Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:35:49 04/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2005 at 17:08:17, chandler yergin wrote: >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. Nope. Because your opinion is warped by things I don't understand. I play someone in a tennis match. I lose. I play them again next year. I win, and they accuse me of cheating. There will be _no_ "rubber match" the following year. For obvious reasons. That _really_ is not so hard for most to understand. Why you don't get it is beyond me... > > > 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.