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 0.01 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.