Kasparov was in fact psychologically cheated in 1997

[Rolf]

Please go watch the video of a 2 hrs conference at the computerchess museum in 2005. With Newborn, Campbell, Feigenbaum, McCarthy and Levy. The video can be got on Frayer computerchess page.

From this video material I can show you why Kasparov was cheated bei the Campbell IBM team.

First of all a telling detail: Ken Thompson wasnt attending the conference. IMO for good reasons because only this way he could protest against the unfairness of IBM and not violating his own contract, because he was part of the gamble when asked in the end if the output was kosher and he reported that 'he' hasnt seen something odd. But he knew that Kasparov as a human player of chess was cheated.

In this video you can watch several VIP of computer sciences also mentioning the IBM match. And the top moment came when Monty Newborn asked David Levy, as alleged super expert with neutrality, if Kasparov 'lost', yes he kind of lost, but did IBM really win or was it something else? (Let me inform you that for me in particular it's now a no win situation when I criticise Levy because it's the same with Obama criticising anything of Palin when the Republicans will automatically claim Obama is a sexist. You cant avoid that trap in public because the crowd doesnt understand why the reaction is completely unfair towards Obama.)

David Levy reported the situation in the match as follows:

Kasparov won the first game and he was convinced that the machine couldnt be better than the last one. But then the second game. With opening that is known to produce a slow development of the game and computers were thought for being unable to play this well enough.

Then the position of Kasparov went worse and worse. But also another thing happened, Deep 'Blue played some moves so that Kasparov was confused bei the feeling of playing against God. And then he collapsed psychologically. Now after such an event you simply cant play your best chess. And after game 5 Kasparov was outdrained. Anhd the match was over. So, it was a genuine loss.

Later in the questioning to the panel an elderly man stated that Kasparov as a human player was completely diadvantaged psychologically because he didnt know a history of that particular machine. He asked that to Campbell and he replied this way and now watch his reasoning exaqctly because it proves the cheat:

Murray Campbell didnt answer on the description about Kasparov and the opponent but he began to elaborate that they hadnt created a chess machine against Kasparov but one that just was made to play chess. And nobody stood up and shouted *All big lies!*. Because then the statements of GM Benjamin about his preparation wouldnt make sense. But secondly it's all a cheat because if you take an opponent like Kasparov with his fame and class and irritate him, psych him out then you have no longer a 2900 chess player but someone who sees ghosts. And that was what happened.

Of course it wasnt mentioned on that conference that the crucial point had been the question of the authenticity of the output and this in a direct time connection with the events. Not weeks or days later because that was always consent between Bob and me then you could make up anything you wanted.

The DB IBM team claimed that they played a Kasparov the best player on Earth. But in truth they played a frightened mouse called K.

Now you have the whole picture: the sole eyewitness was absent, Levy who twisted the reason for Kasparov's shock in the game, when the reason was simply that the team denied Kasparov a direct approach to the data. Reason, also repeated by Bob, that also in human chess you dont get feedback about your opponents ideas or preparation. Now this is absolute terror situation for Kasparov who thought he were ther absolute master against a machine, what Bob belaughed anyway, but this isnt important because for a chessplayer the delusion is the reason for his self-confidence.

But that aspect wasnt discussed at all in that conference. So with a single exception all thes computer experts were reasoning and thinking without really understanding the human factor here for example of chess play. Now in the match situation that absence led to unfair and cheating behaviour against the allegedly most wanted and highly appreciated human opponent. Which, this can be said now was all lies. Because they could have done it like they did but then they should have informed Kasparov that they would now also play dirty without respecting him as the after all best player on the scene including DB.

Look at Murray Campbell and how he answers the one who had asked the question and look at his nicking his head without continuing to speak. That all reveils to me that he knows well what he had done in 1997.

The whole atmosphere was spooky when the two main chess people Campbell and Levy gotr the loudest applause in the beginning which shows how troublede the American perspective is on the whole computerchess event. Only we in Europe saw what was really going on there. And the now late German GM Unzicker spoke it out in his first analyses about the games.

Let me end this with a repeating of the main cheat:

Q.: wasnt K. psychologically disadvantaged because of the lacking history?

A.: no, we had created DB NOT specifically against K. but only for a chessplaying machine-

That is simply not believable. And it doesnt make sense. Because it' not answering the question truly. Because DB isnt a human player anyway. But he used human books... He got human coaching. And what else?

Excuse typos if any.

[chrisw]

One needs to moderate the sayings of the so-called experts after this match, because these same experts were the ones who did then and would in the future be the negotiators for substantial commission for that and possible future matches. One needs to consider what and how much they say and don't say as a possible maneouvring for the future.

Please go watch the video of a 2 hrs conference at the computerchess museum in 2005. With Newborn, Campbell, Feigenbaum, McCarthy and Levy. The video can be got on Frayer computerchess page.

From this video material I can show you why Kasparov was cheated bei the Campbell IBM team.

First of all a telling detail: Ken Thompson wasnt attending the conference. IMO for good reasons because only this way he could protest against the unfairness of IBM and not violating his own contract, because he was part of the gamble when asked in the end if the output was kosher and he reported that 'he' hasnt seen something odd. But he knew that Kasparov as a human player of chess was cheated.

In this video you can watch several VIP of computer sciences also mentioning the IBM match. And the top moment came when Monty Newborn asked David Levy, as alleged super expert with neutrality, if Kasparov 'lost', yes he kind of lost, but did IBM really win or was it something else? (Let me inform you that for me in particular it's now a no win situation when I criticise Levy because it's the same with Obama criticising anything of Palin when the Republicans will automatically claim Obama is a sexist. You cant avoid that trap in public because the crowd doesnt understand why the reaction is completely unfair towards Obama.)

David Levy reported the situation in the match as follows:

Kasparov won the first game and he was convinced that the machine couldnt be better than the last one. But then the second game. With opening that is known to produce a slow development of the game and computers were thought for being unable to play this well enough.

Then the position of Kasparov went worse and worse. But also another thing happened, Deep 'Blue played some moves so that Kasparov was confused bei the feeling of playing against God. And then he collapsed psychologically. Now after such an event you simply cant play your best chess. And after game 5 Kasparov was outdrained. Anhd the match was over. So, it was a genuine loss.

Later in the questioning to the panel an elderly man stated that Kasparov as a human player was completely diadvantaged psychologically because he didnt know a history of that particular machine. He asked that to Campbell and he replied this way and now watch his reasoning exaqctly because it proves the cheat:

Murray Campbell didnt answer on the description about Kasparov and the opponent but he began to elaborate that they hadnt created a chess machine against Kasparov but one that just was made to play chess. And nobody stood up and shouted *All big lies!*. Because then the statements of GM Benjamin about his preparation wouldnt make sense. But secondly it's all a cheat because if you take an opponent like Kasparov with his fame and class and irritate him, psych him out then you have no longer a 2900 chess player but someone who sees ghosts. And that was what happened.

Of course it wasnt mentioned on that conference that the crucial point had been the question of the authenticity of the output and this in a direct time connection with the events. Not weeks or days later because that was always consent between Bob and me then you could make up anything you wanted.

The DB IBM team claimed that they played a Kasparov the best player on Earth. But in truth they played a frightened mouse called K.

Now you have the whole picture: the sole eyewitness was absent, Levy who twisted the reason for Kasparov's shock in the game, when the reason was simply that the team denied Kasparov a direct approach to the data. Reason, also repeated by Bob, that also in human chess you dont get feedback about your opponents ideas or preparation. Now this is absolute terror situation for Kasparov who thought he were ther absolute master against a machine, what Bob belaughed anyway, but this isnt important because for a chessplayer the delusion is the reason for his self-confidence.

But that aspect wasnt discussed at all in that conference. So with a single exception all thes computer experts were reasoning and thinking without really understanding the human factor here for example of chess play. Now in the match situation that absence led to unfair and cheating behaviour against the allegedly most wanted and highly appreciated human opponent. Which, this can be said now was all lies. Because they could have done it like they did but then they should have informed Kasparov that they would now also play dirty without respecting him as the after all best player on the scene including DB.

Look at Murray Campbell and how he answers the one who had asked the question and look at his nicking his head without continuing to speak. That all reveils to me that he knows well what he had done in 1997.

The whole atmosphere was spooky when the two main chess people Campbell and Levy gotr the loudest applause in the beginning which shows how troublede the American perspective is on the whole computerchess event. Only we in Europe saw what was really going on there. And the now late German GM Unzicker spoke it out in his first analyses about the games.

Let me end this with a repeating of the main cheat:

Q.: wasnt K. psychologically disadvantaged because of the lacking history?

A.: no, we had created DB NOT specifically against K. but only for a chessplaying machine-

That is simply not believable. And it doesnt make sense. Because it' not answering the question truly. Because DB isnt a human player anyway. But he used human books... He got human coaching. And what else?

Excuse typos if any.

[Rolf]

One needs to moderate the sayings of the so-called experts after this match, because these same experts were the ones who did then and would in the future be the negotiators for substantial commission for that and possible future matches. One needs to consider what and how much they say and don't say as a possible maneouvring for the future.

Then the surprising expressing his question to Levy Monty at least let slip out the possible and factual scientific criticism against the DB team. Surprising because he was the organiser of that match if I got this right. At least in pre-stages. Bob or Chris?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I still can't see how Kasparov was cheated,psyched,etc....
You say DB started to play moves that makes the impression that you are playing against God....then Kasparov went down psychologically
I don't see any reasonable evidence of your claims,you are confessed with a fix idea about this match and trying hard to confess us....
Sorry,I don't buy any of this stuff....

[Rolf]

I still can't see how Kasparov was cheated,psyched,etc....
You say DB started to play moves that makes the impression that you are playing against God....then Kasparov went down psychologically
I don't see any reasonable evidence of your claims,you are confessed with a fix idea about this match and trying hard to confess us....
Sorry,I don't buy any of this stuff....

You misread. That was from Levy not me. Levy didnt lie. At first K. got suspicions but then this was all what Levy mentioned. In truth the story goes on. K. asked the team for the output because, as he saif, that wasnt possible to play this way for a machine. But they roughly declined to show anything. THAT was the reason why K. lost his fighting spirit. He had lost his whole motivation in a superior sense in defending mankind. s he saw it. Then it was only a money thing for his mother and him. But it was no longer the prior match situation.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I still can't see how Kasparov was cheated,psyched,etc....
You say DB started to play moves that makes the impression that you are playing against God....then Kasparov went down psychologically
I don't see any reasonable evidence of your claims,you are confessed with a fix idea about this match and trying hard to confess us....
Sorry,I don't buy any of this stuff....

You misread. That was from Levy not me. Levy didnt lie. At first K. got suspicions but then this was all what Levy mentioned. In truth the story goes on. K. asked the team for the output because, as he saif, that wasnt possible to play this way for a machine. But they roughly declined to show anything. THAT was the reason why K. lost his fighting spirit. He had lost his whole motivation in a superior sense in defending mankind. s he saw it. Then it was only a money thing for his mother and him. But it was no longer the prior match situation.

I am aware of this issue....he even accused the IBM team that he,Kasparov,is actualy playing against a group of grandmasters....

[dj]

I still can't see how Kasparov was cheated,psyched,etc....
You say DB started to play moves that makes the impression that you are playing against God....then Kasparov went down psychologically
I don't see any reasonable evidence of your claims,you are confessed with a fix idea about this match and trying hard to confess us....
Sorry,I don't buy any of this stuff....

You misread. That was from Levy not me. Levy didnt lie. At first K. got suspicions but then this was all what Levy mentioned. In truth the story goes on. K. asked the team for the output because, as he saif, that wasnt possible to play this way for a machine. But they roughly declined to show anything. THAT was the reason why K. lost his fighting spirit. He had lost his whole motivation in a superior sense in defending mankind. s he saw it. Then it was only a money thing for his mother and him. But it was no longer the prior match situation.

The key issue is whether during the long pause (one hour I think) in the second game there was human intervention. That is what Kasparov believed (and as the greatest ever player he speaks with more authority than most) and why he demanded to immediately see the records of Deep Blue's evaluations - something that was refused, as was all access to the computer. He never recovered from that strange second game and was not helped by the lack of rest days. Evaluations were, I believe, released years later but by then they could have been "cooked". That is why in the abortive Rybka-Junior match it was proposed that the engines' evaluations would be handed to the arbiter the moment every game concluded. You are, of course, correct in saying that there is a strong suspicion that Kasparov was "cheated" but no doubt we shall never know the truth. What we do know is the IBM's shares went up by 16% following the match, so the result was very profitable for some people.

Btw it is not true to say (as you do) that any criticism Obama makes of Palin is construed as sexist - only when he says things such as putting lipstick on a pig. Obama claimed that he was not alluding to Palin but I listened to that speech and that it was obvious everybody in the audience immediately made the connection. One could hear the mass intake of breath. Obama is either disengenuous or stupid. Obama spent months attacking Hillary Clinton but was not accused of sexism for so doing. Please learn more effective psychology. Read a good book on the subject.

[Rolf]

I still can't see how Kasparov was cheated,psyched,etc....
You say DB started to play moves that makes the impression that you are playing against God....then Kasparov went down psychologically
I don't see any reasonable evidence of your claims,you are confessed with a fix idea about this match and trying hard to confess us....
Sorry,I don't buy any of this stuff....

You misread. That was from Levy not me. Levy didnt lie. At first K. got suspicions but then this was all what Levy mentioned. In truth the story goes on. K. asked the team for the output because, as he saif, that wasnt possible to play this way for a machine. But they roughly declined to show anything. THAT was the reason why K. lost his fighting spirit. He had lost his whole motivation in a superior sense in defending mankind. s he saw it. Then it was only a money thing for his mother and him. But it was no longer the prior match situation.

The key issue is whether during the long pause (one hour I think) in the second game there was human intervention. That is what Kasparov believed (and as the greatest ever player he speaks with more authority than most) and why he demanded to immediately see the records of Deep Blue's evaluations - something that was refused, as was all access to the computer. He never recovered from that strange second game and was not helped by the lack of rest days. Evaluations were, I believe, released years later but by then they could have been "cooked". That is why in the abortive Rybka-Junior match it was proposed that the engines' evaluations would be handed to the arbiter the moment every game concluded. You are, of course, correct in saying that there is a strong suspicion that Kasparov was "cheated" but no doubt we shall never know the truth. What we do know is the IBM's shares went up by 16% following the match, so the result was very profitable for some people.

Btw it is not true to say (as you do) that any criticism Obama makes of Palin is construed as sexist - only when he says things such as putting lipstick on a pig. Obama claimed that he was not alluding to Palin but I listened to that speech and that it was obvious everybody in the audience immediately made the connection. One could hear the mass intake of breath. Obama is either disengenuous or stupid. Obama spent months attacking Hillary Clinton but was not accused of sexism for so doing. Please learn more effective psychology. Read a good book on the subject.

The info I got from press media.

[adams161]

I think you need to better define what you mean by cheating. I read your original post looking for definite things that matched what I understood to be cheating ( a violation of rules ) and couldnt find anything in your original post.

You mentioned something like they werent playing a world champion but in stead a scared 5 year old or something. Well i think everyone uses psychology that is part of the game. The computer doesnt have to output oh great kasparov i'm so glad your playing me after each move. the computer doesnt have to say "oh mr kasparov i wouldnt want to play an opening you are not prepared for so pick one of these three".

Your notion of fair play and respect and bringing out the best in your opponent is not neccesarily related to what 'cheating' actually means. Cheating means breaking the rules.

Now there is some dispute if the machine ( deep blue ) ever received some human help. If it did this would be cheating.

Reasonable people can say that the match conditions were probably weighted against kasparov. He couldnt see the analisis, he couldnt see a history of its games. He was allowed no practice games. He had no rest days. but what i think happened here was kasparov after crushing deep blue 1, just didnt see this as a serious opponent and didnt make the kind of demands he should of. I think he saw it as a recreational publicity stunt and something he could just go into and enjoy easy success.

In subsequent matches such as the kramnik fritz that happened maybe 3 years later, people make much more demands. Kasparov taught us you dont just walk in and say i'm here lets play.

But wether the match is fair and wether kasparov could play at his best are distinct from the issue of 'cheating' and if illegal vilations of the rules occured.

Mike

[Rolf]

You are absolutely right with your arguments. Since you asked let me explain that the cheating is against the eternal rules of science. And I posted my views again because I was shocked how low this was discussed in the presence of some hundred scientists. Only Monty asked a somewhat intriguing question but Levy declined and for me he isnt the scientist to tell anyway. Bob also always made the wrong argument that Kasparov if he had wanted could have written anything he wanted into the contract but he didnt... But my argument means that if you have a longtime project outg of computer sciences, you must respect these rules how you treat your chess opponent. Impolite behavior spoils the show because the human cant play his best chess. This is well known among chess players.

Look, Campbell had shown the refutation himself. He said they created a chess player. For the chess alone. Fine, but if you then psyche out the human player you cant even say why you've won in case you did. I'm the only one who had seen this besides Kasparov himself.