Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:49:08 04/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 15, 2005 at 20:51:07, Mike Byrne wrote: >Five years ago , Hsu's open letter to the world regarding a possible rematch >with Deep Blue. > > >http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/feng.html Mike, the whole topic is uninteresting. The point Hsu didn't get five years ago and earlier in 1997, is the fact that he and his team (IBM involved this way or another) cheated on Kasparov during the process of the whole rematch in 1997. For me it's so basic that they offended their own (pretended or not) defined as science experiment. They wanted to show the class of DBII in its chess over the then best human chessplayer. But what they proved in effect was not the machine's superiority in chess but their success over Kasparov's psyche with classical tricks from psycho-wars. Kasparov will never agree with this interpretation because "complete control" is his obsession and he couldn't live with the truth that they "psyched" him "out". So he worked with the absurd claim that they did never prove their authentic output of the machine. But make no mistake, Kasparov wasn't responsible during that match - for NOT being vulnerable what psychology is concerned. Because he simply believed Hsu et al in advance that they - even if they wanted to win - wouldn't cheat him, what they did as a matter of fact. Hsu et al (plus IBM of course) cheated a) on Kasparov as their human client for the experiment which alone is indecent b) on their own science responsibility for the experiment, which didn't mean winning by all means but winning through the better chess c) on their own interests, because they made all further experiments obsolete with their participation, because everyone would know by now that they would cheat on you with all tricks they could organize. d) on the silent contract for purposes of the massmedia: in 1997 it was clear that from a chess point even the strong machine DB II still wasn't able to play chess so that such a strong player as Kasparov normally could have been beaten. That was only possible with tricks which led to the development that Kasparov was psyched out or worse, that Kasparov was confused about the real strength of the machine. That is not my personal opinion but the verdict of several commentators out of the GM scene. People who can read the game and its problems. In Germany at first GM Unzicker criticised the match for its chess content and later GM Hübner showed where Kasparov played out of fear. So that scientifically, I conclude, the whole event didn't prove anything about the 1997 strength of a chess machine in a meaning of superiority over human race. Its chess simply was too bad. With the exception of the game two, where God's hand might have come into play... or human interventions. Hsu's and DB II's main defender here in CCC and usenet, Prof. Hyatt, did always point out that this was a match about winning. And this way it was in accordance with all what makes American sports and spirit for fight so lovable. Bob always explained that this wasn't about science, alone because of the leadership of IBM that mainly had commercial interests. But we in the World of chess we do know what we read and saw in the massmedia and we defend our hero Kasparov, about whom we did well know that he was easily to irritate by suspicious details. That was the only weakness he had. But therefore winning against him by such hokuspokus disturbances did NOT decide who was the stronger chessplayer, since all the pychotricks didn't come from DB II but from the ingenious team around Feng Hsu. And therefore it's over for Hsu. He should challenge FRITZ, SHREDDER or DEEP JUNIOR! But no more human chessplayers. Period.
This page took 0.1 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.