Rolf wrote:bob wrote:Rolf wrote:bob wrote:
Kasparov said "what program would refuse to outright win a pawn by playing Qb6, and play axb instead?" The answer is "any program that can see that Qb6 fails low. It takes current crafty about 3 minutes to see Qb6 drop significantly. So his implication that DB didn't make that move by itself is utter nonsense.
That's what it proves...
Kasparov might be a genius at chess. But for computer chess he was a fool, advised by fools, and he _did_ believe that fritz would be representative of what DB could do. That has been brought out many times. It was completely wrong, of course...
Since when you are now besides police and judge plus expert also the criminologist??
I know exactly what you want to say and at first sight you are so right. But only for a moment.
The same with Vas where you think he admitted something that proved his wrong, you take reported Kasparov quotes from Friedel BTW, and made in gesture, meaning in emotional stress, as a literal maximal statement that he could think out and make him look foolish. That's a nice trick but it fails to succeed. You are smart and all but you are not a psychologist and therefore you are wrong with such a mediocre interpretation of Kasparov. Again, I dont say that it's not a possible interpretation. But it wasnt what K. could possibly and maximally think about computerchess. In that respect you are just another spin doctor to defend the evil wrong of your friends on the basis of what Friedel had reported. Friedel isnt a genuine thinker but only a journalist to be exactlyx on the point.
I told you at the time that nobody here around, also not Benjamin and certainly not buddy Friedel, could imagine what K. could see in terms of chess. And he saw enough from DB so that he ccould have his own opinion. Again, you
show right now what it proves if commercial entities reproduced the moves. Does this prove that DB played on its own?? Give me break.
1. It proves Kasparov's primary claim "no computer would play this move and turn down winning a pawn" was absolutely false.
2. There is absolutely no way to prove that DB played the moves. And there is absolutely nothing that even remotely suggests that it didn't. So that is just a straw-man argument that you can have with yourself until the end of time if you choose. It is easy enough to prove that DB could play axb on its own, since other programs in 1997 could find it as do programs of today.
let's move on, this is going absolutely nowhere. He acted like a jerk. Case closed...
No, he didnt! I wont comment further on that one because then I had to attack you which is against the charter.
But let me tell you why I still disagree and not out of a personal preference for superstition but for the sake of science, as it's understood and practices on this side here of the Atlantic. At least I havent heard what you say from European computational scientists and CC experts.
So you want to have this case closed. Sure, because you assist your friends in the DB/IBM team.
However science is something else. Again, not the claims and closing cases from the US computational science.
If we cannot actually prove that DB TWO had played these moves, this case must remain open until we find scientific means to decide this question. But the illogical argument that DB2 could have played it hence it also did, because also some commercial engines showed the moves at the time, leads to nowhere. Because with the same illogic I could claim that I would have champion TOP GM strength if I would by chance find a move once in a while that Kasparov usually played. That would be the similar nonsense that you are distributing.
First, you can _never_ prove that DB made those moves. Even if you have it in front of you. It is always possible to design a methodology to provide outside influence. This is true of any computer chess program today. So, again, it is a straw-man argument. Of course this can't be proven, any more than the CERN folks will be able to prove that a Higgs Boson was not created in their previous collider, only because they never observed one decaying. You can't prove something did not happen, and it is a waste of time to discuss such.
Let's concentrate on your former examples how it could all be cheated, how it could be covered up and why nothing could be done against it. You gave all the details yourself without becoming too specifically to not to inspire the evil in mankind. But you showed what COULD be done and that is enough for me.
So, the IBM/DB team and you ironically too, knew that they had to guarantee at least the intentional safety of the machine's output. But fact is they didnt do it. At the first instant when Kasparov asked a suspicious question after the break in game two and the astonishing change to the play in game 1, they reacted like a bunch of 'wrong-doing culprits' [charter affording creating for a better known term] and finished the honest collaboration with Kasparov at the instant. But as scientist they had of course a different task and rules to obey. If they didnt want to screw the whole event and such worldwide attention for such a gig. Because now when all could see that nothing is safe in these hands of IBM/DB people, the whole degenerated in seconds into a hoax. And that was it what was too much for the genial player Kasparov, no matter what his journalistic adlatus Friedel had to report or not. He was fired for his basically illoyal reports as the media connection man for Kasparov. But he never was Kasparov's advisor. He was for K. the fatherly landlord in Germany with always new presents out of the CB production business. But K. wasnt stupid so he must have known what Friedel did for a nonsense in the past when he tried to confuse Botvinnik by stealing a Pawn from the analysis board and then writing triumphal jokes about the impression he got that Botvinnik didnt even discovered his trick. And that trick should have worked with a chess giant like the former Wch!!
False. They simply acted as any scientist would, when they had unveiled the latest-and-greatest implementation of their invention, only to be called frauds and cheaters. I have played hundreds of thousands of games against GM players. Crafty has won most of them. I have yet to provide any one of them with a log print-out. Nor would I go to the trouble. If I beat a GM myself somehow (playing as a human, not using a computer), he doesn't have the right to ask me to sit at the right to demand that I sit across a table from him and explain why I played each move and what my winning plan was.
[quote
And this same Friedel you trust now if you dont get tired in always repeating what Kasparov had all believed about the play of DB2 and what not. Give me break, Bob, are you a scientist or not?
[/quote]
Always have been. However, you haven't done your homework. You could, if you wanted to, find post-game interviews where Friedel/Kasparov talk about his preparation and how he was told that playing against Fritz would be comparable to playing against DB. I didn't make that up, it was discussed right after the match at length on r.g.c.c in fact... So, instead of it being a question of whether I am a scientist or not, it is more a question of whether you can read or not.
Instead of doing your homework, you and your friends in that team worked with unsecure practice and wild handwaving that everything was done kosher. Well, just what the CIA told us about the safety of their knowledge about 'WMD in the hands of the cruel dictator Saddam'. In truth it's all propaganda and hot air.
Once again you fall right into the middle of the biggest problem scientists face each day. You can _never_ prove Saddam did not have massive stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. You could prove he did by exposing them. You can't prove he didn't just because you can't find 'em. Years ago man came up with this marvelous invention to transport stuff. It was called "an 18 wheeler truck"...
Admit that you are a spin doctor, Bob. But you are not a serious scientist. Computer sciences isnt even a science by itself. So, you are right, what could I expect more? If you were the only one but S. Edwards has the same weakness. He gives the correct arguments in favor of Kasparov, but still is accusing Kasparov for doing it all wrong by making unbased allegations. Again, when Edwards gave the exact reasons why the bases Kasparov used were all correct. Now if that isnt a specific weakness in computer science people in the States?!
Admit that you only want to prolong a hopeless argument with absolutely no basis of scientific truth in anything you quote. It is now 11 years past the "grand event". Kasparov now has little chance of beating _any_ computer in a match. And I do mean _any_. I said at the time that DB was 10 years ahead of the rest of us due to custom hardware. So here we are 10 years later. There is ample evidence to suggest that things happened _exactly_ as we saw them, with no outside interference. The idea is actually pretty funny because _who_ would they want to override DB? What human could consistently beat Kasparov back then, hmmm???
Aha, they developed a direct pipeline to God, no doubt... Damn, didn't consider that option.
How could you be a science if you are incapable of making the correct conclusions out of the mess with these unprotectable computer output data. Normally and logically you had to grant Kasparov the benefit of the doubt but no, you know for sure that everything was kosher, although everything could have been cheated. That's bogus science, nothing else.
There is absolutely _nothing_ wrong with their output. It is consistent move to move, it follows the game precisely, and other programs agree with the movs. So exactly _what_ are you rambling on about???
<cough>
You should see someone about that cough. You are slowly choking and don't realize it.
