Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:04:55 11/27/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 1998 at 16:38:23, Amir Ban wrote: >On November 26, 1998 at 21:51:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 26, 1998 at 18:47:38, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On November 26, 1998 at 18:21:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>> >>>>what did you see that I'm overlooking?? >>> >>>The order of the events is reversed. >>> >>>Amir >> >> >>I don't understand... we are on the position where it liked Qb6 until >>it changed at the last minute to axb5? or are we on the position with >>Qb6 vs Be4? If the former, then what is reversed, since Crafty liked one >>move for the entire (albiet only 16 second) search but it changed its mind >>and produced a new best move when the search terminated. So I don't follow >>"the order of events is reversed..." > >Then go up the thread and read how I described it. I did. It isn't the "reverse" of what I said. That's why I am confused. > >I'm not buying your "I don't follow". This must be the third or fourth time we >have debated this in just over a year. You understand my point perfectly. I've >been through several times where you obfuscate with some crafty irrelevency, Yes, it is irrelevant when I give you some output from Crafty that shows that the output from deep blue is not unusual at all. Every time you want to make that kind of statement, you can look in your rear-view mirror because I'm going to challenge you on it. >and >claim that I'm talking about that, and I explain that no, etc., which is >useless >because next time you will again pretend not to have heard it before and to >understand what I say. Or perhaps, in contrast, it is you that keeps dodging the real issue here, that your statements about deep blue are simply *wrong*. The output doesn't suggest cheating. Doesn't suggest anything other than a normal chess program running along and changing its mind at the last second. Just like mine. Just like *yours* if you are honest about it. > >Rather than continuing to play this futile game, why don't you do to DejaNews >and read ? I've nothing new to say here, and neither do you. How about this from Deja: --------------------------------------------------------------------- There are intermediate PV reports in what I see, with a timestamp attached, and there is no "end-of-iteration" PV. The form and timing of PV reports looks like any other program's (except for that axb5, which comes out of nowhere, after the search stopped). I do wish you would refrain from making value judgements or speculating on my motives before getting the facts straight. If you then decide not to believe me, that's a different matter. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Now correct me if I am wrong, but you saw Qb6 several times, then, the search stopped and it announced it was playing axb6. That is what you said above. And that is *exactly* what I gave you as output from Crafty. So again, I say baloney. You want to twist and squirm and say you didn't say this you didn't say that, that I have it reversed, and so forth. Your turn again to show where my output was "reversed". I liked one move for the entire search, went way over the normal target time, and popped out a brand new move and instantly made it... Looks *exactly* like what I saw in the DB output except for the moves... of course, I'm sure you'll show me how I am still "reversed"?? (BTW the stuff in the ------ lines came from a dejanews search on author=Amir Ban, Subject = Deep Blue, and was the third hit. > >I just want to tell this newsgroup about one interesting item from past debates >about this: We have Bob Hyatt's opinion that the printouts PROVE cheating. How >so ? > that's baloney. And you know it's baloney... *you* have been the one saying "this looks funny and needs an explanation" or "this doesn't discount the possibility of cheating" or whater... I assume you "typo'd" and meant "don't prove cheating." That I agree with because their output seems no different from mine in that regard. >Bob made it known on r.g.c.c. that if in fact cheating took place, it would be >evident from the printout, and there would be "zero doubt about that" (his >word). I asked, what he would expect to find if foul play indeed happened, and >he went on to describe EXACTLY what the printout indeed shows for move 36 (move >changed after search stopped). I don't believe I said any such thing. because I am too smart to trust a simple printed log that could easily have been "doctored" before it was released. IE when we were accused of cheating in 1986, Harry was asked at the ACM event that followed the WCCC to re-run the "critical position" to see if it would actually play that move again with output that matched the log. Cray Research verified that they restored a full backup of the Cray Blitz directory from the dump made later that night... So I don't know where you get such an idea unless this is another of your "misunderstandings" and an attempt to paraphrase what I said. I've never said "printouts would prove there was or was not any cheating. and after saying that, if you look carefully, you find a couple of examples from Cray Blitz... I'll refresh your memory to game 4 of the 1984 ACM event in Los Angeles, vs Nuchess, move=Nb8, if you remember that discussion. It would be nearly impossible to prove they didn't cheat. It would be just as difficult to prove they did. > >I wouldn't go so far as to call it proof, Bob. Let's give IBM a chance to put >forward an explanation. > IMHO they don't have anything to explain. I gave you some output from crafty that mimics the problem you pointed out with the analysis from DB... that they had Qb6 in their analysis for a long time, then claimed "panic time", computed longer, and out of the clear blue sky announced they were playing axb5. The output from Crafty was *identical* to that except I don't say "panic time" in my code anywhere... IE do we require an explanation each time it rains. Or do we figure out that the same thing that made it rain last time made it rain this time? At least I figure that out... You want an explanation about something that doesn't need explaining, something you *know* doesn't need explaining, but you keep demanding it because you are "sure" they won't explain it. There is simply *nothing* in their output that suggests anything at all, good or bad. It is just a log of a program merrily playing chess, getting happy, getting unhappy, trying to find a way to get happy after it has gotten a little less happy than it was earlier. >Amir
This page took 0.01 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.