Author: Lar Mader
Date: 08:17:24 04/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2005 at 19:20:22, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On April 26, 2005 at 18:13:31, chandler yergin wrote: > >>On April 26, 2005 at 17:09:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 26, 2005 at 16:49:48, chandler yergin wrote: >>> >>>>On April 26, 2005 at 16:39:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 26, 2005 at 16:01:57, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>> >>>>><big snip> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>You really don't believe this? >>>>>>"No contemporary writer can give an accurate view of anything." >>>>>> >>>>>>"Only long after purported events as information is accumulated, and >>>>>>the Historians assimilate the totality of the evidence, can a more accurate >>>>>>picture of what really happpened be provided." >>>>>> >>>>>>"This is true for War.. Politics, Stock Market, Religious thought, >>>>>>and 'Cultural' events." >>>>>> >>>>>>Then not only am I surprised, I'm appalled. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>The be appalled. I want to know what actually happened. Now what someone >>>>>"thought" happened based on speculation, conjecture, rumor, fantasy, etc. >>>>> >>>>>History is a precisely recorded enumeration of events as they happen. With no >>>>>"interpretation" or "justification" built in. What you are wanting is "not" >>>>>history. >>>>> >>>>>I can figure out what happened by reading an accurate report about Little Big >>>>>Horn, or the Alamo. I don't need any "interpretation" or "spin" thrown in to >>>>>confuse things. Just an exact account of events. That is history. >>>> >>>>What are 'accurate reports' without the totality of the evidence, and all >>>>viewpoints considered? >>>> >>>>Would you want to be on a Jury deciding life & death, without considering all >>>>the evidence. >>>> >>>>I don't think so. >>>>If so.. I wouldn't want you on my Jury.. regardless od what I was indicted for. >>>> >>>>I can't seriously you believe what you are saying Bob. >>> >>> >>>There are no "viewpoints" in history. >> >>Nonsense! >> >> >>> That is what you are missing. >> >> >>No, you are missing it. >> >> >>>"viewpoints" are opinion. There is no opinion in history. History is just a >>>factual recording of events as they take place, no opinion, no speculation, no >>>nothing. A video-tape of an automobile wreck is a perfect example. I don't >>>want _your_ opinion as to who was at fault, I want accurately recorded data that >>>I can use to make up my own mind about what I think about the event... >>> >>>Your jury analogy is _not_ valid. Evidence is factual only. Which is >>>historical in content. I don't care what you think, what you thought you saw, >>>what you conjecture happened, etc. As a jurist (and yes I have served multiple >>>times) I care only about facts. That is what a jury does, "finding facts". No >>>room for "opinion" or anything else in the jury room. >> >>Nor should there be. >> >>The "totality" of the evidence is what should determine a verdict. >> >>Until all the evidence is in, conclusions should not be drawn. >> >>That is my opinon and I stick with it. > > >You both used a language I wouldn't support, but in that specific problem I >agree with Chandler. It is very clear that Bob is making a judgement on a >limited view on the whole topic. In that limited perception Bob is absolutely >right, but if one is opening an overall, more whole view on the 1997 event, Bob >is wrong. By all means Bob wants to underestimate the importance of the human >client for the design Hsu et al had created. > >In this light Bob always wants to insinuate that this was "just" a sports event, >a match. In reality the event was a mutual attempt to evaluate the chess >capacities of DBII. It's trivial that if Kasparov was disturbed for playing his >usual chess, that the whole event was spoiled and the result was meaningless. In >the eyes of Bob Hyatt a game of chess is always of the same quality, no matter >if it's played for the Wch, during simultaneous exhibitions, in show matches or >in skittles in chess cafés or on tables in NY Central Park... The perception is >that Kasparov is _always_ playing the same quality of chess. So, under that >perspective it wouldn't really matter much how the IBM team treated Kasparov in >the show event. > >It's also reveiling a lot if you read Fernando's message. He's no less than a >sociologist from Chile. For him someone who's asking questions during a >show/research event must be paranoid. That is the level how we discuss things >here in CCC. If the best chessplayer of the time asks suspicious questions in >computerchess, he must be mad...! Something is going wrong here. 0) I think Rolf has described the crux of the issue nicely here. There are 2 possible positions on the event: (a) If your expectation for the event was some sort of fair and controlled scientific experiment, then reasonable people might argue that the event was unfair. (b) If, on the other hand, you thing that the event was a "match", in the competitive sense, then clearly it was quite normal. BTW, Let's leave out the idea that there was actual cheating (human intervention) as it is unprovable, unknowable, not supported by fact, and basically boils down to conspiracy theory without evidence. 1) It is unreasonable to take position (a) above, that this was supposed to be a fair controlled experiment. It was by every definition and action a chess match, with large sums of money involved, with clear upfront rules that defined an extremely competitive environment. There has never been a chess match before that _wasn't_ of this nature, and psyching out your opponent is part of chess. Kasparov happens to employ this effectively against other humans. Why would this be different? You are getting confused by the fact that scientists built the machine, and therefore by extension projecting some requirements for fair science on the match. This, btw, was not part of the rules agreed upon. Where in the rules is there _any_ mention of the needs of science here? In fact, if this was the case, eveything about the match would have been conducted differently. For example, they would have ensured much more rest between games for the human, or at least provided the option for such a thing should the human feel the need _in_the_rules_. You guys need to take a step back and let all of this sink in. Here's a quote from Rolf above: >In the eyes of Bob Hyatt a game of chess is always of the same quality, >no matter if it's played for the Wch, during simultaneous exhibitions, >in show matches or in skittles in chess cafés or on tables in NY Central >Park... The perception is that Kasparov is _always_ playing the same >quality of chess. 2) Bob certainly doesn't think that Kasparov is _always_ playing the same level of chess no matter what the circumstances of conditions, and he has clearly said so. Bob simply considers this point somewhat irrelevant to the claims of unfairness, as he ascribes to position (b) above. Here is a quote from Bob acknowledging that human frailties are indeed a problem for the quality of human play: >>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... It is truly disingenous for Rolf to say Bob thinks all human chess play is the same quality, as it is painfully obvious that he repeatedly _does_not_. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on the planet that thinks humans always perform at the same level. Again, what is wrong with you? Let's think about that for a moment. Frankly there is a _lot_ of this kind of misrepresentation going on in these threads by Rolf and chandler? Are you guys really interested in the discussion, or just arguing to piss people off? Seeing so much of this stuff, one has to wonder if you you are either intentionally dishonest or mentally ill. Your credibility suffers with this kind of thing, and overtime leads one to conclude that there really is something wrong with you. 3) I don't think this is really germaine to the discussion, but I'd like to address this discussion on history. The kind of objective history that Bob describes is somewhat ideal, and rarely exists in the real world. The problem is that for just about any event, the "facts" about what happened may be in dispute, may be incomplete, human observers are fallible, human memory is fallible, etc. If we had complete, provably unedited video footage of all events from several angles, along with audio, etc, perhaps we could say that there is a one true history, but even then there will be disputes about the "facts". The world, humans, observation, events, etc... are complex things, and the idea the we can have perfect history is _usually_ not achievable. That being said, all one can do is attempt to gather the objective facts such as the are, and deal with any conflicting versions of events as they may come up. However, in this DB event, there really aren't any disputes about the facts. Everyone agrees on what happened, the computer _appeared_ to make some moves that Kasparov was surprised by. Now saying that the computer didn't _really_ play these moves and that someone intervened, this is where we reach the edge of the factual data available. Unless someone admits to cheating, or is somehow caught, there is no way to know. This part of history can't be proven. But again, it is also important to note that there is no evidence to support this claim, and therefore it must be dismissed until there is. -= Lar
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.