Mickey Mouse, Dick Nixon, Rolf, and Cheating Deep Blue Moves

[kgburcham]

1. Please post a Deep Blue position or positions that are the result of cheating by the Deep Blue team that todays programs cannot easily find.
2. Please post a Deep Blue position or positions that are human operator interference cheating moves that todays programs cannot easily find.
3. Please post a position or positions that are the result of humans changing Deep Blue code during a game that allowed Deep Blue to play a very uncommon move that todays programs cannot easily find.
4. Please post a position or positions that show killer moves played by Deep Blue after one hour pause to work on Deep Blue problem that todays programs cannot easily find.

Deep Blue Fan
kgburcham

[Rolf]

1. Please post a Deep Blue position or positions that are the result of cheating by the Deep Blue team that todays programs cannot easily find.
2. Please post a Deep Blue position or positions that are human operator interference cheating moves that todays programs cannot easily find.
3. Please post a position or positions that are the result of humans changing Deep Blue code during a game that allowed Deep Blue to play a very uncommon move that todays programs cannot easily find.
4. Please post a position or positions that show killer moves played by Deep Blue after one hour pause to work on Deep Blue problem that todays programs cannot easily find.

Deep Blue Fan
kgburcham

I dont want to pre-judge what Mickey and Tricky Dick will have to say, but I can only tell you this: you missed the main point of our criticism. The main point isnt connected with concrete moves or the examination with modern commercial entities. The scandal in 1997 was, in short, that the DB team under the orders of IBM, violated ethical basics as scientists. I already explained it:

if you want to find out, after the Fredkin Prize offer, if you could beat IN CHESS the best human available and on machine side with its CHESS, then KGB, you cannot mistreat your human opponent with impoliteness and distracting his chess concentration. Justified on the side of the human or NOT. Know what I mean? Of course it's unclear how they possibly could have handled an even more suspicious Kasparov, but that situation in game two was tolerable. There was a long break and K. got his questions and he wante to see the output at the instant. They insulted him with impoliteness as if he were the liftboy of the building and NOT the World Champion. Know what I mean?

I dont say that by all means they should have shown him output. But they must have negotiated the situation with him. There had been many people around who could have possibly explained to Kasparov the reasons for the play of DB, even Hyatt could have been invited to do that on the phone, but no, these guys wanted to win the match ugly. And they won. And the whole idea of such huge events was destroyed by these guys and this is terrible.

But forget it, it's only chess, the two wars against Iraq were a bigger crime. With much bigger cheats to persuade the whole world of something that didnt exist at all. This wont be forgotten either. Because several hundreds of thousands of people were killed by the USA forces.

Compared to these victims computerchess is worth nothing.

[kgburcham]

I dont want to pre-judge what Mickey and Tricky Dick will have to say, but I can only tell you this: you missed the main point What point? This is my post not a reply inside of your post. Note I did not reply inside your post even though I am a great fan of Deep Blue. This post is about the game moves
The main point isnt connected with concrete moves or the examination with modern commercial entities. The scandal in 1997 was, in short, that the DB team under the orders of IBM, violated ethical basics as scientists. Monkey Dung
if you want to find out, after the Fredkin Prize offer, if you could beat IN CHESS the best human available and on machine side with its CHESS, then KGB, you cannot mistreat your human opponent with impoliteness and distracting his chess concentration. This is what you dont understand--Kasparovs biggest distraction was the fact he was not ready to accept the extreme high level of play that Deep Blue was capable of---in competition we say Kasparov choked.
Justified on the side of the human or NOT. Know what I mean? Of course it's unclear how they possibly could have handled an even more suspicious Kasparov, but that situation in game two was tolerable. There was a long break and K. got his questions and he wante to see the output at the instant. First rude request was from Kasparov, insinuating foul play with no proof.
They insulted him with impoliteness Not true. did not break rules. Kasparov team did not say before match that they may request logs

I dont say that by all means they should have shown him output. But they must have negotiated the situation with him. Not true
There had been many people around who could have possibly explained to Kasparov the reasons for the play of DB, even Hyatt could have been invited to do that on the phone, but no, these guys wanted to win the match ugly. Not true. Kasparov was out for blood and so was the deep Blue Team And they won.
But forget it, it's only chess, the two wars against Iraq were a bigger crime. With much bigger cheats to persuade the whole world of something that didnt exist at all. This wont be forgotten either. Because several hundreds of thousands of people were killed by the USA forces.

Compared to these victims computerchess is worth nothing.Rolf Yes i gree the germans turning 10 million Jews to ashes in WW2 was demonic. Very violent and of satan. Not sure why you wanted to exchange these ideas about war and killing, may be some kind of low level jab. I prefer MMA.

You know what I mean
Keith Jardine

[Rolf]

kj, IMO you give a possible and reasonable view on the event from a more US American perspective of course. I dont want to tear that into doubt. Also your mention of WWII is absolutely right. So, no dissent on that one. The genocide of the Indians comes to mind, but this is not the point actually.

You are also right, that the DB team under IBM orders didnt break a rule when they denied output to Kasparov. I said they had not to do it. What I meant and what is relevant here in our context, that is the pure logical question, I brought up, if you can find out if the machine with its chess can beat the human player, if you distract the human player from your operator IBM side? I would say no, they cant find out. All they could discover, that they could win by playing dirty. Not in chess but outside in between the relationship of the team, the organisers and the human player. Ask yourself, if you really want to doubt that. Did DB win or did Kasparov lose in confusion and weaker play than normally? Time is short, we must not debate on such trivialities.

I have a second question for you. In 1997, do you really believe that the stronger player of chess won the match? Was DB strongher than Kasparov, I mean the strong Kasparov, we all knrw, or was it playing a lame duck? Just a simple question. It can be answered without prejudice.

I wont repeat the science thing here for you because it would only make sense if you knew what I meant, and with ignorence about what you know exactly I would prefer to leave it out of the debate.

Xou write about blood thirst and such stuff, I would agree. In that respect Kasparov lost it. If I would have been there I would have stopped playing for the reasons, Bob described. I mean, if cheating can never be proven, I dont want to play something when I know for sure that the human operators and organisers want to play it dirty. Because then it's almost certin that they wont play a fair game. So I as Kasparov would have stopped playing after the break and when DB then played these famous moves.

Note , it's not relevant what other progs could play afterwards, because this isnt a proof either that they would have played it in such a match nor that DB must have been able to do it.

Look, as American, you will never understand what I am talking about. Because for you it was about winning. But I at least give Kasparov the benefit of a doubt that he wanted to know what DB really could perform in chess. And if Hyatt is correct with his verdict that Kasparov is nuts then a single question remains to be answered and this is why the DB team was so eager to have him as opponent. Probably because they knew that they could fool him by psyching him out?

Somehow it reminds me of the wars I we mentioned. Americans like to fight with triple or higher advantage with a definite disadvantage on the side of the opponent. But let's keep out such stuff, it's only interesting because of the similarities. And the plot.

I dont know you, so I hope we two wont go into further wars now because this is here a virtual debate of only academic interest. You agree?

[bob]

kj, IMO you give a possible and reasonable view on the event from a more US American perspective of course. I dont want to tear that into doubt. Also your mention of WWII is absolutely right. So, no dissent on that one. The genocide of the Indians comes to mind, but this is not the point actually.

You are also right, that the DB team under IBM orders didnt break a rule when they denied output to Kasparov. I said they had not to do it. What I meant and what is relevant here in our context, that is the pure logical question, I brought up, if you can find out if the machine with its chess can beat the human player, if you distract the human player from your operator IBM side? I would say no, they cant find out. All they could discover, that they could win by playing dirty. Not in chess but outside in between the relationship of the team, the organisers and the human player. Ask yourself, if you really want to doubt that. Did DB win or did Kasparov lose in confusion and weaker play than normally? Time is short, we must not debate on such trivialities.

I have a second question for you. In 1997, do you really believe that the stronger player of chess won the match? Was DB strongher than Kasparov, I mean the strong Kasparov, we all knrw, or was it playing a lame duck? Just a simple question. It can be answered without prejudice.

That's a stupid question. The best answer is this: "During the two-week period of time in question, the stronger chess player won." That is true of any event where a human wins as well. But humans are not consistent in their playing level. I played actively for over 20 years and noticed the same thing. At times I would be tactically "dead on" and spot everything. At other times I would be "dead off" and miss a simple shot here or there and lose a game I should not have lost.

That happens in GM events, and in computer-GM events, anytime a human is involved. Kasparov lost. He resigned a drawn game. He was blown out tactically in game 6. The rest of the games (1, 3, 4, 5 and even game 2 until he resigned) he played just fine...

I wont repeat the science thing here for you because it would only make sense if you knew what I meant, and with ignorence about what you know exactly I would prefer to leave it out of the debate.

Xou write about blood thirst and such stuff, I would agree. In that respect Kasparov lost it. If I would have been there I would have stopped playing for the reasons, Bob described. I mean, if cheating can never be proven, I dont want to play something when I know for sure that the human operators and organisers want to play it dirty. Because then it's almost certin that they wont play a fair game. So I as Kasparov would have stopped playing after the break and when DB then played these famous moves.

Note , it's not relevant what other progs could play afterwards, because this isnt a proof either that they would have played it in such a match nor that DB must have been able to do it.

Look, as American, you will never understand what I am talking about. Because for you it was about winning. But I at least give Kasparov the benefit of a doubt that he wanted to know what DB really could perform in chess. And if Hyatt is correct with his verdict that Kasparov is nuts then a single question remains to be answered and this is why the DB team was so eager to have him as opponent. Probably because they knew that they could fool him by psyching him out?

Somehow it reminds me of the wars I we mentioned. Americans like to fight with triple or higher advantage with a definite disadvantage on the side of the opponent. But let's keep out such stuff, it's only interesting because of the similarities. And the plot.

I dont know you, so I hope we two wont go into further wars now because this is here a virtual debate of only academic interest. You agree?

[Rolf]

kj, IMO you give a possible and reasonable view on the event from a more US American perspective of course. I dont want to tear that into doubt. Also your mention of WWII is absolutely right. So, no dissent on that one. The genocide of the Indians comes to mind, but this is not the point actually.

You are also right, that the DB team under IBM orders didnt break a rule when they denied output to Kasparov. I said they had not to do it. What I meant and what is relevant here in our context, that is the pure logical question, I brought up, if you can find out if the machine with its chess can beat the human player, if you distract the human player from your operator IBM side? I would say no, they cant find out. All they could discover, that they could win by playing dirty. Not in chess but outside in between the relationship of the team, the organisers and the human player. Ask yourself, if you really want to doubt that. Did DB win or did Kasparov lose in confusion and weaker play than normally? Time is short, we must not debate on such trivialities.

I have a second question for you. In 1997, do you really believe that the stronger player of chess won the match? Was DB strongher than Kasparov, I mean the strong Kasparov, we all knrw, or was it playing a lame duck? Just a simple question. It can be answered without prejudice.

That's a stupid question. The best answer is this: "During the two-week period of time in question, the stronger chess player won." That is true of any event where a human wins as well. But humans are not consistent in their playing level. I played actively for over 20 years and noticed the same thing. At times I would be tactically "dead on" and spot everything. At other times I would be "dead off" and miss a simple shot here or there and lose a game I should not have lost.

That happens in GM events, and in computer-GM events, anytime a human is involved. Kasparov lost. He resigned a drawn game. He was blown out tactically in game 6. The rest of the games (1, 3, 4, 5 and even game 2 until he resigned) he played just fine...

Look, let's keep it open if I ask stupid questions or if you give stupid answers.

What you say about these periods dead on or dead off, I dont agree with that, but it's not relevant here because I asked for the machine and its chess. If that was better than the chess of Kasparov. Or would you say something like when K. was dead on the machine was weaker and else it was stronger?

The reason for the question is that nobody in the chess world except you and the CC people believe that in 1997 the machine DB was already better than K.

But if NOT, I conclude that K. lost because he was psyched out by the impoliteness of the DB team under IBM orders.

Couldnt you apply a sort of scientifical objectivism kind of for a short time? Even if K. was nuts, it wasnt a fair win by the machine and its operators?

Also this, but you wont dare to answer that: would DB have won against a not psyched out K.?

Last but not least: why the American DB team showed such a lack of politeness and respect for the champion? What is wrong with your sports fairness approach??

Since you dont read everything I write, here a repetition:

how could you find out who is better, if you mistreat the human player with impoliteness? Under the assumption as a theoretical question just for the sake of science. Would you say, as an American, that 1997 it wasnt about who was better, but who could win, also with playing dirty if necessary? I still trust your honesty, but dont play these games of distortion.

[bob]

kj, IMO you give a possible and reasonable view on the event from a more US American perspective of course. I dont want to tear that into doubt. Also your mention of WWII is absolutely right. So, no dissent on that one. The genocide of the Indians comes to mind, but this is not the point actually.

You are also right, that the DB team under IBM orders didnt break a rule when they denied output to Kasparov. I said they had not to do it. What I meant and what is relevant here in our context, that is the pure logical question, I brought up, if you can find out if the machine with its chess can beat the human player, if you distract the human player from your operator IBM side? I would say no, they cant find out. All they could discover, that they could win by playing dirty. Not in chess but outside in between the relationship of the team, the organisers and the human player. Ask yourself, if you really want to doubt that. Did DB win or did Kasparov lose in confusion and weaker play than normally? Time is short, we must not debate on such trivialities.

I have a second question for you. In 1997, do you really believe that the stronger player of chess won the match? Was DB strongher than Kasparov, I mean the strong Kasparov, we all knrw, or was it playing a lame duck? Just a simple question. It can be answered without prejudice.

That's a stupid question. The best answer is this: "During the two-week period of time in question, the stronger chess player won." That is true of any event where a human wins as well. But humans are not consistent in their playing level. I played actively for over 20 years and noticed the same thing. At times I would be tactically "dead on" and spot everything. At other times I would be "dead off" and miss a simple shot here or there and lose a game I should not have lost.

That happens in GM events, and in computer-GM events, anytime a human is involved. Kasparov lost. He resigned a drawn game. He was blown out tactically in game 6. The rest of the games (1, 3, 4, 5 and even game 2 until he resigned) he played just fine...

Look, let's keep it open if I ask stupid questions or if you give stupid answers.

What you say about these periods dead on or dead off, I dont agree with that, but it's not relevant here because I asked for the machine and its chess. If that was better than the chess of Kasparov. Or would you say something like when K. was dead on the machine was weaker and else it was stronger?

OK, to restate: During that 6 game match, DB was the stronger of the two players. Says nothing about whether DB was better overall or not, says nothing about whether Kasparov was better overall or not. Just that during the 6 games in question, DB was better. That's all _anyone_ could/did say...

The reason for the question is that nobody in the chess world except you and the CC people believe that in 1997 the machine DB was already better than K.

I believe it and can prove it. I will be happy to post the 6 games they played in a match that DB won.

But if NOT, I conclude that K. lost because he was psyched out by the impoliteness of the DB team under IBM orders.

Let's get the time-reference correct first. Game two. Kasparov resigned a drawn position. _before_ he asked IBM for the printouts (logs) for the game. Note that. He resigned _before_ he asked anything. At that point, he was "on his own" and not being influenced by anything other than the apparent strength of DB. So the argument you are making does not hold water. He was _already_ "psyched out" before he even had the opportunity to request the logs, much less after IBM refused.

That is a significant flaw in your story/logic.

Couldnt you apply a sort of scientifical objectivism kind of for a short time? Even if K. was nuts, it wasnt a fair win by the machine and its operators?

Seemed perfectly fair to me. Again, "fair" has a precise meaning "to play by the rules..."

Also this, but you wont dare to answer that: would DB have won against a not psyched out K.?

Where does such an argument go? He was psyched out during game 2 because of the quality of deep blue's play. If they had played the match a month later, the same thing would have happened...

Last but not least: why the American DB team showed such a lack of politeness and respect for the champion? What is wrong with your sports fairness approach??

Because he accused them of cheating on a public stage. At that point, all "politeness" was out. Or can Kasparov rant and rave, but the DB guys have to remain all smiles as their 10 years of effort are insinuated to be aided by cheating?

You cleverly omit that side of the discussion. Kasparov raised the claim _before_ asking for anything. He asked for the logs as he was making the claim that DB must have had outside help...

Since you dont read everything I write, here a repetition:

how could you find out who is better, if you mistreat the human player with impoliteness? Under the assumption as a theoretical question just for the sake of science. Would you say, as an American, that 1997 it wasnt about who was better, but who could win, also with playing dirty if necessary? I still trust your honesty, but dont play these games of distortion.

The old "if you shove a stick into a hornet's nest, expect to get stung" applies. He shoved the stick all the way in, and apparently expected the hornets to hum
amazing grace or something..

[mclane]

The scandal in 1997 was, in short, that the DB team under the orders of IBM, violated ethical basics as scientists. I already explained it:

related with your own violation of ethical basics, was the scientific violation of ethical basics done by the team, suggested by you , higher than your own violations in ethics or lower ?

[james uselton]

Rolf, I'm curious as to why you consider the first Iraq war a crime. If my memory serves correctly, Iraq invaded a neighboring country (Kuwait) which ask us for help. The whole world was with us in that war. Many Arab countries and even our traditional adversaries, China and Russia were with us. How can you call that war a crime? After evicting Iraq from Kuwait we came home. We didnt take any oil with us either. In fact, we havent taken any oil in the war we are now fighting, or if we have, I sure haven't seen any.
Regards, Jim

[Rolf]

Since when the charter here allows personal insults of other members, Czub? So we see the ridiculous and hypocritical show that you as a mod yourself violate the charter of this forum.

I just want to mention this to the attention to the other two mods.