Author: chandler yergin
Date: 14:08:17 04/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2005 at 14:28:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 25, 2005 at 11:24:19, chandler yergin wrote: > >>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. > >So what? Spasky could claim that when he lost to Fischer in 1972. "He didn't >beat me, I beat myself." Any chessplayer could claim that. But it doesn't >matter. What matters is who won... that is all that matters... > > > > >> >>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? > >Sam Houston, Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone, etc. are all remembered as "losing at >the Alamo." > >Brave fight to the end. But they lost. > > >> >>Kasparov is remembered.. Deep Blue is dust.. > > >Deep Blue is remembered. Yes... as the Copout that would not play a "Rubber Match" to decide who really plays better.. You know.. the American Spirit of Fair Play? Just ask anyone on the street. Yes... they have the same opinion I do. More remember that >event than any other single chess event, period. And.. they remember it for what it was .. an 'exibition'; like wrestling..
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.