Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 08:28:14 04/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2005 at 06:21:16, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On April 25, 2005 at 20:46:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 25, 2005 at 19:05:57, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On April 25, 2005 at 15:31:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On April 25, 2005 at 14:39:40, Rolf Tueschen 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... >>>>> >>>>>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?! >>>> >>>>Nope. When you play chess, you have to play no matter how you feel on the day >>>>of the match. Personal problems? Deal with them. Illness? play or forfeit. >>>>You simply have to play, period. And that is a part of chess. I've played >>>>tired, because I had to drive a long distance prior to the start of round 1. >>>>I've played tired because of staying up too late the night before the round. >>>>I've played with a fever. That's just a part of chess. Not a part that the >>>>computer has to deal with of course, but then computers lose due to remote power >>>>failures, or communication failures, or outright program bugs, etc... >>> >>>Of course - I agree with you. This is chess and also computerchess of machines >>>against human chessplayers if it's for a form of championship. Of course then a >>>human player would never accept 6 games in 8 days. - >>> >>>But NY 1997 between IBM/Hsu and DBII and Kasparov, that was NOT about a >>>championship. Therefore Kasparov didn't take it too seriously, simply because he >>>KNEW for sure that this machine couldn't be stronger than him. >> >>I don't know if I'd take the "not too seriously" very seriously. There was >>$1,000,000.00 at stake. Speaking only for myself, I'd take that _very_ >>seriously... :) >> >> >> >>> It was a science >>>experiment. Kasparov figured as the client from the human side, just to guaratee >>>a high level of human chess skills. Suddenly Kasparov felt confused because in >>>his opinion the machine played something strange. Kasparov demonstrated his >>>disbelief. >> >>The problem here is that nothing "strange" happened. The moves were reproduced >>by other programs, in 1997. I remember Crafty finding Be4 for example, although >>it took an overnight search on hardware of 1997 to find it. There simply was >>not anything that looked wrong to knowledgable observers. In fact, more DB >>moves were criticized during the match, although the moves were sometimes later >>found to be the best. h5 (DB was black) was one such move where later Kasparov >>said "that was the only viable try there..." >> >>I think he felt that this thing was not going to roll over like 1997 Fritz did >>when he practiced, and a loss of touch with reality led to the "OK, it can't be >>me, and the machine can't possibly be that good, after all Friedel said it was >>no better than Fritz, so they must be cheating somehow." Of course they never >>explained who could have possibly given the machine any advice, in real-time, >>when they were already playing against the strongest human around. That is >>often overlooked. Would I want to suggest a move to DB when playing Kasparov? >>Could I? Could it possibly be a move good enough to beat him? It's not even >>worth thinking about.. > >BTW thanks for all the details of your input here. I'm very thankful that I >could have this discussion with you over so many years since 1997. It was almost >like a long game in chess. Thanks to Peter Skinner who allowed to hear the radio >interview you gave fm-chess (Heisman) I have a better chance to understand you >now. Through the written speech alone this was impossible for me because I have >no sense for the melody of the American language. From my experience with >talking extensively to American students on many occasions in 1970 etc. I was >misleaden to the belief that American English is very easy to follow, because >Americans' speech is so straight forward and directed. But in our debates, also >political ones, since 1996 I observed that I had no clue of this language, in >special when it comes to disagree-modes. So, the whole debate about DB for me >was more a journey to meet Bob Hyatt. Now I know that we could continue like >this for years, but still we couldn't come to agreement over the 1997 event. > >The paragraphe above is a good example for our patt. At the time we had longer >debates about the question how DB could play even stronger chess. I remind you >of the so-called Dreihirn expert Althöfer who was convinced that even he - with >Elo 1900 or such - could make DB play better if he could interfere one or two >times during a game. Logically a GM could do that even more effectively. The >influence at crucial points of a game would improve the play even of a tactical >monster. This is because of the character of the game of chess. Humans can grasp >the overall/ general of a situation whose concreteness the machine could only >evaluate to a limited depth. You should know by now that this does not work. Just ask Karl Heinz Sontges who plays as centaur on ICC. Centaurs run even by chessmasters do not dominate non-centaur accounts. Their performance rating is not superior to the same software un-assisted. Why? Because software's advantages can also be undercut by their human operators as much as or more so than their weaknesses can be helped. As we say in the US, "it's a wash". >So, yes, if Ingo could than you could do that too! >Of course you could. Wrong, of course. The scientific data refute this clearly. > >To better understand Kasparov you must think as a chessplayer. With Friedel >Kasparov had seen that a machine can be stupid like an empty nut Any fool should have known that Friedel's software was one hundred times slower that IBM's. That is going to be one hundred times less "stupid like an empty nut". But Friedel was afflicted with the same conceit as his programmers, i.e. "DB was not stronger than my program." Such talk was foolish and ignorant. >- in certain >special situations. And from human chess it's very difficult, if not impossible, >to get a feeling for the overall strength of a machine, which is so damned dump >at times. Humans think with a tendency to "Ganzheiten", we could translate this >in "whole-nesses". A human chessplayer does know that his opponent who had shown >such and such weaknesses could never beat him in a longer game if only he >avoided to fall into a trap in a period of the game where this opponent has his >strengths. - So, if there's no doubt about the "real" dumbness of a machine, >it's not so trivial to be motivated as a human player in the same degree as he's >motivated against another strong human opponent. Above all you must not forget >the old truth that in sports you can't win reputation if you beat "weak" >opposition. - You know all this yourself and still you don't care about the >difficulties a Kasparov had to master. It's for all a difficulty in perception. >Neither the different opperators nor the machine itself can motivate the best >human chessplayer to mobilize his last ressources. Just as an idea: it can well >be that Kasparov's questioning the authenticity of the moves was a try to get >into a better motivation to fight. At least in human chess this could be an >option. Such "irrational" issues at first sight are never taken for serious in >all what you write. In your mind someone is either sane, then he doesn't use >such nonsense, or he's mad as hell, then of course you can't take him for >serious at all. With such a dualism you won't get near to sound interpretations >about Kasparov (or also Fischer). - > >After so many decades in chess yourself, you seem to be unaware of the >suspiciousness of chess itself which is a mental state of all chessplayers. Now >my little argument is simply that you can tune that vice either to the better or >worse, depending on how you behave towards such a chessplayer. I'm sure that a >few friendly words would have clarified the situation after game two. But the >team of scientists either didn't know the implications or didn't want to behave >properly as scientists. > >My position certainly requires the scientifical knowledge of all possible >factors of such a show event You ignore more scientific factors than you claim to acknowledge, as has been demonstrated before. This is due to a basic denial of the reality of Kasparov's defeat. It cannot be allowed as a matter of basic principle, so any science that shows otherwise is dismissed. The prime example of your pattern is Monty Hall. Denial of science, whilst claiming science as support. It is time you recognize your own psycholigical factors in this debate. >(called match) between machine and human >chessplayer. You are noit enough scientist if you concentrate on your machine >(plus your software) alone. You must realise the situation and all its >factors... here also your human opponent. > > > >> >> >> >> >>> Now how the team of scientists reacted? - They saw that their human >>>player was confused. "So be it!" "This is a good chance to kill the guy, the >>>scientists said. Let's offend him even further and deny him any talks at all!" - >> >>That is assuming things that are (a) not proven; (b) unprovable even today; and >>really nothing more than "dark-side speculation". Why do you assume IBM had >>dark motives here? I know the people involved. I played such a match against >>David Levy in 1984. David would tell you today that we were never "adversaries" >>in that sense of the word. We wanted to win. He wanted to win. We both played >>by the rules, and respected each other during the match. I don't believe the DB >>team were the ones to "vary" from this. After all, Kasparov took off the gloves >>first and accused them of cheating, in a public forum, leaving little chance to >>smooth things over since the Genie was already out of the bottle... >> > > >For reasons of style and language I always talked of the duties of the >scientists but if you ask me for the reasons why the team should have played >nasty, then I must correct my speech into winning ugly OR behaving with complete >unawareness of the important factors of the *whole* situation. >Now we could >discuss for months about the importance of factors... But the fact as such can't >be denied. Namely that scientists can't just do something like engineers until >the bridge does collapse and a thousand dead people have to be counted. I hope >we agree. That is the old question of trial and error. Factors which are widely >known can't be negated. The psychology of human chess is known. >So let me add naivety to dark motivations. I'm just searching for the truth. I'm >not pretending of knowing already what the truth is. > > > >> >> >> >>> >>>Now that is exactly what is incredibly stupid in my eyes. Because, first, DBII >>>wasn't stronger than Kasparov in 1997. So why should the fathers of the machine >>>attempt to beat Kasparov right now? They would beat him in the nearer future. >> >> >>You can say that all you want. But all the evidence we have is 6 games played >>in 1997. They suggest that DB was better, because DB won more games... > >In chess we also speak of losing games. That is when the winner didn't really >win. This isn't really new for you, no? > > > >> >> >> >>>But no, they played dirty and suddenly the event changed from a science thing to >>>a killing party. >> >> >>Again, a wild stretch. How did "they play dirty" when they were accused of >>cheating, a multi-billion dollar company with an impeccable reputation, and now >>they stand on the stage and are accused of cheating in front of the entire >>world? And "IBM played dirty"??? That I can't reconcile with events that >>actually happened in 1997. > >If naivety of the scientists is added, then you could probably better rethink >the situation. I'm NOT saying that they intentiously committed fraud! > >> >> >> >>>You came and assisted them: "THat is totally conform with the >>>rules of the "match"!" - Yes, fine, but what is with the science research thing? >> >> >>There were two components to this match. >> >>1. Hsu and company (not IBM company but his associates such as Murray, Hoane, >>etc) wanted to build a chess machine and beat Kasparov. That was their goal in >>life. >> >>2. IBM watched interest in computer chess over the years, and saw an >>opportunity for some publicity and public relations opportunities that would far >>exceed the potential cost of underwriting the project. The company would prefer >>to win, for the marketing advantage the free publicity would generate, but they >>were happy to play in an event that everyone cast in a positive light, to >>showcase their hardware and their interest in "tackling difficult problems with >>innovative technologies." >> >>So Hsu wanted to win. IBM wanted publicity. That's all there was to it. Oh >>yes, IBM wanted _positive_ publicity. When things turned sour, as I was talking >>with Monty on the phone, we both said "this will be the end of these no matter >>what happens." That was prophetic... > > >Overal thanks for all the historic details, Bob! The only thing here that >frieghtens me is that you never speak of factor five or six, and that is why >Kasparov was in the whole thing... > > > >> >>There was no grand scientific experiment to beat the best human with a set of >>rules you or others would like to see. For this experiment, the goal was to >>throw massive amounts of hardware at Kasparov to see if it would beat him. Not >>beat him after he had a chance to test against the thing for months. Not beat >>him after he had a chance to study games played against other opponents. Not >>beat him with any kind of boundaries on the contest. The goal was simply: >> >>"beat kasparov". >> >>Period. > > >Yes. And when I read this now I ask myself why I haven't found out earlier that >this is the crucial mistake in the whole story. They wanted to beat Kasparov, >but Kasparov never was a factor as such in the whole experimental design of the >team. Well, clocks and colors of the ceiling, yes, but not Kasparov as a human >chessplayer... And people say, well, this is all Kasparov to blame for because >he could have asked for all possible things that could have made life easier for >him during the match. People who say that completely oversee that Kasparov was >convinced like me and millions of spectators that the science team had all >factors under control. And that they wouldn't suddenly get hysterical about a >possibility to nag Kasparov as if he were a (Viet)cong in the late sixties. > > > > >> >>Later other questions might be asked, such as "could the thing play through the >>candidate's cycle and work its way up to challenge the world champion for the >>real WC title?" And so forth. But that simply wasn't the question, nor the >>rules, nor the interest at the time. Until then, the WC had _never_ lost a >>serious match against any computer. It was not expected even in 1997, although >>many of us knew that the DB box was very strong and it wouldn't take much to >>cause a human to cave in to it... But we didn't expect it to happen in 1997... >> >>Most of us had predicted this to happen somewhere after 2000... > > >Many thanks for that paragraphe here! And no irony whatsoever included from my >side. I'm so happy that you give these replenishments. Normally you avoid to add >arguments that could be used against your main position. Which is BTW in Europe >known for the judicial but NOT science scene. Also in science you occupy >yourself with the strongest and not weakest argument of your opponent. > > > >> >> >> >> >> >>>Ok, let's make suicide with DBII, let's win ugly the match and then leave >>>computerchess for good...! And Bob says (still in 2005), well, DBII was better >>>than Kasparov, just during that w2eek, probably not overall, but for the period >>>of these 6 games! >> >> >>I stand by that. Because _all_ the evidence we have supports that conclusion. >>Kasparov lost the match in 1997. Hence for that 2 week period, DB _proved_ it >>was better OTB. Didn't prove it was better than Kasparov at his best, or >>kasparov at his worst, or anything in between. Just proved itself to be better >>over those 6 games... >> >> >> >> >>> >>>Bob, you as a scientist, you can't do that. Please, don't do it. Come back to >>>science. >> >>It is the only thing any _real_ scientist could conclude, sorry... >> >>6 games is not a lot, but if you look at what we have, the games certainly don't >>prove Kasparov was better. > > >Of course the first game in 1997 did prove that DBII still wasn't the better >player. Kasparov had everything under control. That is what the chess experts do >say. > >Perhaps we delay the continuation of the debate until some news may come in from >either side. Hopefully before we must leave this playing field. > > >> That would be blatantly ignoring the actual data... >>The games don't prove DB was better than Kasparov, although there is a >>suggestion that is true. But the games _do_ prove that for that two week period >>of time, DB was better than Kasparov, whether he was at his best or not is not >>an issue...
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.