I have pointed out, repeatedly, that if someone wants to cheat then (a) it would be nearly impossible to prevent and (b) just as impossible to detect. That assumes someone _wants_ to cheat. That particular line of reasoning is not worth discussing. If the DB guys wanted to cheat, why on earth would they let their engine play a couple of moves that change the game outcome (Kf1 which led to a forced draw vs Kh1 which led to a forced win for one example)?? What exactly would they use to cheat? Another human? What human would be strong enough to suggest changes to the best move in real time, and be capable of beating Kasparov? No answer comes to mind. So while it would not be hard to design a system to allow cheating, the difficult part would be to come up with a methodology to use that system. I would not try to override DB's choice of a move. We have already seen the best human in the world (at the time) suggest that Qb6 was better than axb6, when we now _know_ that Qb6 does _not_ win a pawn compared to axb so what human could help us in our cheating endeavor?Rolf wrote:I dont get it that you are incapable to grasp that you are not following consent for a neutral talking about a problem, scientific/research or how you may call it. Look, next time around I call you the man with the screwdriver in his ears or the Easter candles. And I will _precisely_ give the reasons for doing so. And then this would be allowed here??bob wrote:I called Kasparov a jackass and gave a _precise_ reason for doing so. To accuse/imply someone cheated in such a match was a sure sign of a jackass at work. Simple enough.Rolf wrote:BubbaTough wrote:When you get the urge to rant on 'culture', please do it in the "Chess Thinkers Forum" where I am sure comparisons of the great evils of various societies, historical and current, would be of interest to many. If you have a point to make about computer chess, it should be able to stand on its own without regard to the heredity or geolocation of the author of an opposing position. If you find yourself unable to present a coherent argument without referring to someone's tertiary characteristics, perhaps you need to revise your position.Therefore it's ridiculous when Sam asked me to refreign from criticising American 'culture' and foul play.
Essentially, there is no need to bring issues up so completely unrelated to computer chess here.
-Sam
And keep your tongue in your mouth, you limey Kraut.
Sam, I dont get it. Why is Bob allowed to call Kasparov jackass? But I am not allowed to criticise Bob for such insults from my European perspective? Do you follow a double standard in that regard? Is Bob really allowed to insult people who defend Kasparov? Shouldnt we exchange opinions without insults at all?
I have not insulted anyone that defends Kasparov that I am aware of. I have certainly pointed out flaws in (mostly your) reasoning about the subject. If you consider that an insult, you have even more problems to deal with.
You claim to be logically correct to say "To accuse/imply someone cheated in such a match was a sure sign of a jackass at work. Simple enough." And you are completely wrong with it.
It really blows my mind that an American Associate Professor (excuse the former notion, I really had confused it as the same because I always saw the three letter abreviation Ass.Prof., so sorry for that oversight) could speak out such an illogical nonsense.
You, Bob Hyatt, have yourself given me multimega reasons how everything in computerchess could be cheated and _why_ it only partially and for a short instant could be reveiled before the next level of the childish game "get me if you can" has been attained. Would you want to deny that?
In the absense of anyone that could possibly help by playing better than DB was capable of playing, the idea is simply silly.
To accuse someone of cheating, with zero evidence of any kind, with no explanation or suggestion of how they cheated ("They had Kramnik in a room helping them..." for example, even though Kramnik could not beat Kasparov consistently) is definitely the mark of a sore loser / jackass. The way they reacted was not "indecent". If I play you a game, I have absolutely no obligation to tell you what I was considering at each move, how I ranked each move, the variations I thought were optimal for each move, etc... They had no such obligation either. And had they asked Kasparov to explain where they had gone wrong in game one, do you believe that Kasparov would have answered? I don't think so...
But you are incapable of making the conclusion yourself, that then a human chessplayer, like every lay around, is open for all kind of suspicions and conspiracy theories? It blows my mind why your so highly educated and experienced friends in the DB/IBM team had no plan for such a development during the match. The way how they then reacted was indecent, impolite and a violation of several rules of scientific methodology. But you have the nerve to simply reduce the whole topic on K. simply being a "jackass".
I don't feel like "anything" except the supplier of facts. Cheating did not occur, end of story. that is a fact... kasparov got up on the stage after game 3, talked about game 2 and directly implied that the DB team had cheated during game 2 (and not during the break in the game either) but at a later move, move 36 I believe it was. Someone from the audience (there is a poor video on the ChessBase web site that has good audio) asked him "are you saying the program had help" or something, so his implication was pretty clear. That was certainly a action that showed low morals or indecency...Now what is this all about here? - Are you really the Ass.Prof., you are, with a kind of neutral, hate-free speech and a perspective for the decisive factors of a problem, or are you feeling like a running mate for a candidate in a political election in your country? Or like the trainer in a football team? Methinks you are confusing these levels more than necessary. It then is no wonder if I come to the conclusion that this sort of violent debating style must have some reasons in the origines of the particular actors. Not that Europeans were 'better' but I think academics at least should have learned to willingly decide to use a civilized speech.
I will say this again. the DB team did not make this public. Kasparov did at the press conference after game 3. The video is on the chessbase web site. You should watch and then you can stop making erroneous statements about who made this public. It was kasparov. On a stage. In a full auditorium.
Above all your personal style isnt interesting for the underlying question if the IBM team are the reason for the escalation that then brought K. to make his statements later, I think at minimum a day after his forfeit in game two, that the hand of God had interfered. But the evil was already done on that morning when the team member told the media that K. had accused them of cheating which he simply hasnt done. We must not repeat what we wrote in earlier messages. What Friedel was about etc.
Are you now arguing against Kasparov? because this is what he did in public. I agree he should not have made his claim in public, but he did. He aired a "stupid allegation" (your words) standing on a stage in front of over 500 people, many of which were newspaper writers and magazing writers...
Is it fair to say that in the end we can call the whole problem this way:
° computer science isnt a science, isnt an exact method either because it even cant exclude simple or smart cheating, so that the object is unknown that should be controlled and researched
° if a human being is participating in a sort of experimental design, it's possible beyond personal friendship and respect, that the psychology of the setting enforces suspicion and conspiracy in special if we speak of superstitious human beings as clients like in this case we are discussing here
I would say so. These two paragraphes describe the difficulties of the topic we are talking about. and this is possible do research without personal insults or envy. Or hate propaganda. Or stupid allegations of dirty laundry addictions.
The problem is, no matter what steps you take, there will be one you forgot about. And he could have _still_ made his claim, since his ego had him convinced that he could not lose to a computer, because he could not lose to fritz...
You must realise that these aspects should be addressed in your field of computation tech. I for one, coming from physics, am pretty sure that a better control of the setting in machine chess is possible. Better control mechanisms might look odd but it's doable like in human chess too. And after all, Kasparov said it, it's important to have the topic in the contract itself. After the motto, everything must be especially forbidden what you dont want to happen. Which is insane compared to science. In science you dont forbid evil intentions but someone who was caught in the act or indirectly by proof, he wont be participating anymore. It's simple as that. To understand that you must first of all forget about watertight court verdict accorded proof.
Kasparov lost game two. He resigned a dead drawn position. he was told this. Even after being told that he had made an egregious error of judgement, he _still_ had the audacity to get up on a stage and imply that IBM had cheated.
In the case of the IBM match in 1997 my proof was made. They treated the suspicious K. with contempt, as if his quests of doubt would come from an alien and this was the unallowed incident because how could that be thought and done if you can show the many ways how it could all be cheated? You dont want to make these implications out of your own judgement?
The first, and most important issue, is a simple one, when discussing this issue. Give me some methodology to choose a move better than the move(s) chosen by deep blue. Once we can develop a way to come up with better moves, in real time by the way since this has to be done while the game is in progress) then we can discuss ways it could have been done. But the problem is, there is no way to choose a better move. IBM knew how fast the box was. Murray/Hsu/Hoane/etc knew there was no human that could have helped, given the real-time constraints of making a move while the clock was ticking. So they had no way to produce a move better than DB's move. So cheating simply can not be done. It really is that simple. There are dozens of ways to rig up a program to allow a human to override / choose a move to play, but the fly in the ointment is "where do you get the override move from and how would you have any clue that it is better (and not worse) than the move the program actually wants to play???" To postulate cheating, you have to suggest a source for the moves you don't believe the machine played, what could that source be? I don't believe the press were impressed by "the hand of god" explanation myself.
There is evidence that suggests that parts of rybka were derived from fruit. Actual evidence based on values and instructions in the two programs. That is factual evidence. More will come at some point in time. With DB there has never been _any_ factual evidence to suggest they did something under-handed. Not one shred of evidence in fact. The move Kasparov said could only be played by "the hand of god" has been reproduced by many programs, mine included. And in the process we discovered that his claim that Qb6 wins a pawn is wrong. Go deep enough and Qb6 fails low, and axb5 looks better. So much for "the hand of god" helping them. If you have evidence to support you, that is one thing. But to come up with nothing whatsoever, and still claim cheating occurred is a sure sign of a pompous jackass at work.
Finally, dont you know how scientists proceed? I would be happy if you could show and prove exactly where and why I am wrong with all these questions and suppositions. Therefore it would be nice if you would better care for your allies who are just waiting for a signal from your side to go for a virtual slaughter in this forum. It looks as if people who ask questions must at first prove that they dont want to find out something fishy underneath. As if such a forum is made for the protection of stinking fish and dirty laundry. Thell me please that this isnt the case for the decisive people. Although it's breathtaking with what a big double standard you measure your own "scientifical" questioning and chasing of Vas and then in return your conservative protective wall like defense of your iBM buddies. That double standard stinks more than anything else.
