Author: chandler yergin
Date: 09:30:55 04/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2005 at 08:51:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 19, 2005 at 21:23:56, chandler yergin wrote: > >>On April 19, 2005 at 19:14:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 19, 2005 at 12:05:58, chandler yergin wrote: >>> >>>>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... >>> >>> >>>I miss the point? You _totally_ miss the point. IBM didn't spend millions of >>>dollars just to beat Kasparov. IBM spent millions of dollars to get tens of >>>millions of dollars of free PR. >> >> >>THE GOAL WAS TO BEAT THE WORLD CHAMPION! ARE YOU DENSE? > >Perhaps I am, but clearly nowhere near as dense as you, apparently. > >The goal of the DB team was to beat Kasparov. YES! Paid for by IBM! There would NOT have been a Match unless IBM had great confidence that the Deep Blue Team COULD Beat Kasparov! You are Naive! If the Team LOST, the Publicity would be Horrible! IBM would be the laughing stock of the Century! The goal of IBM was to take >advantage of the free publicity of such a match, win lose or draw. You notice >that after the first loss, they didn't fold their tent and run. The PR was too >good to walk away from. > > > >>AT THE TIME IT WAS KASPAROV! >>THE PR WAS OF COURSE EXPECTED! >>> >>>That isn't so hard to grasp, is it? Do you think Sonic pays those two morons >>>lots of money to look stupid? Or to bring attention to their fast-food chain? >>> >>>It was _never_ about "beating Kasparov". That was a goal that I had, that >>>Thompson had, that Slate had, that Hsu had, that every commercial program author >>>had, etc. But IBM didn't have that as a goal. OF course it did! >> >>THe Heck they didn't! > >Glad you agree with me... > > > >> >> IBM's goal is to make money, >>>make stock dividend payments, and keep the stockholders happy. Nothing more, >>>nothing less. >> >> >>To make $$$$$$$$$ YES! >> >>By Beating the World Champion, they expected to make a BUNDLE, and they did. > >You do realize they "made a bundle" after the _first_ match? How did that first >match end? Oh yes, a loss. It was the _playing_ of the match that generated >the world-wide interest. Winning made it even better, but had they lost, and >Kasparov kept the cheating claim in his hat, there would have been a third >match. And a fourth. But not after the insult hit the street... > >> >>Kasparov was "Sandbagged" every step of the way! >>If you don't believe that you are Naive! > > >One of us is "something". And it isn't "naive" either... > > > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>IBM got a Billion dollars worth of publicity from that, so it was obviously >>>>worth it. >>> >>>They got _exactly_ what they paid for, yes. Nothing more, nothing less. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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. >>> >>>Impossible to say. No way to tune a program _specifically_ to beat one player. >> >>That's NONSENSE and you KNOW IT! > > >Nope. But then again I have actually written a couple of chess programs. I'm >not guessing. > > >> >>Programs are specifically tuned to beat other Programs... > >"other programs" != "humans" > > >> >>Changing the static positional evaluation is simple and easy! >> >>You are being dishonest here! > > >You are being ignorant, since you haven't done this. > > >> >>They knew that Kasparov valued the two Bishops more than the Knights, and >>also how he evaluated Rooks, and GM Joel Benjamin 'tweaked' the Program weights >>for these & other factors! >>SPECIFICALLY FOR KASPAROV! > >Horsecrap. _everybody_ values two bishops higher than knights. It is mentioned >in every chess book ever written. ONLY in certain Positions are Bishops better than Knights! Even a Beginners Book tells you that! The more advanced Books tell you why! I suggest you review a few... > > >> >> >> >> >>>You might prepare openings, but it was pretty obvious in this event that any >>>opening preparation was not going to work since Kasparov played things he had >>>not played before. >> >>He used "Anti-Computer" play as part of his plan... >>It worked; perhaps he should have stuck to it! > >He did and he lost because of it. NO! He gambled and lost... HSU in his book explains that! He did not continue his anti-computer strategy. > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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! >>>> >>> >>> >>>It proved DB's superiority over Kasparov for a week back in 1997. Total NONSENSE! It proved NOTHING! Kasparov gambled and lost.. You consider a Match of 6 games significant in any respect? A loss of the last game to a stupid Computer is not significant! >> >> >> Nothing more, >>>nothing less. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>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 0.07 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.