Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:49:15 04/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2005 at 16:46:15, chandler yergin wrote: >On April 25, 2005 at 12:13:36, Uri Blass 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. > >As soon as he realized he had underestimated the Program, >he knew he was lost. He had played the line himself. > >>No >>Kasparov lost because he did not play well later. > > >He played for the audience... > >If you were at a Boxing match, and the contender knocked out the Champion >in the first 10 seconds of the 1st round... and you paid $200 for your ticket, >how would you feel? >Cheated? >Of course... That is pure unadulterated crap. How many 10 move "GM draws" have we seen over the years? Do you _really_ think a GM will play on just because the audience wants it? you _really_ need to come back to reality. > >The Public wants a contest... > >> >>>He also knew the Public would be infuriated if he resigned at that point, so he >>>gave it his best shot. To his credit! >> >>No > >YES! >> >>There is certainly no reason to lose the game so fast like Kasparov did. > >What don't you understand about this Uri? >"Kasparov 'gambled' the the Computer would retreat the Knight >on the 6th move! That's all! > He certainly wasn't outplayed at that point." > >As soon as he realized he had underestimated the Program, >he knew he was lost. He had played the line himself. > >Get real! >You know hindsight is great... > > > >> >>Here is the game >> >>[Event "New York man vs machine"] >>[Site "New York"] >>[Date "1997.05.??"] >>[Round "6"] >>[White "Comp Deep Blue"] >>[Black "Kasparov, Garry"] >>[Result "1-0"] >>[PlyCount "37"] >>[EventDate "1997.??.??"] >> >>1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Ng5 Ngf6 6. Bd3 e6 7. N1f3 h6 8. >>Nxe6 Qe7 9. O-O fxe6 10. Bg6+ Kd8 11. Bf4 b5 12. a4 Bb7 13. Re1 Nd5 14. Bg3 Kc8 >>15. axb5 cxb5 16. Qd3 Bc6 17. Bf5 exf5 18. Rxe7 Bxe7 19. c4 1-0 >> >>I think that there was no reason to play 16...Bc6 and 16...Nc7 is better. >> >>White has a better position at that point but there is no reason that white will >>win so fast. >> >>Kasparov did a lot of mistakes in the game >>8...Qe7 is not considered to be the best move by theory. >> >> >>Uri > > >Seems like you have a bias against Kasparov too. >How sad.. > >He's the greatest, and will be rememered.. > >Deep Blue will not. Deep Blue already is in every AI book published. It probably always will be.
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.