Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:17:13 04/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2005 at 10:33:57, chandler yergin wrote: >On April 16, 2005 at 07:49:08, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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. > > >All of the resources available were used to specifically beat ONE Player, >Kasparov! Feng-Hsu made specific Chip modifications.. GM Joel Benjamin >'tweaked' the Program after every game, changed the Opening Book, all >for Deep Blue to beat Kasparov. They knew that Kasparov used the Commercial >Programs during his analysis.. and thought Deep Blue used the Commercial >Opening Books. He was Naive.. didn't realize how he was being 'sandbagged'! >So there was human intervention. I call that cheating! > In that light, _all_ computer vs human games will have cheating in them. Why? Last time I looked, _every_ program was developed by a human programmer (or team of human programmers). Of course, I suppose it is perfectly OK for the human players to have assistants to do opening preparation for them? this is a red-herring that is way off the mark of sanity... > >> >>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 0.09 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.