Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:50:45 04/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2005 at 13:51:04, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On April 23, 2005 at 17:58:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 23, 2005 at 12:19:44, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>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? >> >>Sorry, but I can actually answer this. Because when I won my second consecutive >>WCCC in 1986, Hans Berliner actually accused us of cheating. Same scenario, "no >>computer will play this move". Unfortunately for him, Belle (Ken Thompson) also >>chose the same move. And in our case, it was passed pawn evaluation that we did >>and he didn't (outside passed pawn was pretty well unique to CB in that time >>frame). But there was no room for any sort of "conversation" because Hans went >>public with this, rather than quietly asking someone to look at it... >> >>I can tell you, from first-hand experience, it is not a pleasant situation. We >>had just become the first program to ever win two WCCCs, much less two in a row, >>and the "fun" was instantly lost due to this. So I can understand the DB/IBM >>actions... >> >>The other bad part of this is that after the ICCA investigated, had Harry run >>Cray Blitz (harry attended the 1986 ACM event but we did not enter as we could >>not get Cray time for two tournaments that close together) to see if it would >>play the same move with the same score in roughly the same time (it did), had >>Ken Thompson, Slate and others look at the position as well (they discovered >>that their programs liked the move and that either their program would play the >>move, or only thought the move was a few millipawns worse than the move their >>program chose. After Tony Marsland went through our log-file of the game and >>compared the times with the log files from HiTech and found no strange things >>there. After everything was looked at, after David Levy concluded "everything >>was on the up and up" Hans never once retracted his claim, nor said "I'm sorry, >>I was wrong, ..." or anything... >> >>Notice the parallel with the Kasparov story? Sounds identical except for the >>name of the person making the complaint and the program being complained about? >> >>Sorry sports. Sorry personalities. hell with 'em... > > >No, sorry, but Hans certainly is in Heaven and not Hell to be exact. May he rest >in peace. But this is a good, an outstanding example for our conflict here. You >often claim that you are a chessplayer too, Bob. But then it's strange how >superficial you think about the ego of chessplayers. Ok, you and me, we are good >amateurs, no masters, and we are almost normal people in chess. But was Hans >Berliner really the first chessmaster whom you met, who behaved like that? Yes. Met Kaplan. Byrne. Botvinnik. Korchnoi. Ivanov. Valvo. Levy. Benjamin. Christiansen. There are many others. None of them have acted like the two in question. I personally believe they are "10-sigma type personalities". At least 10 standard deviations outside the "norm". Both >Berliner and Kasparov think and thought that THEIR judgement in chess does count >mountains higher than what you think or I. In computerchess matches this doesn't >change. A chessplayer who makes a chess judgement is absolutely certain that >he's correct. Until tomorrow someone gives the refutation. Even then it depends >on the other's reputation. This is what I was saying since 1997. It was a pity >for thze whole event that the team didn't want to "talk" to Kasparov or his >team. No matter how difficult that could have been. But saying that Kasparov >must be out of his mind is so insulting that the whole event was destroyed. ok, >fine, the result looked fantastic for IBM but in chess everybody knows that this >wasn't played by a normal Kasparov. And that is why in science terms the whole >result isn't worth the paper it was printed on. I know that you disagree but >this is also a pity. > >Your case in Cologne is far different. This was about Hans' arrogance towards >your status in chess. Hans was a master player who once had played Alekhine. But >here you had no obligation to clarify things since it wasn't Hans the chess >master who was playing the games. Know what I mean? But IF he had to play 4 more >games, you should have negotiated with him to come back to normal for the sake >of the next games. No, not if it had been for any championship, but if you had >invited Hans to play your baby in a science experiment... What the hell is so >difficult in my position that you can't even accept it as a noble standpoint in >our dispute? I am simply saying that there is a right way and a wrong way to handle such "suspicions". Right way => privately. Wrong way => publicly. If you slap someone, you should expect that they slap back... it is human nature. > > > > > >> >> >> >>> 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.
This page took 0 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.