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

[Rolf]

Rolf, I'm curious as to why you consider the first Iraq war a crime.

Please take this to CTF and ask there again. The only reason why I mentioned this in context here is because the actions in public were cheated data for the propaganda of that war. In difference to the DB stuff the cheats in case of Iraq war one are published since long. But the debate is worth to be held in CTF. Included the Kuweit story! See you later.

[Rolf]

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...

Ok, fine, if you accept that possibly Kasparov still was the stronger player than DB 2 let me ask you the logical question. Isnt it normal to then ask how this could happen? Was it through the chess of DB or created by the distorting of Kasparov's attention with psycho methods applied by the sudden impoliteness of the team of DB which is still something else than the machine and its chess itself?

As I informed you already at the time, many in Europe, among them the legendary GM Unzicker who was Germany's best before Huebner, he already then mentioned the low class of Kasparov's play and he asked for the reasons.

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.

If I had written the story then you were correct but as I repeatedly asked you with the reference of one Derek whoever that is in CTF who reported that tghere was this break in game two asnd then Kasparov asked for the output. It's a two level event I would say.

(1) Kasparov's astonishment about two specific moves and his forfeit and then the complaint is one level.

(2) And a second is the break during game 2 - allegedly - as being reported by one Derek, read at the top of the main thread about K. psychologically cheated. Did the break happen and if yes when exactly? This is level two for me. Also - did K. already ask for the record of this period of the break and shortly before?

(3) Level three is a level where we must differentiate what Kasparov officially told the team speaker and what was colportated (=telling rumors) by Friedel in public about what K. allegedly had said in private and what he assumed what had happened. Apparently it's wrong to take such babbles as official objections from K. personally! But anyway I dont argue that this was really looking odd from the perspective of the DBteam. Dont take me wrong. I'm not following a pre-made scenario but I want to find out what really happened.

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...

Why should I do that? I'm questioning but I'm not prejudicing the outcome of the search. As I told you on (3) IMO the terrible disturbance came through a misinterpretation. I understood it at the time this way:

K. asked in private like he should do that, but rumors were spread by Friedel band thirdly I recall it was Murray who came into public with the strange opening that K. had accused them of cheating. I ask you, who's to blame? Why Campbell went public??? What function Friedel had in the eyes of the team?? I mean it's known that he likes to stir up something to the sole goal that chess is in the media. Was that such a wrong method? But in the end a team with such highly experienced engineers should be able to differentiate what he said and what K. asked in official.

Let's examine this one bx one and leave out all your testosteron. I'm not cheating you nor anybody. I just question the official record.

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..

Fine by me, but you stop believing that every search must end with the Stars and Stripes and a 100% victory for the US, ok? I heard that 'you' were bancrupt at Wall Street. <cough>

[BubbaTough]

but you stop believing that every search must end with the Stars and Stripes and a 100% victory for the US, ok? I heard that 'you' were bancrupt at Wall Street. <cough>

I think culture/country bashing is as inappropriate on a computer chess forum as personal attacks. Please stop.

-Sam

[Rolf]

but you stop believing that every search must end with the Stars and Stripes and a 100% victory for the US, ok? I heard that 'you' were bancrupt at Wall Street. <cough>

I think culture/country bashing is as inappropriate on a computer chess forum as personal attacks. Please stop.

-Sam

Ok sorry Sam, this was all in joke. But you are right. I hope that you agree with me that wars and civilians being killed is also wrong like bashing a whole country because of that? Anyway I wont criticise the USA again...

[bob]

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

Because he lives in an alternative reality where left is right and right is left, up is down and down is up. And nothing makes any sense there, and everything that happens is a conspiracy...

[bob]

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...

Ok, fine, if you accept that possibly Kasparov still was the stronger player than DB 2 let me ask you the logical question. Isnt it normal to then ask how this could happen? Was it through the chess of DB or created by the distorting of Kasparov's attention with psycho methods applied by the sudden impoliteness of the team of DB which is still something else than the machine and its chess itself?

Will you please pay attention for a minute? Kasparov resigned game two in a position we now know is a drawn one. He threw in the towel. His excuse was that it appeared that the computer could "see everything" and he was convinced it was winning. All that happened _before_ he went up on the stage and suggested something underhanded had happened. All that happened before he asked for the log files. All that happened before IBM said "no".

As I informed you already at the time, many in Europe, among them the legendary GM Unzicker who was Germany's best before Huebner, he already then mentioned the low class of Kasparov's play and he asked for the reasons.

Often a strong opponent makes one play in a way that appears to be weaker than normal? If one is surprised, one plays weaker than normal? Etc. Who knows why he played worse than usual. We don't even know that he _did_ play worse than usual. DB might have had a part in how he played.

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.

If I had written the story then you were correct but as I repeatedly asked you with the reference of one Derek whoever that is in CTF who reported that tghere was this break in game two asnd then Kasparov asked for the output. It's a two level event I would say.

That is not what happened. There was a break in the game. It continued. After the game ended, after kasparov resigned in a drawn position, after he had discovered that DB could play _real_ GM-level chess, he asked for the log files. Not before any of that, but after _all_ of it had happened.

(1) Kasparov's astonishment about two specific moves and his forfeit and then the complaint is one level.

(2) And a second is the break during game 2 - allegedly - as being reported by one Derek, read at the top of the main thread about K. psychologically cheated. Did the break happen and if yes when exactly? This is level two for me. Also - did K. already ask for the record of this period of the break and shortly before?

I do not remember any break, and I watched all 6 games live on ICC. But it was 11 years ago, and breaks in computer games were not unusual. They depend on communication, power, air conditioning, and hardware reliability. He didn't ask for anything until he took the stage _after_ the game was over (round 2).

(3) Level three is a level where we must differentiate what Kasparov officially told the team speaker and what was colportated (=telling rumors) by Friedel in public about what K. allegedly had said in private and what he assumed what had happened. Apparently it's wrong to take such babbles as official objections from K. personally! But anyway I dont argue that this was really looking odd from the perspective of the DBteam. Dont take me wrong. I'm not following a pre-made scenario but I want to find out what really happened.

I watched the post-game interview. I assume it can still be found on the net somewhere. _that_ was where Kasparov made his insinuation that DB "had help".

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...

Why should I do that? I'm questioning but I'm not prejudicing the outcome of the search. As I told you on (3) IMO the terrible disturbance came through a misinterpretation. I understood it at the time this way:

There was no misinterpretation. The words we reacted to came right out of Kasparov's mouth, standing on the same stage with the IBM guys and tournament organizers (Monty, Karen, whomever else was there).

K. asked in private like he should do that, but rumors were spread by Friedel band thirdly I recall it was Murray who came into public with the strange opening that K. had accused them of cheating. I ask you, who's to blame? Why Campbell went public??? What function Friedel had in the eyes of the team?? I mean it's known that he likes to stir up something to the sole goal that chess is in the media. Was that such a wrong method? But in the end a team with such highly experienced engineers should be able to differentiate what he said and what K. asked in official.

That is not what happened. See if you can round up the post-game interview from round 2. Then you will know what was said and can stop relying on others...

Let's examine this one bx one and leave out all your testosteron. I'm not cheating you nor anybody. I just question the official record.

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..

Fine by me, but you stop believing that every search must end with the Stars and Stripes and a 100% victory for the US, ok? I heard that 'you' were bancrupt at Wall Street. <cough>

I'm not bankrupt at all, so I don't know what you are talking about. This is not about the "stars and stripes" (at least not on my end). It is about DB vs Jackass...

[F. Bluemers]

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.

Didn't you once promise to stay in CTF and not post here anymore?

Just curious

Best
Fonzy

[Rolf]

Will you please pay attention for a minute?

Will you please behave here in this forum? This is not in one of your classes, Assistant Professor!

This isnt Guantanamo either, where you can torture people anytime you want.

I know 100% that your memory sucks.

a) there was no press conference on game two day. During the following morning a team member told a radio atation or a TV channel what Kasparov now had urged them to do... So, I know for 100% that it was the team that went at first in public with that detail - not Kasparov. So, you dont remember the facts, but you are shouting it out loud. This is exactly how the prejudice goes... I promissed one Sam no longer to tell you my opinion about Americans in general.

b) There was a break in game two. And this in connect with the later moves made K. suspicious and then he asked for the output. You are blinded by the stories Friedel told us about K. in shock and stuff like that after he was told that he could have made a draw in one position. Fine, but this isnt how a player like him functions. One or two moves earlier DB had a complete win in his hands, which K. realised. So that is kind of ironic that then suddenly K. could have found a deep draw. He didnt see it. Probably a human cant play this deeply anyway by mere calculating, so that for him it made no difference of drawing or losing. Much more important for K. was the question how deep the machine could really see and calculate and this was the shock when he realised that it still made so many mistakes but it should have played on his own 26 f4 and then later the cruel (GM Nunn) move Be4. Something didnt fit in K.'s eyes. So then he wanted to see the output what they refused. The break. The moves. Later the realising of the at least three mistakes by the machine. All that together was reason enough to make that condition.

c) This afternoon I let Rybka 3 1cpu analyse the position after Black's 25th move. I had it in 2 var mode. Engine in CB9.

In the end when I stopped it were deeper than 21 and it had all the time the following solution:

26 Qf1 with then 27 f4 and a score of .46 but below .5 always
26 Bd1 etc without playing f4 with a score slighty lower

Commentary of Nunn at the time, that he knew not a single program that played f4 in that position. But as the clock was noticed, DB played it in 4 seconds. Allegedly. Again this was IMO after the break. I give just the data. May other and better experts make their mind up about all this. IMO it's not sound. And I dont doubt a second long that it's possible to tune a program so that it plays f4 at the instant. But as you often explain, THEN the overall strength might suck in return. You are the expert. You make your verdict about this.

d) Also I went to the IBM pages and tried to get into this report with the commentaries on the stage during game 2. Alas! The experts are quoted up to move 20 was it I think and then nothing more!! I will try to get the data from somewhere else but it's clear that the IBM guys are still thinking that it'better to hide the rest of the stage talks from the live game. Incl. the longer break!! Long live Guantanamo!


As I said now several times, all the above is just the assisting points for K. final suspicion. But the decisive point then became the refusal of the wanting the output. And in context then the goin public with K.s claim by the team member, I think it was Campbell.

I wished that our little search now haS at least this result: that one couldnt sensibly say that K. acted like your repeatedly claimed stamping him as a jackass.

[mclane]

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.

where do i violate the charter of this forum by asking you a question, Tüschen ?!

because i know you maybe oversaw my question, i will repeat it again for you:

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 ?

[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.

where do i violate the charter of this forum by asking you a question, Tüschen ?!

because i know you maybe oversaw my question, i will repeat it again for you:

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 ?

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.