Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:00:09 01/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2000 at 11:18:11, Amir Ban wrote: >On January 19, 2000 at 10:05:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 19, 2000 at 07:52:10, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On January 18, 2000 at 23:38:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On January 18, 2000 at 22:34:08, george petty wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 18, 2000 at 21:51:54, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Let's suppose the worst. IBM decided to cheat. Now, folks like Anand and >>>>>>Karpov are not going to risk a lifetime ban by doing something illegal. So it >>>>>>would pretty much have to be a lower-eschelon player. [Well, they could have >>>>>>crammed RJF into that box, but he would have been deathly afraid of a sinister >>>>>>plot, I'm afraid -- so I think we can rule that out also]. >>>>>> >>>>>>So what are we left with? How do you cheat against the world's best player (by >>>>>>a landslide?)??? >>>>>> >>>>>>You have some lower level GM who can be tempted and yet will *never* spill the >>>>>>beans (hmm -- it seems it would take millions to do that, but what if he put the >>>>>>money in a Swiss bank account and decided to write a book... Sounds a bit risky >>>>>>doesn't it) >>>>>> >>>>>>In short the cheater theories are idiotic. It does not work. Even if you could >>>>>>somehow pull it off, you would be sneaking in some high school track star to run >>>>>>against Michael Johnson. And then taking the ENORMOUS risk that for the rest of >>>>>>his life, he would keep his mouth shut. >>>>>> >>>>>>It's ludicrous. Insanely, bizarre. I can't imagine how such a foolish >>>>>>expression can even escape the lips of any intelligent, thinking person. >>>>>> >>>>>>But forget all that, and suppose that you somehow manage to have a very clever >>>>>>human (maybe we get a 2600GM who hates GK's intestines) to participate. The >>>>>>human says "Rxb2" and the computer says "a4." Whom do you believe? The GM >>>>>>can't outplay Kasparov -- we already know that. >>>>>> >>>>>>I will admit that having a super-GM in cahoots with Deep Blue *would* make a >>>>>>stronger pair -- if you had a few months to form a workable system and a few >>>>>>hundred games. But the risk is so enormous that only a great fool would believe >>>>>>an image conscious company like IBM would try a foolhardy thing like that. >>>>>> >>>>>>In short, I lose respect for any person who says they believe in that hokey >>>>>>"conspiracy" theory. >>>>> >>>>> How you can come up with all that from my statements is FANTASTIC. Boy I >>>>> have seen people take things out of context, but I have to say this tops them >>>>> all. I have never seen so much jealousy, and no sense of fair play. No >>>>> wonder the rest of the world laughs at Americans. Don't wait for the FACTS, >>>>> just prejudge. No body was talking about "conspiracy". But you have all the >>>>> answers. NONSENSE!! I did not say I did. I say lets wait and see what the >>>>> FACTS are. Hopefully we are not trying to write fiction on this post, but >>>>> what is based on FACTS. >>>> >>>> >>>>Here are the facts: >>>> >>>>Kasparov lost to Deep Blue. >>>> >>>>Deep Blue is a computer. >>>> >>>>The DB team has been working on this since 1986. >>>> >>>>The DB machine won the Fredkin stage II prize for the first computer to produce >>>>a GM performance rating over 25 consecutive games. >>>> >>>>The log of the position questioned by Kasparov in game 2 was available within >>>>a couple of days to some of us. It made perfect sense to all but a few that >>>>wanted to cast a dark shadow on things for reasons unknown. >>>> >>>>We found _no_ moves that couldn't be reproduced by a computer given enough time >>>>to compensate for DB's huge hardware advantage. >>>> >>> >>>That's untrue, of course. >>> >>>Amir >> >> >>What is untrue? >> >>of course? >> > >"We found _no_ moves ..." etc. > >Of course, because you should know better. You were in all the discussions here >and elsewhere that failed to show what you say. > >Amir I don't remember any problems. I found Be4 after a 21 ply search that took almost 2 days. Your program found h5 that Kasparov said no program would play. I didn't (myself) spend a lot of time on axb5 but didn't see anything remarkable about that.... So what strange move can't we explain or produce?
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.