Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:01:08 11/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 1998 at 11:45:13, Amir Ban wrote: >On November 11, 1998 at 09:58:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 11, 1998 at 09:13:11, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On November 10, 1998 at 17:33:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Seems a tad dishonest to write such nonsense... >>> >>>Mind the language please. >>> >>>I'm not in the mood to accept this coming from you, because I've been on this >>>topic often to correct things you said that I found too blatantly false to let >>>pass. When I did that I went into an effort to base myself on first-hand >>>sources, analysis and quoting sources, while on your side it's clear that you >>>say those factoids (examples ? "DB lost to Fritz out of book", "DB cheating >>>charges were publicly refuted", "GK received from IBM all the printouts he asked >>>for" and more of that in these archives and DejaNews. Something you posted here >>>yesterday also fits the mold) because they are the most convenient fabrications >>>to advance your preconceived conclusions, often without any basis or checking, >>>and sometimes in spite of contrary facts that you are well aware of. >>> >>>More credibility on your part in this matter would be welcome. >>> >>>Amir >> >> >> >>I stand by that word, "dishonest". Based on the following: >> >>1. DB didn't lose to fritz. A processor two versions prior to the final DB >>lost one game to Fritz, in Hong Kong. Not Deep Blue v1, not Deep Blue v2, >>but deep thought hardware running the eventual deep blue software on the >>SP machine. This was called "DB prototype". You know that. I know that. >>Most *everyone* knows that. Yet Shay writes "Deep Blue lost to ..." That is >>*wrong*. More on the "dishonest" word in a moment... >> > >What a ridiculous argument. Then let me point out that it was not Deep Blue but >DEEPER Blue that beat Kasparov. How can you be so DISHONEST as to say that Deep >Blue beat Kasparov, when it was Deeper ? > > >>2. DB didn't "avoid playing other computers to avoid further embarassment." >>I specifically pointed out why... After 1995 there was *NO* *MORE* *EVENTS* >>they could have played in. There was no ACM event after 1994 (DB prototype >>played at the 1994 ACM event)... there was no WCCC event after 1995. So >>this claim is also wrong. >> >>3. Shay went on to mention other events. Aegon. There are *no* computer >>vs Computer games at Aegon, as both you and he well know.. *none*. He also >>mentioned the Harvard Cup matches... When was the last one? And when was the >>Harvard Cup match where two computers played each other? We both know the >>answer, and again he was wrong. >> > >Shay was did not say all this. I did. Look back at the thread to see who says >what. You are very careless about which accusations you throw at whom. Next time >look back at the thread to make sure you have your facts straight. If you do >that, you'll find that I (and not Shay) mentioned there was a Harvard Cup in >1995 (December) and an Aegon in spring 96 & 97. > > >>So, I sense something deeper going on here... A subtle attempt to once again >>discredit the DB guys. And I'll repeat my statement once again, "it is a tad >>dishonest to make such statements, by highlighting the 'true' part while not >>explaining that the point is really irrelevant." >> >>I await either of you to point out where any of my above comments are wrong. >>His statement was misleading and inaccurate with zero doubt. But the way they >>were framed makes it quite obvious that it was just an "character put-down" >>directed toward the DB team... >> >>I also stand by what you refer to as "factoids". I've clearly proved that a >>current chess program can find that the move Qb6 leads to a perpetual, although >>it takes a day of searching. So Kasparov's claim that the program played Be4 >>through human intervention is stupid. DB prototype did lose to fritz right out >>of book. The game may be playable, it may not be. But they were in trouble >>immediately. That happens. I play bad book lines regularly. And I still win >>some of them. >> > >This last "Fritz" thing just illustrates the point. There was a debate after you >said what you said, in which several others including Ed took part. I remember I >reminded you of what Hsu wrote on this after HK, what was the first move out of >book (0-0), and there was analysis done by several people. You had done zero >checking before saying what you said. You just said the thing that most suited >your preconceived conclusions. I remember we actually GOT YOU TO CONCEDE THE >POINT. To no avail: You are back to arguing the same as if this didn't take >place. > > >>So, it's your serve. How can you defend the article Shay wrote when it is full >>of false and intentionally misleading statements? >> > >I don't think I can do this in a way that is compatible with the CCC charter :( > > >>Or does this go back to the "DB Junior" affair again? > >You are RIGHT ! How could I overlook this ? Innuendo is a great debating tool, >Ed. Right after sending an invoice to IBM for services rendered, would you >remind this newgroup what this was about ? > >Amir You want to divert attention... I'm going to bring it back to the topic at hand. Here is the original text you posted, since it got snipped from the above when you responded: ================================================================================ >>It so happens I have a draft Shay sent me of an article he's writing for some >>purpose, in which, in passing, he reviews the Deep-Blue affair. Here's the >>quote: >> >> ... >> Indeed, in May 1997, an IBM "monster" named Deep-Blue managed to >>beat Gary Kasparov, the reigning human world champion, in a six-game match >>3.5-2.5. IBM cleaned up, achieving an amazing financial gain: >> 1. Its stock jumped up 20% > >> 2. It had planted the notion of supremacy in computing >> 3. Its sales of super computers grew as it branded the name "Deep Blue" >>in its product line. >working here, but the degree to which it had a lasting affect on IBM it isn't >> By refusing to play a revenge match and dismantling the Deep Blue >>project, IBM ensured that its result would be perceived as an ultimate proof >>of supremacy and prolonged the public relations effect to the maximum. >>Kasparov, shattered by his loss, has never played a computer since then. >> A few facts regarding computers and the game of chess can cast some >>doubt about Deep-Blue's true strength. Few people know, for instance, >>that prior to its game against Kasparov, Deep-Blue with all its calculative >>might, was not even the official world computer champion. >> It lost this title, lo and behold, to a PC program named 'Fritz', from >>Germany, that managed to defeat it at the official world computer >>championships held in Hong-Kong 1995. >> Since then, the IBM team carefully avoided any more "embarrassments" >>and did not confront any other computer programs officially. In fact, it >>reduced its opponent field to just one person - Gary Kasparov. point by point response: 1. baloney. No one really believes they grew 20% because of deep blue. That's utter nonsense although I didn't comment about it as it is not an insult toward IBM... just shows immaturity on the part of the author not checking his data a little more thoroughly and thereby going off half-cocked... 2. Be hard to find a bigger company in the computing industry. At one time they held over 70% of the total data processing market, until the advent of the PC machines. They are still at the top in the mainframe marketplace... 3. Probably true. And to this point, his article is not insulting, or anything bad, just inaccurate in the data. But at that point, he went into the toilet with: >> A few facts regarding computers and the game of chess can cast some >>doubt about Deep-Blue's true strength. Few people know, for instance, >>that prior to its game against Kasparov, Deep-Blue with all its calculative >>might, was not even the official world computer champion. >> It lost this title, lo and behold, to a PC program named 'Fritz', from >>Germany, that managed to defeat it at the official world computer >>championships held in Hong-Kong 1995. >> Since then, the IBM team carefully avoided any more "embarrassments" >>and did not confront any other computer programs officially. In fact, it >>reduced its opponent field to just one person - Gary Kasparov. first paragraph... true... it wasn't world champion. It had been so before however, and it had won nearly every computer vs computer event it ever played in. But *at the time* it wasn't world champion. Point is true... implication is "shady". Second paragraph... true... but very dishonest. Fritz didn't beat the machine that beat Kasparov. Fritz didn't beat the predecessor to the machine that beat Kasparov. It beat a machine that was 10 years old at the time that Hong Kong match was played. Nowhere was that mentioned, leaving the clear impression that Fritz had beaten the machine that beat kasparov. That's a style of writing that is frowned upon generally, one that implies much more than it actually says. Third paragraph. This is the part I label *completely dishonest*. Again, I will ask, exactly what events did they avoid where they would have had the opportunity to "confront any other computer program" after the 1995 loss to Fritz? You know as well as I do that such a statement is pure baloney, because there were *no* computer vs computer events held after the 1995 WCCC event. No ACM event. And they can't compete in the WMCCC as the hardware doesn't qualify. Once more... how can someone responsibly write such a statement and purport it to be fact? The stock stuff is ok... I don't care whether their stock doubles or halves myself. Ditto for their "supremecy" in computing. But the last paragraph really goes too far... and I wait for some possible explanation that would "make this right." Without diverting attention to whether they lost to fritz one move or two moves out of book... or anything else... I'm talking about the *last* paragraph written by Shay... And I call it intentionally misleading and dishonest...
This page took 0.06 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.