Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:16:12 04/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2005 at 10:36:07, chandler yergin wrote: >On April 24, 2005 at 22:56:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 24, 2005 at 18:59:35, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On April 24, 2005 at 15:42:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On April 24, 2005 at 13:13:22, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 10:13:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 05:14:48, Peter Berger wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 23, 2005 at 23:52:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Several of us have looked at the logs for the games, and game 2 looked perfectly >>>>>>>>normal and the program even reported a fail low and "panic time" where it >>>>>>>>searched longer than normal because of the fail low. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>This is a red herring and crap. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>When was the first time someone independent had a look at these logfiles? Have >>>>>>>you and the several others had a chance to look at the logfiles right after the >>>>>>>games took place, say May 1997? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The logfiles IBM published eventually mean nothing at all. This was more than a >>>>>>>year after the games, wasn't it? Even I could produce most impressive logfiles >>>>>>>given that much time .. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes. Several looked at the log right after the event. I believe that Ken sent >>>>>>me the section from the game although I don't remember whether it was the Qxb6 >>>>>>(not played) or the Be4 position. I believe that Amir posted something about >>>>>>the position early, but his comments were based on either not understanding what >>>>>>DB's log output meant, or something else. >>>>>> >>>>>>This was about the "fail low (panic time)" that caused DB to search much longer >>>>>>than normal and may have been on the Be4 move although I simply don't remember >>>>>>much about it since it was not a particularly significant event in my mind >>>>>>because at the time I posted an excerpt from a Crafty log that looked >>>>>>_identical_ in concept. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nothing ever looked strange about the log stuff to me... >>>>> >>>>>The point is that you explained at the time that it would cost almost no energy >>>>>to fake the output so that it looked koscher. So - what do you want to say with >>>>>the above. In truth the later outputs mean nothing in a judicially relevant >>>>>sense. The question is why they didn't discuss the thing with Kasparov in time >>>>>before the following game so that the event could have been continued as >>>>>planned. If they didn't have to hide something. >>>> >>>> >>>>OK, we go full circle. I could certainly produce a fake log to support any move >>>>that anybody would want to see Crafty play. As I said back in 1997, it is >>>>_impossible_ to prove they didn't cheat. But, the other side of the coin is >>>>that it would be possible to prove that they did, all one needs is to know the >>>>methodology or catch them in the act, or whatever. But this was never proven. >>>>In fact, no methodology for cheating was ever mentioned. Normally when you >>>>accuse someone of cheating, you state the violation clearly. "He spit on the >>>>ball". "His raquette head is too big". "His golf club face is improperly sized >>>>or weighted" and so forth. >>> >>> >>>Exactly, and that does prove at least to me that Kasparov didn't exactly accuse >>>them of chesting. How could or should he? All he did was making public his >>>astonishment, his disbelief. Wouldn't it have been ok if they had cared for him? >>>In what style or with what material they should have done this, that is a >>>different question. But why a player like Kasparov shouldn't have been allowed >>>to express his confusion? Exactly with your explanation from that time Kasparov >>>could have been given back his peace and new motivation to continue the fight. >>>Without any humiliations. And with the hope to get a valid result of the match. >>>(Perhaps I'm missing a specific lingual undertone in your messages to me, so >>>that I'm still missing your exact position in the debate, but I can't figure out >>>why it should be so difficult to get the sense of what I'm saying. Couldn't you >>>explain, why in your eyes my science argument isn't good in respect to the >>>original question of the research, namely could a machine play better than the >>>best human? Why do you throw it into the bin? Are you really believing that a >>>win, also a win with certain unfair methods, could prove anything at all?) >> >> >>As I have said before, it proved just one thing. That the human world champion >>could be beaten by a computer in a standard time-control match on that >>particular day. There are plenty of other questions that could be asked now. >>But the question back then was asked, and answered... > > >No, it shows that Kasparov 'gambled' the the Computer would retreat the Knight >on the 6th move! That's all! > He certainly wasn't outplayed at that point. That argument is stupid. I play chess. I frequently gamble that a sac will work, or that my opponent will overlook something that is difficult to see, in order to further my own game plan. If I lose, it is not because I "gambled" I lost because I lost. There are only three possible outcomes in the game of chess: win, lose or draw. There is no "lose, lose by gambling, lose because I fealt bad, lost because I blundered in a won position, or anything else." There is just "lose" This argument is completely pointless if that is your only basis for complaint... Kasparov lost the 6 game match. The history of chess doesn't include any sort of "asterisk" notation about why he lost. > >As soon as he realized he had underestimated the Program, >he knew he was lost. He had played the line himself. So? Underestimating your opponent is _your_ problem. Or in this case Kasparov's. He made the decision, it backfired. He lost the match. That's all that can be said. >He also knew the Public would be infuriated if he resigned at that point, so he >gave it his best shot. To his credit! So did General Custer. But history says he "lost".
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.