Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:39:40 04/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
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... I disagree. That wasn't proven at all. If you psyche out a human chessplayer with denying talks then you can't claim that your chess was better and therefore you've beaten him. This is impossible to conclude at least in my books. Remember that we are talking about machine vs human chessplayer chess, we are NOT talking about normal chess. Of course there the psychology is part of the game. But NOT between machines and humans. Why? Because machines have no psychology and a team of human operators is making the psycho job. Which is fair enough in championships but NOT in science events... Simple, no?!
This page took 0.02 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.