Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:58:43 07/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 29, 2002 at 06:48:12, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. Give me a break. We are talking about _deep blue_. There are dozens of posts by you in deja where you say "they cheated Kasparov" or "they were a cheat" or "the match was a big cheat" and so forth. > >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 wrong cheating...
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.