Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:28:19 08/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2002 at 20:25:17, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On August 24, 2002 at 18:23:14, Keith Ian Price wrote: > >>On August 22, 2002 at 22:35:25, Peter Hegger wrote: >> >>>On August 22, 2002 at 18:19:17, Keith Ian Price wrote: >>> >>>>On August 22, 2002 at 10:04:37, Peter Hegger wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 22, 2002 at 08:10:27, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>2. Hsu's creations _slaughtered_ the computer competition...ALL OF THEM! >>>>> >>>>>They did? Where are the game scores? I know that they claimed to have scored >>>>>around 90% against other programs during testing, but no game scores exist for >>>>>these games. >>>>>Are we to simply take their word for it that these games actually happened? >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>>Regards, >>>>>Peter >>>> >>>>I talked to Hsu and asked him specifically about this. He said he did not save >>>>the game scores. I listened to his answer while looking him in the eye and I >>>>believed him. What do you base your assertion that he is lying on? I am inclined >>>>to take a person's word without the personal interview, but in this case I had >>>>that added benefit. I don't really care if DB would beat today's programs or >>>>not, since it does not exist any longer, but I do not like people calling Hsu a >>>>liar with no evidence. If you have some, please post it. >>>> >>>>kp >>> >>>Proof? Evidence? I'm not the one who made the claims about my programs prowess. >>>But if I did, then I'd surely have game scores to back myself up. If I didn't >>>have the scores then I would keep my mouth shut. >>>As I stated in the part you snipped, time on a supercomputer doesn't come cheap. >>>Atleast not cheap enough to play dozens of games just for fun. >>>Peter >> >>They had all the time on the computer they wanted. IBM wanted to win the match. >>The games were not played "for fun" but just to see the progress they had made >>from Deep Thought, which lost to Fritz in the 1995 WCCC. They were unimportant >>to Hsu beyond the results, since he had no intention of publishing them, and >>giving Garry any insight into possible weaknesses of Deep Blue. But whether or >>not he was derelict in his scientific duties or not (I suspect not, since he >>wasn't trying to show he could beat the current commercials with the Deep Blue >>project, but rather beat the human world champion), that is not what I posted >>about. I have found that calling someone a liar with no evidence is usually the >>province of liars and not honorable men, since liars think everyone lies. But >>since you are a pawnbroker, and perhaps have people lying to you every day, I >>guess you are entitled to have no trust in another's word. But you say that, if >>you did not have the scores, you would keep your mouth shut. Why would you >>refrain from making that claim without proof, when you show no compunction for >>posting other claims, in fact somewhat libelous claims, without even having >>evidence? >> >>When I talked to Hsu about this, he showed real pride in the accomplishment, >>which doesn't square with his making a specious claim. As I recall, he never >>posted and boasted about this in any fora, but merely answered a question by Bob >>Hyatt through email about Deep Blue's performance relative to the current >>commercial programs. This was after the fact, and he had not kept the scores at >>that time either. Bob was the one who posted the claim. I'm not sure, since it >>has been several years, but I think Hsu said that he wished that Bob had not >>posted that, since he did not have the scores. He knew there had been a furor >>about it on CCC. > >I don't want to comment on the other claims you made. Elsewhere I made the >necessary explanation of what was wrong and what not. > >But this here is unfair to Bob Hyatt. What he posted into RGCC in 1997 was as he >said especially allowed by Hsu. Otherwise Bob wouldn't have posted it. >The "furor" was on RGCC, not on CCC. And I think you remember that now. > >Rolf Tueschen > I don't think it was particularly "unfair". Your recount is exactly correct, of course. I _never_ post email without permission. So far, I have been treated the same way. The only way that could become a problem would be for me to say one thing via email, another here. I can think of a particular past member that did this often (said one thing via email another in the newsgroups/CCC forum.) I kept reminding him that I had his emails that were contrary to his revised history. But in any case, I've had so many requests for confidentiality, that I _always_ ask permission before posting something revealed only in email, because I am afraid I won't remember who specifically asked "don't make this public" and who didn't... I prefer to err on the side of caution. Hsu _did_ specifically say it was ok to post the results. He might have said "it might cause a firestorm" but that didn't seem to concern him if it didn't concern me... >> >>The reason for my snip was not to take away from your post, but because my post >>was an answer to the question, "Are we to simply take their word for it that >>these games actually happened?" My answer is 'yes'. It is something that most >>people do, unless they have been shown good reason not to. >> >>kp
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.