Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:32:19 07/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2002 at 20:23:21, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 You were ok until that last paragraph. But that _must_ be challenged. You _did_ say they cheated, hundreds of times. Just look for author=Tueschen, keyword=cheat, newsgroup=rec.games.chess.computer. You didn't just do it once, you did it hundreds of times. And it is all there in black and white in a permanent medium for anyone to find.
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.