Author: chandler yergin
Date: 08:08:02 04/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2005 at 06:51:03, Tony Werten wrote: >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... >> >>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.. > >Yes, the first worldchampion to loose a match against a computer :) > >Tony > You're a Programmer, so I will excuse your naivete. Twas a hollow Victory.. Who should take great credit for running a race, when the fastest stumbles just before the finish line? >> >>Deep Blue will not.
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.