Author: Tony Werten
Date: 01:54:58 04/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2005 at 11:08:02, chandler yergin wrote: >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? If this "faster" persoon stumbled out of arrogance or looking over his shoulder too much where the other was running or had a belly-ache, he can later start a discussion about wether he should have lost or not. He can not discuss wether he lost or not. He did. Tony >>> >>>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.