Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Kasparov [HBR interview] : 'IBM committed a crime against science.'

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 10:55:19 04/28/05

Go up one level in this thread


On April 28, 2005 at 12:10:05, Rolf Tueschen wrote:

>On April 28, 2005 at 11:09:05, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On April 28, 2005 at 06:55:43, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>
>>>On April 27, 2005 at 22:07:31, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>On April 27, 2005 at 18:16:57, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On April 27, 2005 at 17:48:53, Matthew Hull wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On April 27, 2005 at 17:05:21, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On April 26, 2005 at 15:59:11, Steven Edwards wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm sure that issue was covered in the match contract.  In computer chess events
>>>>>>>>for nearly three decades prior to the event, adjustments made between games were
>>>>>>>>permitted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And this is the cancer that destroys honest computer vs human chess.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Kasparov knew what he was doing, particularly in the second match
>>>>>>>>after his experience with the first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Interesting to write what Kasparov knew. We should better deal with what the
>>>>>>>computerchess people knew. Apparently they didn't really know what they are
>>>>>>>doing. And that for decades already. Ok, humans never really cared that much
>>>>>>>because the overall chess emulation wasn't strong enough to be considered for
>>>>>>>serious. But if compuerchess is propagating the superiority over human chess
>>>>>>>things should be clarified a bit...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Kasparov is being a sore loser and is unhappy because he didn't get a third
>>>>>>>>match and the money that would have come with it.  He's appears to be trying to
>>>>>>>>help draw attention to himself for his political asperations that have nothing
>>>>>>>>to do with chess, and he's making Valdimir Putin look good by comparison.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For sure Kasparov isn't a sore loser when it was Hsu&IBM who deconstructed the
>>>>>>>machine so that no further tests could be made. Scientifically this is a crime
>>>>>>>(that is what Kasparov is saying in the quoted interview). Whith whom Kasparov
>>>>>>>should have made a third match? With people who betray their own science?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Unfair.  It was not Hsu decision to "deconstruct" the machine.  But you blame
>>>>>>him anyway.  Why do you do this?  It is completely unfair.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You use this to claim Hsu cheated science.  But your claim is bogus because Hsu
>>>>>>had NO CONTROL over that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You make me laugh and shed tears. A scientist who has no control over his
>>>>>science is no scientist! A scientist who sold his moral to economy has lost his
>>>>>status of scientist. This is so trivial and sad to know that this could happen
>>>>>in our field of computerchess.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Then I guess _none_ of us are "scientists".  After we won the 1983 and 1986 WCCC
>>>>events running on a cray, the machines were taken apart and shipped to
>>>>customers.  I could not have used them again.  Ditto for every year we ran on a
>>>>Cray.  The CCT before last, where I used the 4-opteron box from AMD was the
>>>>same, the machine was gone a week after the event.
>>>>
>>>>This is _very_ common, and is _not_ "unscientific" in the least...
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's understandable but still it's false. You always confuse mere computerchess
>>>events with computerchess vs human chess! I see that you are not prepared for
>>>real competition between computers and Man. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>I have played several computer vs human matches.  Machine was shipped right
>>after we finished the Levy match.  We played 2 games against Van den Sterren (I
>>am not sure that is spelled right and am not at office where paperwork would
>>give it correctly) and again the machine was torn down and shipped right after
>>the match ended.  This is _normal_ when using big iron that is valuable..
>
>I believe you. But the difference is that in your case there wasn't the science
>propaganda for the ultimate test Man or Machine...

Sorry, but there was.  If you remember the Levy Challenge that dated back to
1970, where he bet $10,000 that no computer would beat him in a match over the
next 10 years, and which he later extended for at least another 5 years, this is
the match I played against him in 1984.  There was money at stake.  He defined
the match rules just as Kasparov did.  Etc.  It was publicized everywhere in
computer literature, just as each of his matches (Levy) were publicized...




>Here Kasparov had questions
>and Hsu and his team didn't want to clarify things. Ok IBM made the decisions
>but it's Hsu who must live with the bad reputation now.

To those that "count" (his peers) Hsu has _no_ "bad reputation."



> No idea if Kasparov
>asked because he knew that Hsu no longer had the power over the ressources - but
>that is also Hsu's problem. - For Kasparov the show was finished after game two.
>He couldn't stop playing because that would have cost him all the fee. But he
>stopped playing his usual chess. And in game six he made that as clear as
>possible. In your case, Bob, that was just a match. Just a little event to see
>what would happen. At the end of the fun-era of computerchess. Without the
>public interest of 1997. - Bob let's make an honorable draw, because you can't
>win this debate. And I must admit that I can't convince the dickhead of yours
>either... :)

Sorry, but the debate has already been won.  :)  Only a very small minority hold
your view that Kasparov was "cheated" in any form.





>
>(Again, I like the music and accent of your speech and would prefer to hear you
>explain thhings over the air...)
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Give it up, Rolf.  You can't fool anybody with such poor logic built upon false
>>>>>>premises.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That
>>>>>>>Kasparov is not a politician, this is a different question. I would agree! He's
>>>>>>>not.



This page took 0.01 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.