Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:48:12 07/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 2002 at 23:32:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. No. What I found with the words you meantiones is this: http://www.clubkasparov.ru/rev/newsgroups/group02_e.htm And this is nothing I had said. I did NEVER write something that 75% of the online players cheated. This is clear forgery by the author there. I did never say such a think. As to your theory that I had accused them (team and IBM) of cheating, then you should quote me in the correct manner. I always wrote and meant that the non-answering of K's quests was self-betrayal for scientists. Here you find a clear contradiction to science. In science, they were scientists, results are worthless, if you lose control of the main variable. The main variable here was DB2! The machine played chess agsinst K. And we wanted to know how this could end. But since K was "out of the match>" after the offensive reaction after his quests the rest of the show event has no more validity. This is so basic. Of course, from a pure factual standpoint of view, the result is what it is. So, we will always have the two versions. But I see science in the first place. And therefore, if I've ever used the combination with the term "cheating" I meant this in the context of science. Self-betrayal would be a more precise vocabulary. NB that I always, whenever this came up, pointed out, that this had nothing to do with the juridical term. That is the same if I wrote "they violated this or that in science", then this could not be interpreted as if I had accused them of committing physical, aggressive, brutal violence. You know this and knew this exactly, Bob, because I wrote it several times. And we've the interesting fact, that you did never, never, never correct me on this item of violating the standards and ethics of science. (Ethics, because it's simply forbidden to offend your client and cause a psycho syndrom OR - and this is the only case allowed - you wanted to examin exactly the "reactions on offensive behavior during scientifical experiments".) The only defense you always used, was the mention that they worked for IBM, they didn't make science and scientifical experiments. Both is true. And false at the same time. Because simply it is not possible that scientists suddenly behave "contra-science", say in sports or other show events. And of course Kasparov was very certain in his belief that they were scientists who wouldn't do him harm. Nevertheless the whole question is part of science of science and philosophy. The main question is "Are scientists allowed to do all what is possible or are there boundaries?". And we all know the answer. Above science we have certain basic human rights. Human dignity must not be violated. I for one am very sure that the press talk of M. Campbell was beyond the allowed boundaries. Because you can't simply define/ interprete "questions" of a chess player during tournament, just after a terrible game as offense against a team that didn't play at all but that was only operating a machine. There is a big psychological difference. The moment M.C. defined K's quests as out of reasonable boundaries the whole event was destroyed. I think that this is so simple, so basic and trivial, if you would try to look at it with neutral intentions. Of course this is different if you say that even the idea to ask such questions is evil. But then you would also show a complete lack of psychological understanding for such sports events. I am very sure that the team of scientists should have reacted in a different way. They should have talked with Kasparov. Talks to save the show. Look. If you take the best human player. He has a psyche. If you work on his psyche instead that the machine alone works on his chess, then it's simply a different event. It's so basic! This, only this is why I participated in the discussions about "cheating" etc. 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.