how difficult Kasparov found the >>match to be. If the absolute most weight you can lift is 500 pounds, you will >>find that going out many times and lifting 499 pounds is a _very_ difficult >>task to mentally prepare for, unless the reward is significant enough to make >>it worthwhile. > >That is a beautiful comparison. Let's add the social aspects if the crowd sees >the 499 or 450 already as a boring thing or loss. (Or and that might have been >the Kasparov Trap: he himself might have expected the 501 without preparation.) > >But honestly the question: Why, if all that is absolutely clear for you and >others as you say, why do you stress the meaning of contracts as fair which were >only accepted because all these aspects could not be foreseen by Kasparov? Why >do you put the factual over the human? Why do you pretend to be unaware of all >the social and psychological aspects, although you know them so well, as you >demonstrated here? I don't understand the question. The original goal of all computer chess projects was simply "beat the world champion in a match at 40 moves in 2 hours time control". For the longest that was totally impossible. So no questions were asked, no special issues about "fairness" were mentioned. Then, one day in 1997, the unthinkable happened. The GM lost the match everyone assumed he would win (again) easily. And _only_ then did this fairness stuff come up. Not before. Not during. But _after_. So, let's ask a new question now: "When will a computer be able to beat the world champion after it has played hundreds of public games so that its weaknesses and strengths are less of a mystery?" Perfectly reasonable question. Just not the question asked in 1997. Nor was it the question answered in 1997. That was the _original_ question that was being asked and answered back then. > >What was it after all, the strength of DB or the confusion of Kasparov in the >social situation? Don't you see that artefacts might destroy the sense of >results? And was that the intention of the DB team? I still can't believe it. None of that had anything to do with anything. DB2 was completed immediately prior to the 1997 match. There was _no_ way Kasparov could have seen games played by it to study them. They didn't exist. That wasn't part of the question in 1997. Until after the match ended in the surprise fashion we all watched. Prior to the match Kasparov was not complaining about the lack of games to study. He was busy predicting his victory based on practice games against Fritz and the games against the previous version of the hardware. It was only after he lost that the issue of "fairness" was raised. Notice that in 1996 he _won_ the match, under _identical_ rules as those used in 1997, yet not a single person mentioned the fairness issue. Wonder why that is??? I don't. > >But the consequences are visible: FIDE banned computers in tournament play. >Kramnik wants FRITZ (sic!) 6 months in advance and some more rules. The FRITZ >even Eduard Nemeth with Elo 2100 can beat almost at will? Strange. > First, I don't believe Eduard can beat it "almost at will". I'll bet he can't beat it one game out of every 10, played on a real board with no take-back, no looking at scores and analysis. And I'd take that bet with him playing against Crafty on ICC if he (or anybody else) would like to try. It simply isn't _that_ easy to beat any computer in a _real_ game... Kramnik made the rules as favorable to himself as possible, just as Kasparov _could_ have done. IBM wanted _him_. He held all the cards. Kramnik just managed his hand a bit better and made a better deal. Kasparov _could_ have had a better deal (he couldn't have had access to the real DB2 of course as 6 months prior to the match it was still being designed.) >Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0.01 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.