bob wrote:The problem with the match rules rests solely on Kasparov. He was in the driver's seat and could have specified _anything_ he wanted. IBM needed to play him. So that simply is not an excuse, it is just a complete lack of thought and planning on his/his team's part... Using that as a stick against IBM is pretty sad... "I screwed up and you guys are jerks for letting me screw up..." That's not an adult way of thinking.mschribr wrote:The reason there is a problem is the rules did not say kasparov could ever get the logs. When kaparov asked for the logs during the match. The first response was no. Later they agreed he should get logs.bob wrote:If you go back and look again, you will find that Ken, Monty, Carol, were _all_ on the committee responsible for handling these kinds of problems. Ken did watch part of the games watching the remote operators screen, as this was a group of "friends". I probably would have been back there myself had I been present. Ken had a copy of the log in question the day the protest was made. I personally looked at it. Amir Ban received excerpts from the log (pertaining to the move questioned at the time) within a day or two. They were not "hidden".mschribr wrote:Bob, you were not an arbiter and Ken Thompson was not an arbiter. So neither of you could verify that logs were correct. Only the arbiter, Carol Jarecki, could verify the logs. This was not done. The logs should have been created in front of the arbiter and given to the arbiter after each game for same keeping.bob wrote:Sorry, but that's wrong. The logs _were_ verified _during_ the match. I even saw a copy of the key position's log emailed to me by Ken Thompson within 24 hours of the "fiasco" happening.mschribr wrote:Those logs have a problem. The logs on the ibm web site have no independent certification as being created by deep blue during the match. For the logs to be valid the judges would need to see them being created by deep blue during the game. The logs need to given to the judges during the match. The judges did not verify the logs on the ibm web site.bob wrote:The thing that most amazes me is that supposedly Kasparov claims he has never been able to look at the deep blue logs. Even though they were (and still are) available on the web. I could email 'em to him if he would shut that claim up.
You seem to demand that they disprove a negative, which is impossible. There are way too many ways to actually pull off cheating without detection. But for every move DB found in that match that was questioned by Kasparov, other programs have since shown that the moves were not surprising at all and are reproducible by several different programs.
But the logs are available, they match the games, there's no unusual aspect to them whatsoever...
The question is not if other chess programs could find the move. The question is did deep blue find the moves and could it do find them again. The question could easily be answered by having deep blue replay the games. Simple, setup deep blue and see if could replay the same moves. Oh, I forgot we couldn’t do that. Ibm dismantled deep blue so it could never play again. So it looks like we will never know if deep blue really played the moves.
It does seem ridiculous to claim that they were doctored, and demand proof they were not, when it is _impossible_ to prove they were not altered. No way to prove something did not happen.
This is just an excuse. And a bad one.
Kasparov wanted to verify the moves were made by deep blue. There are 2 easy ways to do that. 1 way is to have deep blue replay the games after the match. But, ibm in its infinite wisdom had the deep blue dismantled never to play again, a great loss for the chess and scientific communities.
A 2nd way is to have the arbiter see the logs printed out as the game is played. Then the arbiter can see there is no time for moves or logs to be doctored. The logs can be taken immediately by the arbiter. The Arbiter can give the logs to Garry when the match is over.
As far as an "arbiter" watching during the match, I'll guarantee you I could fix Crafty so that I could give it advice during a game, and have it make its output conform to that analysis. And the arbiter would not have a clue anything untoward had been done.
Again, you can't prove something did _not_ happen. You can only prove that it did.
Perhaps I should begin with the trivial part. Since I am under warning by a certain mod for NOT going into debates about ethical issues since these had zero to do with computerchess [triple sic!!!] I state that I did never see you avoiding a question or counter-argument from my side although it's well known that your expert knowledge is farther away from mine than the moon is away from this Earth - so I might get a reply this time too.
Apparently the issue above is a typical psychological or also ethical problem.
You are repeating that false argument over and over again that since Kasparov sat in the driver's seat he could and SHOULD have urged match conditions etc pp and then you also mention that IBM would have had accepted everything because they needed Kasparov so dearly. Then you also mention all the friends who sat there like, well, Monty et al - all also your friends as I know and you only left out Kasparov as a friend but he felt himself as a super friend too at the time but he was wrong.
BTW is Joel Benjamin also a friend of yours? The GM who betrayed the whole community with his announcements about his future publishing of all the material he had won during his prep time?
No, Bob, this is the main issue here, it's about the American way of winning in sports. Athlets are doped and companies betray a friend, a hero, who is falsely assuming that he's a friend like in 1996 and who then is psyched out by a simple "no, oh, so sorry, but I cant give you the logs".
Chess is NOT what computerchess freaks are assuming. A technical process. However human chess is something of the mind and his state and if I succeed in confusing a player, no matter the best, then he might fall or get parano, the more so if everybody knew that the whole thing for Kasparov was more a propaganda gig but NOT a thoroughly prepared Wch in chess. It's all understandable from Kasparov's own mind or better psyche.
If he had known in advance that suddenly the tech top chess ignorants would want it dirty, he would probably have cancelled the whole event.
Of course you are correct with all what you wrote but still you are wrong. BECAUSE a friend, an invitee is NOT mistreated this way. I mean you knew since long that he was wrong with simply taking Fritz as a slightly weaker simulation. Is the deeper reason for their choice for Kasparov because they knew that he couldnt have prepared properly without anything about the new DB 2? Leave me alone with your dead horse argument that a human player wouldnt give his new analyses either. But such a potential human would have been known for Kasparov - from its structure so to speak - for about 30 years!! You know well what I mean - the momentary cheating possibility with different personalities, chosen by strong human players to confuse the patient Kasparov who must adapt to something not feasable in only three games per color!!
But this is all side aspects. Let's take the central point of your defense for IBM.
You simply betray your own scientifical logic. You say that "the" logs of the machine are there, for several years. And foolish Kasparov denies it. I tell you why he's correct. And I know well that I wont insult Ken here for anything at all but I state that nobody knows that these logs are authentic. Not even Ken. Because he did the control much later.
But this isnt the main point either. Even if the data is absolutely the same as the original it's still not the code Kasparov would have seen if it had been shown at the exact moment Kasparov had asked for. The psychology is evident. Even if it had been the same data, it's no longer the same because Kasparov was induced to think falsely that they had something to hide. Know what I mean?
A code isnt the same although it looks absolutely like the other. A computer science expert must not understand it. And that's why we hstill have the American-Russian clash. Because basically after Fischer no American did ever get what top human chess is all about. I am absolutely sure that also GM Benjamin wouldnt have been a danger for Kasparov in the preparations. But this little trick did the whole thing. That little NJET at the wrong time. I must not add that the real story was a bit more complicated because he didnt say no but I will have to ask... but all this makes it still worse. Kasparov was no longer a friend of these Americans. Stupid top human chess giant! He didnt expect that they wanted to play it dirty...
Sorry, to repeat all this to your indignation. As you probably know I am no longer a Kasparov fan since long, but that is for political reasons.