Author: chandler yergin
Date: 09:05:58 04/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 18, 2005 at 12:17:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... You miss the point, as usual! You're the red herring here.. Millions of dollars spent to beat one man; rather than just play chess. That is a bit off the mark of sanity also... IBM got a Billion dollars worth of publicity from that, so it was obviously worth it. Since the Program was specifically tuned to Kasparov's evaluation & Openings, other GM's with a different style would probably have Beaten Deep Blue easily. No wonder they didn't want a Re-Match! Kasparov had learned from his games. This match did not prove machine superiority over a human! > > > > >> >>> >>>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.