Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 17:23:21 07/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 26, 2002 at 20:42:02, Mike Byrne wrote: >[D] r1r1q1k1/6p1/p2b1p1p/1p1PpP2/PPp5/2P4P/R1B2QP1/R5K1 w - - 0 1 > >a lot of this is gibberish to me - but I was able to make out that 36.Qb6 >started to fail low and DB went into a "panic mode" and it was the move 36.axb5 >that recovered the score - directly from IBM's site > >http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/watch/html/game2.log > >the last Qb6 pv given was "qf2b6 s.Qe8e7 @s.pa4b5P @s.Ra8b8 @s.qb6a6P @s.Pe5e4 >@y.bc2e4P @s.Qe7e5 y.be4f3 .Rc8d8 .qa6a7 .Qe5c3p .bf3h5". > >[D] 1rr3k1/6p1/Q2b1p1p/1P1P1P1B/1Pp5/2q4P/R5P1/R5K1 b - - 0 1 > >which is really not that great for white ... This is exactly what Kasparov was thinking. Therefore he tried this, assuming that DB2 wouldn't find it. DB2 played a different move. Then K asked questions. IBM refused to show the logs. Then K was out of the match - psychologically. The the final press conference. K repeated his questions. Answer the logs must be worked over to be understandable for non-experts. Then - attention - DB2 was "deconstructed". So, never more we could research such positions. What is DB2 able to find? We will never know. Is DB2 able to refuse to go for the material if the disadvantage becomes only clear at move xy? We will never know. Dr. Hyatt is right when he insist that we could _never_ know if the given output is koscher. So deconstruction is without consequences. Here is the moment for my objection. It is true that we will never know if the output of parallel computers is authentic because we can't simply "repeat" the situation. But what "we" could still do is doing some research with typical chess positions. And Kasparov would surely be the expert to find interesting positions where a computer, even DB2 would fail to find the correct line. So, in the end we would have a specific probability for DB2 in certain positions. _Then_ we might get a conviction about the position of our discussion, where Qb6 was refused and axb5 was played. For me it's not sound to bash Kasparov for his basic questions and on the other side quickly minimalize the consequences of the deconstruction. It simply looks odd. Even if the machine had been sold before. NB here was Kasparov, the best human chessplayer, asking questions! He should be accepted as a chess expert. BTW he was invited by the DB2 team exactly for this very reason. Now, something does not fit here. Ok, Dr. Hyatt once said that after the insinuations by K he could not expect to get answers. But we know that the insultive aspect was _not_ what Kasparov had expressed, it was already interpretation by the DB2 team, here in person of M. Campbell who defended against K in a famous press remark after game 2. So, we still have the situation, that very basic chess question were asked, who can't be answered now because the hasty deconstruction. The logs _alone_ are _never_ a proof as such because they _could_ be doctored in minutes, this is exactly what Bob told me! (I want to add that I report, I ask questions, I make conclusions, but I did never accuse the DB2 team of cheating. That would only be possible if it had been proven. But this can't happen by definition. So please nobody should read something into my articles what is not there.) Rolf Tueschen
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.