Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:09:32 04/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2005 at 13:05:46, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On April 23, 2005 at 12:19:44, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On April 22, 2005 at 21:06:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 22, 2005 at 18:03:10, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On April 22, 2005 at 09:16:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 21, 2005 at 18:15:50, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 20, 2005 at 12:50:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 20, 2005 at 12:30:55, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Wrong. The consensus among experts in computer science and computer chess was >>>>>>>that the second match _would_ be won by Kasparov, just like the first. IBM only >>>>>>>wanted the publicity from the matches, which was nearly priceless. The result >>>>>>>was not the important thing to the company. It was important to the "team" that >>>>>>>worked on the project of course. But the "team" is _not_ "IBM". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Until you can grasp that, you will continue to run around in circles, making >>>>>>>lots of noise, and looking like an idiot. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Since you said bye-bye to science for this question you can't preach about >>>>>>sanity and similar problems. The truth is simply that IBM lost interest in that >>>>>>chess thing when they saw that their team couldn't win without cheating science >>>>>>and Kasparov. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I have no idea what that means. The "science" in this was designing the >>>>>hardware, developing the software, and so forth. So DB itself was most >>>>>definitely a product of and based on "science". >>>>> >>>>>The match was simply a demonstration of that scientific product. I didn't see >>>>>anyone at IBM say anything else.. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Ok, let's call it demonstration. So what can be demonstrated of your baby if you >>>>leave a normally optimal client in his - let's assume for a moment - >>>>self-induced confused state of mind? Is this a too difficult question? Where >>>>then remains your chess question? Or do you make the statement that DBII was a >>>>genial psychological weapon in the game of chess? Would surprise me. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>Not sure what that means. But one thing for certain, if I were playing a >>>serious match against anyone, man or machine (using crafty) you can bet that the >>>version they play against would not have been seen prior to the match. That I >>>would have tuned, prepared a special opening book, etc. would be taken for >>>granted by anyone that knows me. >>> >>>I'd equally expect my opponent to have prepared some things based on >>>observations made on earlier versions. That would be perfectly fair IMHO. >> >> >>Yes - and this was never a point in our debates! >But think for a moment about >>an opponent who becomes suspicious for not at all clear reasons - for YOU! What >>would you do THEN? Would you call him mad at the instance? Or do you try to make >>a reasonable conversation? That is ALL what I expected from your side, you as a >>scientist, well and also playing computerchess. Can't you see that you as a >>scientist have MORE responsibilities than - say - just a normal chessplayer? Ok, >>if YOU play normal chess against a similar strong player like yourself, of >>course you play after the FIDE rules and if he gets mad about your moves, bad >>luck for the guy. You shouldn't help him out of the misery. BUT, here in >>computerchess, in machine vs human player events, isn't it your job to >>communicate with the chessplayer? I mean - it's not you as Bob is playing, but >>only your machine, no? I dont get why you dont understand me. > > >***Here I hit the submit button by accident. Excuse me. Now follows the rest of >my answer. *** > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Kasparov was on science while the team and Hsu were on >>>>>>unscientifical dope. Proof, they simply should have answered Kasparov's >>>>>>questions - in time.> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>How does one answer an accusation of cheating? Anybody involved in such >>>>>demonstrations would realize that there is _no_ way to prove they didn't cheat. >>>>>The minute Kasparov made that claim, it became a "lose-lose" situation for IBM. >>>>>If they said nothing, they lost. If they said anything, they could not prove >>>>>they didn't cheat, so they lost. >>>> >>>>I agree insofar if Kasparov had have plans before to spoil the whole party with >>>>such a clame. But actually I believe that Kasparov was (probably for the wrong >>>>reasons you always explained in r.g.c.c.!) honestly and seriously confused by >>>>certain data and interpretations in his own team (Friedel!). My clame is that >>>>Hsu and team should have tried to explain the situation to be able to continue >>>>the experiment. But by simply reacting the way Campbell did react, it was bad >>>>for their own goal. And here I dont mean winning no matter how, but through >>>>chess. If your opponent is confused you don't win if you win by your chess >>>>alone... All that is trivial, no? >>> >>> >>>Too many personalities involved, too many unknown factors involved. Trying to >>>predict what "might have happened" or what "could have happened" is an exercise >>>in speculation and/or futility... > > >What I can say is this: if you let a client get crazy during your test or event, >then you can't get a sane result. This is trivial. Now I repeat the question, >was that the intended goal in this match? To see how the machine could play >against a confused and de-motivated human chessplayer? Makes no sense in my >eyes. > > The question was "can the computer beat the WC in a standard time-control match? The answer was "yes" apparently. > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>That is why there were no further matches. Why would they violate the "fool me >>>>>once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" mantra??? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Kasparov didn't insult with his fair questions to Hsu and >>>>>>his team. >>>>> >>>>>Please. He _directly_ accused them of cheating. That wasn't a "fair question". >>>>> It was a direct accusation of cheating, made in public and not in private, >>>>>standing on a stage, in front of news media. >>>> >>>> >>>>Please! This was from a man directly after the event. Did you ever coach someone >>>>in sports and talked to him/her right after it? Wouldn't you be careful in your >>>>interpretation? Anyway, all that proves what I say that the team spoiled the own >>>>thing by losing control over the intended factors. Chess as number one. I >>>>suppose you forgot the details. They could well have talked to Kasparov even if >>>>they had wanted to hide their output by all means. But they didn't talk to him. >>>>Why? >>> >>> >>>You speak of kasparov as if he acts like a normal person all the time. That's >>>hardly reality... > > >No, but I say that if Kasparov is known and famous for his suspicions and >beliefs in supernatural, the team should have prepared plan B to get Kasparov >back on chess grounds again. If that then had failed then they could have >continued the way they did in 1997. But then IBM and Hsu would have another >status than right now. The whole world would know that Kasparov behaved >unproperly. By not even talking to him, by insulting him of being nuts the Hsu >team spoiled the whole event whose result now means nothing in the chess world. > > That goes too far. IBM was supposed to provide psycho-therapy for Kasparov if he went off the deep end??? > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> But scientist Hsu believed in getting away with such a misbehaviour >>>>>>because he believed that Kasparov would prefer to sack the money without opening >>>>>>his mouth. Hsu lost that game! Do you really believe that IBM wouldn't have sued >>>>>>Kasparov if they had known that Kasparov was plain wrong with the allegations? >>>>>>You bet. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Sure they could have. And what would that have accomplished? "big bad company >>>>>sues disgruntled world chess champion over cheating claim?" They already had >>>>>enough bad P/R. Why put the cheating claim in every newspaper, magazine, TV >>>>>news broadcast, etc??? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>You agree that it was BAD P/R? Thanks. That is what I'm saying. But you always >>>>said that the only thing what mattered was that Kasparov was a poor loser... >>>> >>> >>> >>>Let's make sure we are on the same page. Kasparov _was_ a poor loser. And his >>>cheating claim turned this into a giant wad of "bad publicity"... > > >Ask real chess experts what they think about Kasparov's loss in 1997. Nobody >will answer that DBII was stronger than Kasparov. And all would tell you that >Kasparov played a poor chess and that he was confused and beat himself by his >own suspicions. This is by far what IBM should have needed for a P/R. And all >only because Hsu et all didn't want to talk to Kasparov. Isn't that clear? I believe that on the week in question, DB was better. I believe that because the evidence supports it. Whether DB was better overall is a completely different question that has not been (and never will be) answered. > > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> - Hsu was simply naive believing that he could treat Kasparov in such >>>>>>a distasteful manner. - You still didn't understand the main point. You knew >>>>>>already at the time (and explained this straight and fair to me and others) that >>>>>>Kasparovs question couldn't be answered in a judicially relevant style. So, if >>>>>>Hsu, who must had known this too, had told Kasparov exactly this - Kasparov >>>>>>could have found a new playing motivation - for the best of the event. That was >>>>>>the least the science responsible of the show should have given his client in >>>>>>the experiment. But no, Hsu and in special Campbell thought that they could get >>>>>>away with denouncing Kasparov's quests as nuts. Hsu got the bill for that >>>>>>unbelievably stupid offense 6 years ago, when Kasparov didn't even answer him - >>>>>>did you hear soemething from Hsu since that time? >>>>> >>>>>On a few occasions, yes. He's moved on to other VLSI projects. But for >>>>>clarity, Hsu was right. The claim was "nuts". >>>> >>>> >>>>No, even if the claims were what you think, then Hsu should have clarified the >>>>situation by TALKING. >>> >>>Why? Someone says "you are cheating". There is little to be gained by talking >>>about it. Just more accusations and such. Far better had Kasparov not made the >>>claim in public, and handled it privately in a less confrontational way. Who >>>knows how that would have worked out? We'll certainly never know since he >>>didn't take that route. > >Let's end this debate with the verdict that you don't accept the higher >responsibility of scientists on the computer's side. That is enough for the ones >who can read... > > This was a chess match. Both sides had the responsibility to show up ready to play. Anything beyond that is really wishful thinking. I've seen Karpov lose matches due to mental/physical fatigue. Is that his opponent's problem? Not according to the rules of chess. I have had opponents fail to show up due to being ill. Is that my fault or responsibility? No, he forfeits the game and the tournament goes on... > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You are Naive! If the Team LOST, the Publicity would be Horrible! >>>>>>>>IBM would be the laughing stock of the Century! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So after 1996 when they lost the first match, IBM became the laughing stock of >>>>>>>the century? Do you now see why it is impossible for anyone to give any serious >>>>>>>consideration to your statements? You are not firmly grounded in reality, or >>>>>>>you would have remembered that they had _already_ lost a major match to >>>>>>>Kasparov, yet the project continued, and IBM was promoting DB to the hilt. And >>>>>>>had they lost in 1997, we would have seen chapter 3 the next year. Losing was >>>>>>>_not_ a problem. At least to those of us that understand what was going on... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Did you ever hear of the fatal consequence of an unjustified win? I doubt that >>>>>>Americans can understand that. Because it's opposite to all the rules of >>>>>>practice Americans believe in. As I said, chess has a different ranking of honor >>>>>>than the Americans believe in. Here I assist to Chandler. Why IBM/Hsu didn't >>>>>>simply play their chess and tried to improve it - the way you do it with your >>>>>>Crafty? Because they confused winning ugly with winning at chess. Something you >>>>>>never did, Bob. So why do you defend Hsu and IBM? Why? >>>>> >>>>>We played a similar match against Levy in 1984. We prepared the same way, by >>>>>preparing a special book, by tuning the program to avoid blocked positions. We >>>>>still lost. But we did the same exact sort of preparation. There was nothing >>>>>dishonest about it, because David also admitted that he had studied computers >>>>>for many years and had specific plans to beat both us and chess 4.x, which he >>>>>did. >>>>> >>>>>The only difference was that in 1997 DB won... >>>> >>>>Because Kasparov was beaten in a psycho war. >>> >>> >>>perhaps so. After all chess is a mental exercise above all else... > > >Yes, I agree. But in machine vs human chessplayers the mental tricks should be >induced by the machine itself and NOT the team of operators. In a higher sense >that was also forbidden by the rules where a distraction of Kasparov was >forbidden. ;) What "mental tricks" were induced by the DB "team"??? > > > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Of course it didn't. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Just for clarification: >>>>>> >>>>>>you and Thompson believe in machines playing sound chess and this way winning at >>>>>>the moment when machines could play "better" practical chess against humans. But >>>>>>IBM and Hsu believed anno 1997 that the time was ripe to win by cheating their >>>>>>own science basics. Because winning ugly in chess isn't winning in chess. It's >>>>>>more a character defect or insanity. Don't you see that when you yourself follow >>>>>>that moral and logic in your own practice as a chess programmer!? Why then do >>>>>>you defend the misbehaviour of Hsu and IBM? >>>>> >>>>>I simply don't see any "misbehavior". For any contest between two competitors, >>>>>you first form a set of rules, then you hold the contest, and you verify that >>>>>the rules are followed. Can you cite any rule that the DB guys didn't follow??? >>>> >>>>Yes of course. They violated number one rule of science. If you want to find out >>>>about x (chess of the machine), dont test factor y, you can't control! Isnt that >>>>trivial? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>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... >>>>>> >>>>>>How a fair questioning the scientifical details could be insultive? Arent you a >>>>>>scientist yourself? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Ever heard of "praise in public, chastise in private?" The correct approach >>>>>would have been to ask Carol to check on this specific move, privately. I'd bet >>>>>that Hsu/Campbell/Hoane/Tan/etc would have provided the data with no questions >>>>>asked. But he did it in public. In an attempt to divert attention from his >>>>>poor play and onto the DB group with an accusation that could not possibly be >>>>>defended. >>>>> >>>>>"When did you stop beating your wife?" >>>>> >>>>>How to answer that? >>>> >>>> >>>>Not exactly that similar. How they should have reacted? Easy one. The declared >>>>in public "we have a serious problem of faith on the side of our client Kasparov >>>>but we will try to settle that in every thinkable manner that could help to >>>>solve the problem for Kasparov - as soon as possible before the next game has >>>>started!" The rest in private. But not the way Campbell replied: somehing like >>>>"he must be out of his mind..." That was NOT a university seminar but a real >>>>life situation where utmost care from the science side should have been applied. >>>>Not to give Kasparov a bully but to save science. It's so trivial. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>way too little way too late. Once the claim was made, it was front-page news. >>>any resolution would be too late. > >I see. You, as a scientist let yourself be influenced by anything a journal or >newspaper is writing, and that more so because you are obliged to forget about >your science, if a it's been told to you by mass media. This is self-evident. >NOT. We are talking about "public perception". Not "expert in computer chess perception." Those are two completely different things. > > > > >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I notice you won't respond to the point about the first match. Which simply >>>>>>>shows that facts have no place in your arguments, just nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>>Why he should respect the facts if you as a scientist is denying them too?! I >>>>>>answered you your question. IBM was interested as long as "they" were believing >>>>>>that this worked on scientific grounds. When they saw how Hsu et al spoiled the >>>>>>whole myth of a scientifical challenge IBM was forced to leave it in their own >>>>>>interest. Because the PR had turned against them. Winning ugly, cheating science >>>>>>(and their client Kasparov), that would have negative PR... That's the simple >>>>>>answer. It is true that a simple loss to Kasparov would have been positive PR! >>>>>>And so the first match was no problem for IBM. If Hsu et al wouldn't have played >>>>>>dirty a loss in the second match wouldn't have bothered IBM neither! Answer good >>>>>>enough for you? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Not even close >>>>> >>>>>The two matches were played the same way. Same kind of preparation by both >>>>>sides. The only difference was the final result the second time around. >>>> >>>>By chess or what? >>> >>> >>>by _result_. The thing everyone was looking at... > > >You mean the mentally confused human chessplayer playing listless chess against >a machine, the machine winning, as if that had anything valid to say to the >world. You miss the human factor in the whole thing. If the human chessplayer >listlessly plays on just to sack the money, your match, your decision who's >stronger, is over, out, and you, as a scientist are busted. And you are still >busted in the chess world if then you get the so and so prize in the USA. But >the bad consequences are still there today. > Certainly it shows _something_. Machines don't get flustered. They don't lose their ability to play chess by getting swamped with ideas that "I am being cheated here..." > > >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>You're not telling the whole truth because of course you can tune a machine for >>>>>>a three games event (for both colours). >>>>> >>>>>Perhaps you can. I can't. The chess tree is simply too large. I can't even >>>>>prepare a book that is safe for 6 rounds against the same opponent. >>>> >>>> >>>>You're not a chess GM like Benjamin. Of course I'm even less than you. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>It's also a gamble. You do know that you >>>>>>dont do this in your experiments against GM on the net. Because it would suck. >>>>>>You know quite well that only chess counts over longer periods. But Hsu could >>>>>>gamble. That was the job of Benjamin. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I see GM players lose against Crafty all the time, even though they out-play it >>>>>on occasion, because of the clock. Is that cheating or dishonest? I see Crafty >>>>>win or draw due to endgame tables all the time. Cheating? I see Crafty lose >>>>>and I tweak something so that it doesn't lose that way again. Cheating? Sounds >>>>>like exactly what the DB guys were doing to me... >>>> >>>>You filter your own story about your very distinctful manner to handle a >>>>conflict for Dzin. All what I want is that you get it what I'm intending. That >>>>the guys should have avoided playing dirty. For the sake of the whole event. And >>>>possibly future continuations. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>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... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I'll wager I know more about good and bad bishops than you do. And in 99% of >>>>>>>the positions the bishop pair is better. In certain blocked pawn structures the >>>>>>>knights are better. Good players preserve the bishop pair until they see an >>>>>>>unfavorable pawn structure, because it is not possible to anticipate the final >>>>>>>pawn structure at move 10 in many openings. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Then you watched a different match than I did. He even gambled on the last >>>>>>>round by playing an opening that commercial programs of that time-frame could >>>>>>>not win from the white side. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Bob, you dont address the Benjamin issue. Why did Kasparov play that horrible >>>>>>variant in the Spanish Opening. It's a losing choice. Why did he play that? >>>>>>Because he wanted to prove how weak DB II really was? What's your opinion? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I believe that the answer is one of the two following ideas: >>>>> >>>>>1. He just screwed up by playing an opening he was unfamiliar with, he >>>>>transposed two moves, and lost as a result. >>>>> >>>>>2. He had tried that opening as black against Fritz, and won easily, and >>>>>thought the trap would work against DB. It didn't. >>>>> >>>>>Which is true doesn't matter. In neither case is DB at fault. You can blame >>>>>idea 1 on Kasparov's preparation and decision to play an opening he didn't play >>>>>much. you can blame idea 2 on his chessbase advisors. But he picked them. He >>>>>listened to them. It blew up on him... >>>> >>>>See the correction by Uri and me. (The opening was played in game 2) >>>> >>> >>> >>>I am talking about the opening played in game 6... with the h6 move that >>>exploded. > >I know but I meant game 2 with the weak opening, as a famous super GM wrote to >me in 1997. Kasparov played intentiously a losing, because too passive, line and >wanted to see what the machine could do. And when the machine came into >positions where it was cracking, where Kasparov tried to find ingenious >solutions, the machine apparently was treated along Rule 13 of the contract, see >Chandler's message. The hardware was influenced and whoopie it played the better >move and Kasparov saw that he wasn't just playing a machine. Of course I agree >that he shouldn't have accepted Rule 13! > Unfortunately for this argument, he chose to accept the rules, that was not our decision to make... > > > >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>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? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes, considering that no world champion had lost any sort of match at long time >>>>>>>controls to a computer prior to that event. So it definitely has significance. >>>>>>>At least to most of us. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Not in chess circles! Every expert in the sciene knew that Kasparov wasn't >>>>>>playing as Kasparov. If one can call this gambling? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>All I can say, is that this has gone down in history as the first time that a >>>>>world champion (human) lost a match to a computer, played under tournament time >>>>>controls. Nothing more, nothing less. >>>> >>>>Under what circumstances? Against a sane opponent or a confused one? What did >>>>the result mean in truth? - All important questions. Also in chess. And you know >>>>that! >>> >>> >>>You miss the point. The general public perception is "machine beat man, end of >>>the story." > > >As a scientist I don't get impressed by floods of people and their perceptions. >This is not politics or commercials on TV. ;) > >Thanks for the exchange so far, Bob. I wish you a nice weekend. > > > > >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>A loss of the last game to a stupid Computer is not significant! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Chan, it kicked IBM out of the field... So it was a significant ugly winning the >>>>>>match for IBM. <g> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 0.01 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.