Kasparov was in fact psychologically cheated in 1997

[Rolf]

Would be a pleasure to follow the call of any judge in NY and to have Kasparov as eyewitness no.1 and Hyatt as no.2, who will explain in detail how many, I think it's been 333, ways to cheat with the output of a machine that should be manipulated in-between. At least IBM must render the famous Prize with the money for the first program that could beat the Wch. Kasparov should then be granted at least half of the difference of the money he lost because he dindt draw the match but "lost" it. Any surplus because of overall damages to Kasparov's good name could be counted in millions of dollars. Piece of cake for IBM. Murray C. and his collegues should get a strong penalkization from the Association of Computer Sciences in the USA for their violation of eternal scientific ethical rules that forbid the cheating of a client and theunfair disturbing his performance in his main domain, here chess play as a super GM.

That might cost IBM some billions of dollars. And the history of chess gets at least in the aftermath of the event a little recompensation. Perhaps Derek could add a few comments on what the 16% rising after the won match brought IBM for profit. Also this must be considered.

I see no reason BTW why people like David Levy shouldnt be sued for their participation in the cover up of the wrong-doing against Kasparov. Could also be watched in the mentioned video. Piece of cake for Levy and the ICGA... <cough>

[Jérémy Pages]

Two links to this video :

http://archive.computerhistory.org/lect ... 656913.wmv

and http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0148765375

[bob]

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?

ACM was the organizing entity, monty was chairman of the ACM computer chess committee that organized all the ACM tournaments over the years.

I fail to see the reason for bringing up this long-dead discussion once again, nothing is going to be changed, nothing is going to be gained, so what is the point?

[Terry McCracken]

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?

ACM was the organizing entity, monty was chairman of the ACM computer chess committee that organized all the ACM tournaments over the years.

I fail to see the reason for bringing up this long-dead discussion once again, nothing is going to be changed, nothing is going to be gained, so what is the point?

You're talking about Rolf here.

[mclane]

bashing levy. throwing mud.
the usual thing some people do in the morning when they begin their day with doing there kind of "computerchess"

[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?

ACM was the organizing entity, monty was chairman of the ACM computer chess committee that organized all the ACM tournaments over the years.

I fail to see the reason for bringing up this long-dead discussion once again, nothing is going to be changed, nothing is going to be gained, so what is the point?

That's a good question because normally it's absolutely unusual to discuss such historical issues especially from older championships. The reason for this exception I made is lying in the two hour video material I saw for the first time of that conference in the CC museum. BTW your name was also mentioned and perhaps you had even been there. Fact is that I saw something that could be the key solution for the whole mess of the unfriendly atmosphere after the games in 1997.

I was googling for sites with the chessserver games (machine rooms) and on the webpage of Frayer I discovered the video from 2005 for the first time. And hence I reported my impressions.

It was fascinating how Campbell reacted on the questioner out of the audience because he reveiled the whole mess and its reasons on the operator's side of the event. It's absolutely unnecessary to insinuate intentional wrongs, but not even the conscience of a wrong treatment of Kasparov existed even now, 8 years after the event. And that should have been reported as I thought.

It's interesting also that you as a scientist should have no idea why such data should make no sense. When for me it's a somewhat proof that the team treated Kasparov unfairly so that he could no longer play his best chess after game two. For you as American sportsfan game might be over when it's over but for you as a scientist analyses should always be welcomed if they could reveil something new.

Because you had always maintained the legend that "they" had provided their output and that it looked absolutely normal, let me ask you a new question: if it's true, what Derek wrote, that the game two was intercepted for appr. 1 hour in the critical period of the game, where is the output for exactly this break?

The analysis until now was mainly about the question if DB2 could have (in principle) played the moves in two critical positions and you all agreed that yes it could have because even the commercials at the time could find the moves, correct?

Now my question is different. Could it be proven by the given output, that a wrong continuation by DB2 could have been possibly prevented by a hand of G-d? Human interference question. Because if that remains unclear the whole game two is irregular for the match. Like Kasparov I say that he didnt get access to the data in time connection of the event itself. Only such leapless recording with the break period etc could have possible shown something irregular. But that couldnt be examined during or directly after the match for the apparent reason that IBM deconstructed the evidence.

So a) Kasparov played into the dark of an unknown entity and b) after the break in game two the output data were obfuscated and c) the team treated Kasparov's quest for the output with impoliteness which then d) made the continuation of the match a farce because the announced favorite opponent (the best human player available) was unfairly irritated in his chessplay approach, considering things like pride of such a chess genius and his usual self-perception. But this was in violation of the science ethical rules that you cant get a decision about a historical question (here about the possibility if a machine could beat the World champion in chess) if you distort the attention and self-confidence of the player by psyching him out in the best military sense. And here it was literally enough to behave in a unexpected impolite manner towards the Wch who thought that he was the main actor on the scene.
The underlying question was always if a machine and its chess (of course built and trained by human engineers and scientists) could beat a human champ, not if the operators could successfully disturb the human player during a game and the match.

Because that could have been do-able much easier just by greeting Kasparov with Hello Mr. Weinstein, nice to meet you, you political rebel rouser... Or some unfriendly press articles like another reigning Wch Tal had still to suffer from at his time, 25 years earlier. When a German newsmagazin (SPIEGEL) asked innocently if this man wouldnt be in real the gardener (making a bad joke about Tal's disabled and crippled hand) of the Soviet team, when they played at the EUch in Oberhausen in 1961.

I would expect that you respect that also in such man vs machine matches a psychological factor could and should be analysed. You must not deny anything that could possibly disturb you machine fixated perception. Which allowed you to ask me such a, excuse me, naive question.

When I read how carefully IM Larry Kaufman prepares the details for his human player challenges with Rybka one gets an impression how the DB IBM team should have been proceeded. If you play the better chess you dont need to do any harm to your opponent except playing good moves. In a friendly atmosphere. Period.

[bob]

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?

ACM was the organizing entity, monty was chairman of the ACM computer chess committee that organized all the ACM tournaments over the years.

I fail to see the reason for bringing up this long-dead discussion once again, nothing is going to be changed, nothing is going to be gained, so what is the point?

That's a good question because normally it's absolutely unusual to discuss such historical issues especially from older championships. The reason for this exception I made is lying in the two hour video material I saw for the first time of that conference in the CC museum. BTW your name was also mentioned and perhaps you had even been there. Fact is that I saw something that could be the key solution for the whole mess of the unfriendly atmosphere after the games in 1997.

I was googling for sites with the chessserver games (machine rooms) and on the webpage of Frayer I discovered the video from 2005 for the first time. And hence I reported my impressions.

It was fascinating how Campbell reacted on the questioner out of the audience because he reveiled the whole mess and its reasons on the operator's side of the event. It's absolutely unnecessary to insinuate intentional wrongs, but not even the conscience of a wrong treatment of Kasparov existed even now, 8 years after the event. And that should have been reported as I thought.

It's interesting also that you as a scientist should have no idea why such data should make no sense. When for me it's a somewhat proof that the team treated Kasparov unfairly so that he could no longer play his best chess after game two. For you as American sportsfan game might be over when it's over but for you as a scientist analyses should always be welcomed if they could reveil something new.

Because you had always maintained the legend that "they" had provided their output and that it looked absolutely normal, let me ask you a new question: if it's true, what Derek wrote, that the game two was intercepted for appr. 1 hour in the critical period of the game, where is the output for exactly this break?

The analysis until now was mainly about the question if DB2 could have (in principle) played the moves in two critical positions and you all agreed that yes it could have because even the commercials at the time could find the moves, correct?

Now my question is different. Could it be proven by the given output, that a wrong continuation by DB2 could have been possibly prevented by a hand of G-d? Human interference question. Because if that remains unclear the whole game two is irregular for the match. Like Kasparov I say that he didnt get access to the data in time connection of the event itself. Only such leapless recording with the break period etc could have possible shown something irregular. But that couldnt be examined during or directly after the match for the apparent reason that IBM deconstructed the evidence.

So a) Kasparov played into the dark of an unknown entity and b) after the break in game two the output data were obfuscated and c) the team treated Kasparov's quest for the output with impoliteness which then d) made the continuation of the match a farce because the announced favorite opponent (the best human player available) was unfairly irritated in his chessplay approach, considering things like pride of such a chess genius and his usual self-perception. But this was in violation of the science ethical rules that you cant get a decision about a historical question (here about the possibility if a machine could beat the World champion in chess) if you distort the attention and self-confidence of the player by psyching him out in the best military sense. And here it was literally enough to behave in a unexpected impolite manner towards the Wch who thought that he was the main actor on the scene.
The underlying question was always if a machine and its chess (of course built and trained by human engineers and scientists) could beat a human champ, not if the operators could successfully disturb the human player during a game and the match.

Because that could have been do-able much easier just by greeting Kasparov with Hello Mr. Weinstein, nice to meet you, you political rebel rouser... Or some unfriendly press articles like another reigning Wch Tal had still to suffer from at his time, 25 years earlier. When a German newsmagazin (SPIEGEL) asked innocently if this man wouldnt be in real the gardener (making a bad joke about Tal's disabled and crippled hand) of the Soviet team, when they played at the EUch in Oberhausen in 1961.

I would expect that you respect that also in such man vs machine matches a psychological factor could and should be analysed. You must not deny anything that could possibly disturb you machine fixated perception. Which allowed you to ask me such a, excuse me, naive question.

When I read how carefully IM Larry Kaufman prepares the details for his human player challenges with Rybka one gets an impression how the DB IBM team should have been proceeded. If you play the better chess you dont need to do any harm to your opponent except playing good moves. In a friendly atmosphere. Period.

I have no idea what the "intercepted for about 1 hour" means, so there is no way to interpret it nor to have an opinion about it...

[Rolf]

interruption (Derek)

[bob]

interruption (Derek)

What is this all about? we have the PGN for the game as it was played. We have the deep blue log files (I have them all here assuming I can still find them). So exactly what is supposed to have happened during the game? We have analyzed every move Kasparov complained about, in great detail to great depth. DB's log files look perfectly normal throughout the game and match what was played.

So exactly what is the point of this???

[bob]

Matt began the false topic interpretation and Bob continued with a nice anecdote about a (to a machine) losing human chess master. In the end one could believe that this is really about a machine entity and a human being, just like what Kasparov assisted in the 1997 prematch ballyhoo propaganda worldwide. At sometime Kasparov might have lost himself in this nice delusion that he would (like a Jesus figure) save mankind against the evil. Well that was kind of the propaganda to attract the masses. However from many prematch reports, mostly in the CBM videos by Friedel, you could see that Kasparov in truth was absolutely convinced that the match would be a show with only one possible winner, himself, because he went through, with assistance of Friedel, the many typical problem positions a computer just cant manage well.

So, let's summarize, we have two cheats before the match begun. The Jesus mankind saving bogus and then the cheat against himself when Kasparov was sure, out of experience with his Fritz, that he couldnt get defeated.

Then the third cheat in game two. Only Derek described the situation well enough. And exactly this is always hidden and obfuscated before the eyes of the public.

Only in game two IMO we had a break of 1 whole hour and exactly in the position that Kasparov later took as proof that computers couldnt play this way yet. You know well, you readers here, that it's possible to manipulate the output of a machine, if you have informations when the machine will exactlyb produce the key move without finally playing it if it would plkay the game on its own. There are several possibilities of cheating. And note, this isnt as if DB would never have pondered on the crucial, legendary move! It might have but human interference made sure that it played it.
The details of the hour long break and the interference possibility wasnt sufficiently clarified during the game, when Kasparov already was suspicious, nor after the game when they refused to show their output and also not after the match during the press conference. What they showed and what experts like Hyatt then gave his blessing inspite his knowledge of the endless list of cheating possibilities was a cleansed output where nobody could detect any kind of irregularities except the usual machine like. Ken Thompson unfortunately was the one who sat before the machine's output process and he affirmated nothing special, but Ken was honest enough, although in a bind with IBM and the whole show, that he felt uneasy with the way how they had treated Kasparov, as he thought unfairly. Anything else would have been guessing because like Bob Ken knew well how it all could be cheated but without exact proof HOW it happened you couldnt make allegations without getting sued yourself.

That is the truth about the cheat. Since the team around Murray and Hsu didnt open access to the data at the time on site when the moment was of the break or shortly afterwards after the game, they themselves bear the necessity to prove that everything was kosher. Not Kasparov or anyone now must prove what they did.

In science the game two can by no means taken for a proof that the machine beat Kasparov on its own. The operators didnt prove that they havent cheated during and after the break. That is an absolutely clear conclusion.

So, normally if in science we remain with doubts, serious doubts, the whole experiment and its setting should be examined. But this was exactly prevented by a hasty deconstruction and selling of the parts of the machine.

Again, only Americans in their patriotism, could overlook in the video from 2005, that Murray Campbell is visibly showing that the team of the machine, not the machine itself, cheated Kasparov. That is without doubt and if ever science has any say in computerchess at all. But sad to see even computer science isnt unanimously accepted as a science. So then it's true that drugs, doping and cheats are allowed in computerchess as long as it' not against the written content of contracts. And this means against specific orders in it, not such handwaving as fairness...

When IBM et al figure out what you wrote they'll sue your ***

To correct the record, I was watching the game and I do not remember the interruption (some sort of hardware problem) happening at the move Kasparov was so upset about. I am not sure whether this is about the axb5 stuff or what, but to continually raise the issue, after we have seen him blow up in other games against computers as well, is ridiculous.