Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:59:22 10/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 1999 at 05:48:37, Ed Schröder wrote: >>Posted by Robert Hyatt on October 17, 1999 at 09:53:55: > >>>>I was thinking about your tremendous envy of the DB project. You have taken >>>>every chance possible to 'do them in'. from your mistaken statements about >>>>their output, to whatever. >>> >>>I can't remember any "mistaken statements" from Amir regarding DB. >>> >>>>your loss, not mine... >>> >>>Come on, some of us are just curious, don't confuse that with envy. >>> >>>Ed >> >> >>How about this: "this output looks suspicious and really needs an explanation >>by IBM" after he had been told _exactly_ how normal this output looked. I >>even posted _identical_ output from Crafty that showed exactly the same kind of >>'panic time usage'. > >The subject wasn't about panic time. The subject was about the DB main-line >showing a 3 x pawn sacrifice for a king attack and still having a good score. >That and that only made Kasparov suspicious and things started. Kasparov just >could not believe a computer was able to come up with such a strong and >very human-like play. As far as I remember Amir's interest was in other programs >views (analysis) of the move in question. No it wasn't, but a long stretch. Amir claimed that IBM's program showed one move in the PV, but played _another_ move after a long (and unexplained) delay. And that it played this move without ever having shown that this move should be a PV, and that it played the move without using all the time that the panic time announcement said it would use. In short, that it looked like a human overrode the machine. You can find all of this in r.g.c.c quite easily. I went thru the output line-by-line, and explained _exactly_ what was going on because (to me) the output was messy but perfectly logical and understandable. Unless you don't _want_ it to be understandable. > >>After a year of talking about this, with many explaining that the output was >>not 'unusualy' (just not well-formatted) he gave up on it. > >All thing ends. At some point everything is just said, no need to repeat >statements. It doesn't mean he gave up. I agree... he still has never chosen to publicly say "OK.. this output does make sense and doesn't, in any way, imply wrongdoing. That is exactly the way Berliner responded after the 'cheating' investigation in 1986. And earns the exact same disdain from me. DB was the product of an amazing group of people working on it. Kasparov was the product of poor upbringing. Trying to intentionally mar their accomplishment was ridiculous. > >>There was his demand that IBM drop the "Junior" in "Deep Blue Junior". > >I would say if Amir was first with the name "Junior" he has every right to >complain. > "Junior" is not a valid name in the US. "Junior" means "same name as father, only one generation younger" here. We have _many_ products with "junior" in their name for this reason. If they had only called their program Junior, I would agree. But "Deep Blue Junior" is obviously not going to be confused with a program named Junior. Or would you like me to introduce you to an old American Automobile manufacturer that made a car named "Rebel"?? In the 60's. >Ed > >>As for curious, asking questions is one thing that a curious person would >>do. I don't recall your making the kind of statements he has made.
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.