Author: chandler yergin
Date: 08:24:19 04/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2005 at 11:16:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Yes, he lost.. but not by the genius of a computer! By his own fraility as a human. History will record that also. > > > >>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". So did the ones at the Alamo lose.. Who is remembered? Kasparov is remembered.. Deep Blue is dust..
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.