Kasparov was in fact psychologically cheated in 1997

[mhull]

I have psychologically cheated opponents in OTB play, mostly by pretending that I'm not very interested in the game, and am thus not paying close attention. This has worked on several occaisions.

Much of Kasparov's power at the board is psychological, IMO. He has "command presence". Unfortunately for him, computers are immune to such effects.

A computer has it's own psychological power -- a Capablanca-like, unflappable aplomb. IMO, this was very disconcerting to Kasporov in the Deepr-BLue match. He freaked out.

It was a fair match.

[bob]

I have psychologically cheated opponents in OTB play, mostly by pretending that I'm not very interested in the game, and am thus not paying close attention. This has worked on several occaisions.

Much of Kasparov's power at the board is psychological, IMO. He has "command presence". Unfortunately for him, computers are immune to such effects.

A computer has it's own psychological power -- a Capablanca-like, unflappable aplomb. IMO, this was very disconcerting to Kasporov in the Deepr-BLue match. He freaked out.

It was a fair match.

1. Please don't feed the trolls.

2. You can find almost _exactly_ the same comments in a story in a 1981 edition of the Clarion-Ledger (Jackson MS newspaper) after Cray Blitz won the 1981 mississippi closed state championship (also became the first program to beat a USCF master at a tournament time control in that event.) Master Joe Sentef was visibly angry about losing to CB. Sort of Deja vu in fact, to be repeated again in 1997.

[Terry McCracken]

I have psychologically cheated opponents in OTB play, mostly by pretending that I'm not very interested in the game, and am thus not paying close attention. This has worked on several occaisions.

Much of Kasparov's power at the board is psychological, IMO. He has "command presence". Unfortunately for him, computers are immune to such effects.

A computer has it's own psychological power -- a Capablanca-like, unflappable aplomb. IMO, this was very disconcerting to Kasporov in the Deepr-BLue match. He freaked out.

It was a fair match.

That works does it? I knew arrogant players who pulled that routine who didn't know me. The ones that knew me knew better. It didn't work. Anyway, Kasparov's power at the board is his chess prowess although I won't deny he used psychology to intimidate his opponents, but that didn't work on Anand or Kramnik.

Kasparov didn't freak out but he did exuast himself mentally after failing in game two.

The match may have been fair as far as no cheating took place, but it wasn't completely fair as you suggest.

Hiding data after the games isn't fair. Decieving Kasparov about what they were doing wasn't fair. The only thing they wanted was to win by any trick they could and screw the rest!

Yeah Matt, if you think IBM is fair well that says it all...

[bob]

I have psychologically cheated opponents in OTB play, mostly by pretending that I'm not very interested in the game, and am thus not paying close attention. This has worked on several occaisions.

Much of Kasparov's power at the board is psychological, IMO. He has "command presence". Unfortunately for him, computers are immune to such effects.

A computer has it's own psychological power -- a Capablanca-like, unflappable aplomb. IMO, this was very disconcerting to Kasporov in the Deepr-BLue match. He freaked out.

It was a fair match.

That works does it? I knew arrogant players who pulled that routine who didn't know me. The ones that knew me knew better. It didn't work. Anyway, Kasparov's power at the board is his chess prowess although I won't deny he used psychology to intimidate his opponents, but that didn't work on Anand or Kramnik.

Kasparov didn't freak out but he did exuast himself mentally after failing in game two.

The match may have been fair as far as no cheating took place, but it wasn't completely fair as you suggest.

Hiding data after the games isn't fair. Decieving Kasparov about what they were doing wasn't fair. The only thing they wanted was to win by any trick they could and screw the rest!

Yeah Matt, if you think IBM is fair well that says it all...

GM Walter Browne was well-known for his intimidating manner at the board. Joe Sentef was the same. he slammed the clock, moved quickly to intimidate his opponent into thinking he was falling into a deep and pre-calculated trap, and so forth. And Cray Blitz didn't care one iota... He complained in the Clarion-Ledger article that the computer countered most of his "ability" because it was not intimidated...

[Terry McCracken]

I have psychologically cheated opponents in OTB play, mostly by pretending that I'm not very interested in the game, and am thus not paying close attention. This has worked on several occaisions.

Much of Kasparov's power at the board is psychological, IMO. He has "command presence". Unfortunately for him, computers are immune to such effects.

A computer has it's own psychological power -- a Capablanca-like, unflappable aplomb. IMO, this was very disconcerting to Kasporov in the Deepr-BLue match. He freaked out.

It was a fair match.

That works does it? I knew arrogant players who pulled that routine who didn't know me. The ones that knew me knew better. It didn't work. Anyway, Kasparov's power at the board is his chess prowess although I won't deny he used psychology to intimidate his opponents, but that didn't work on Anand or Kramnik.

Kasparov didn't freak out but he did exuast himself mentally after failing in game two.

The match may have been fair as far as no cheating took place, but it wasn't completely fair as you suggest.

Hiding data after the games isn't fair. Decieving Kasparov about what they were doing wasn't fair. The only thing they wanted was to win by any trick they could and screw the rest!

Yeah Matt, if you think IBM is fair well that says it all...

GM Walter Browne was well-known for his intimidating manner at the board. Joe Sentef was the same. he slammed the clock, moved quickly to intimidate his opponent into thinking he was falling into a deep and pre-calculated trap, and so forth. And Cray Blitz didn't care one iota... He complained in the Clarion-Ledger article that the computer countered most of his "ability" because it was not intimidated...

I understand, but the case with Kasparov isn't as simple or clear imo.

However, history will only record that Kasparov lost...which is most unfortunate.

[Graham Banks]

history will only record that Kasparov lost...which is most unfortunate.

That part I certainly agree with.

[Rolf]

Matt began the false topic interpretation and Bob continued with a nice anecdote about a (to a machine) losing human chess master. In the end one could believe that this is really about a machine entity and a human being, just like what Kasparov assisted in the 1997 prematch ballyhoo propaganda worldwide. At sometime Kasparov might have lost himself in this nice delusion that he would (like a Jesus figure) save mankind against the evil. Well that was kind of the propaganda to attract the masses. However from many prematch reports, mostly in the CBM videos by Friedel, you could see that Kasparov in truth was absolutely convinced that the match would be a show with only one possible winner, himself, because he went through, with assistance of Friedel, the many typical problem positions a computer just cant manage well.

So, let's summarize, we have two cheats before the match begun. The Jesus mankind saving bogus and then the cheat against himself when Kasparov was sure, out of experience with his Fritz, that he couldnt get defeated.

Then the third cheat in game two. Only Derek described the situation well enough. And exactly this is always hidden and obfuscated before the eyes of the public.

Only in game two IMO we had a break of 1 whole hour and exactly in the position that Kasparov later took as proof that computers couldnt play this way yet. You know well, you readers here, that it's possible to manipulate the output of a machine, if you have informations when the machine will exactlyb produce the key move without finally playing it if it would plkay the game on its own. There are several possibilities of cheating. And note, this isnt as if DB would never have pondered on the crucial, legendary move! It might have but human interference made sure that it played it.
The details of the hour long break and the interference possibility wasnt sufficiently clarified during the game, when Kasparov already was suspicious, nor after the game when they refused to show their output and also not after the match during the press conference. What they showed and what experts like Hyatt then gave his blessing inspite his knowledge of the endless list of cheating possibilities was a cleansed output where nobody could detect any kind of irregularities except the usual machine like. Ken Thompson unfortunately was the one who sat before the machine's output process and he affirmated nothing special, but Ken was honest enough, although in a bind with IBM and the whole show, that he felt uneasy with the way how they had treated Kasparov, as he thought unfairly. Anything else would have been guessing because like Bob Ken knew well how it all could be cheated but without exact proof HOW it happened you couldnt make allegations without getting sued yourself.

That is the truth about the cheat. Since the team around Murray and Hsu didnt open access to the data at the time on site when the moment was of the break or shortly afterwards after the game, they themselves bear the necessity to prove that everything was kosher. Not Kasparov or anyone now must prove what they did.

In science the game two can by no means taken for a proof that the machine beat Kasparov on its own. The operators didnt prove that they havent cheated during and after the break. That is an absolutely clear conclusion.

So, normally if in science we remain with doubts, serious doubts, the whole experiment and its setting should be examined. But this was exactly prevented by a hasty deconstruction and selling of the parts of the machine.

Again, only Americans in their patriotism, could overlook in the video from 2005, that Murray Campbell is visibly showing that the team of the machine, not the machine itself, cheated Kasparov. That is without doubt and if ever science has any say in computerchess at all. But sad to see even computer science isnt unanimously accepted as a science. So then it's true that drugs, doping and cheats are allowed in computerchess as long as it' not against the written content of contracts. And this means against specific orders in it, not such handwaving as fairness...

[Terry McCracken]

history will only record that Kasparov lost...which is most unfortunate.

That part I certainly agree with.

Which part? That Kasparov lost? Case closed?


I think you're happy Kasparov Fekcud up. Obviously Kasparov is a Ptuz, Lseor, Caeht no Telnat Aoslhse who's games had always been Sategd.

Of course this means the whole event was a Haox.

[Terry McCracken]

Matt began the false topic interpretation and Bob continued with a nice anecdote about a (to a machine) losing human chess master. In the end one could believe that this is really about a machine entity and a human being, just like what Kasparov assisted in the 1997 prematch ballyhoo propaganda worldwide. At sometime Kasparov might have lost himself in this nice delusion that he would (like a Jesus figure) save mankind against the evil. Well that was kind of the propaganda to attract the masses. However from many prematch reports, mostly in the CBM videos by Friedel, you could see that Kasparov in truth was absolutely convinced that the match would be a show with only one possible winner, himself, because he went through, with assistance of Friedel, the many typical problem positions a computer just cant manage well.

So, let's summarize, we have two cheats before the match begun. The Jesus mankind saving bogus and then the cheat against himself when Kasparov was sure, out of experience with his Fritz, that he couldnt get defeated.

Then the third cheat in game two. Only Derek described the situation well enough. And exactly this is always hidden and obfuscated before the eyes of the public.

Only in game two IMO we had a break of 1 whole hour and exactly in the position that Kasparov later took as proof that computers couldnt play this way yet. You know well, you readers here, that it's possible to manipulate the output of a machine, if you have informations when the machine will exactlyb produce the key move without finally playing it if it would plkay the game on its own. There are several possibilities of cheating. And note, this isnt as if DB would never have pondered on the crucial, legendary move! It might have but human interference made sure that it played it.
The details of the hour long break and the interference possibility wasnt sufficiently clarified during the game, when Kasparov already was suspicious, nor after the game when they refused to show their output and also not after the match during the press conference. What they showed and what experts like Hyatt then gave his blessing inspite his knowledge of the endless list of cheating possibilities was a cleansed output where nobody could detect any kind of irregularities except the usual machine like. Ken Thompson unfortunately was the one who sat before the machine's output process and he affirmated nothing special, but Ken was honest enough, although in a bind with IBM and the whole show, that he felt uneasy with the way how they had treated Kasparov, as he thought unfairly. Anything else would have been guessing because like Bob Ken knew well how it all could be cheated but without exact proof HOW it happened you couldnt make allegations without getting sued yourself.

That is the truth about the cheat. Since the team around Murray and Hsu didnt open access to the data at the time on site when the moment was of the break or shortly afterwards after the game, they themselves bear the necessity to prove that everything was kosher. Not Kasparov or anyone now must prove what they did.

In science the game two can by no means taken for a proof that the machine beat Kasparov on its own. The operators didnt prove that they havent cheated during and after the break. That is an absolutely clear conclusion.

So, normally if in science we remain with doubts, serious doubts, the whole experiment and its setting should be examined. But this was exactly prevented by a hasty deconstruction and selling of the parts of the machine.

Again, only Americans in their patriotism, could overlook in the video from 2005, that Murray Campbell is visibly showing that the team of the machine, not the machine itself, cheated Kasparov. That is without doubt and if ever science has any say in computerchess at all. But sad to see even computer science isnt unanimously accepted as a science. So then it's true that drugs, doping and cheats are allowed in computerchess as long as it' not against the written content of contracts. And this means against specific orders in it, not such handwaving as fairness...

When IBM et al figure out what you wrote they'll sue your ***

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Matt began the false topic interpretation and Bob continued with a nice anecdote about a (to a machine) losing human chess master. In the end one could believe that this is really about a machine entity and a human being, just like what Kasparov assisted in the 1997 prematch ballyhoo propaganda worldwide. At sometime Kasparov might have lost himself in this nice delusion that he would (like a Jesus figure) save mankind against the evil. Well that was kind of the propaganda to attract the masses. However from many prematch reports, mostly in the CBM videos by Friedel, you could see that Kasparov in truth was absolutely convinced that the match would be a show with only one possible winner, himself, because he went through, with assistance of Friedel, the many typical problem positions a computer just cant manage well.

So, let's summarize, we have two cheats before the match begun. The Jesus mankind saving bogus and then the cheat against himself when Kasparov was sure, out of experience with his Fritz, that he couldnt get defeated.

Then the third cheat in game two. Only Derek described the situation well enough. And exactly this is always hidden and obfuscated before the eyes of the public.

Only in game two IMO we had a break of 1 whole hour and exactly in the position that Kasparov later took as proof that computers couldnt play this way yet. You know well, you readers here, that it's possible to manipulate the output of a machine, if you have informations when the machine will exactlyb produce the key move without finally playing it if it would plkay the game on its own. There are several possibilities of cheating. And note, this isnt as if DB would never have pondered on the crucial, legendary move! It might have but human interference made sure that it played it.
The details of the hour long break and the interference possibility wasnt sufficiently clarified during the game, when Kasparov already was suspicious, nor after the game when they refused to show their output and also not after the match during the press conference. What they showed and what experts like Hyatt then gave his blessing inspite his knowledge of the endless list of cheating possibilities was a cleansed output where nobody could detect any kind of irregularities except the usual machine like. Ken Thompson unfortunately was the one who sat before the machine's output process and he affirmated nothing special, but Ken was honest enough, although in a bind with IBM and the whole show, that he felt uneasy with the way how they had treated Kasparov, as he thought unfairly. Anything else would have been guessing because like Bob Ken knew well how it all could be cheated but without exact proof HOW it happened you couldnt make allegations without getting sued yourself.

That is the truth about the cheat. Since the team around Murray and Hsu didnt open access to the data at the time on site when the moment was of the break or shortly afterwards after the game, they themselves bear the necessity to prove that everything was kosher. Not Kasparov or anyone now must prove what they did.

In science the game two can by no means taken for a proof that the machine beat Kasparov on its own. The operators didnt prove that they havent cheated during and after the break. That is an absolutely clear conclusion.

So, normally if in science we remain with doubts, serious doubts, the whole experiment and its setting should be examined. But this was exactly prevented by a hasty deconstruction and selling of the parts of the machine.

Again, only Americans in their patriotism, could overlook in the video from 2005, that Murray Campbell is visibly showing that the team of the machine, not the machine itself, cheated Kasparov. That is without doubt and if ever science has any say in computerchess at all. But sad to see even computer science isnt unanimously accepted as a science. So then it's true that drugs, doping and cheats are allowed in computerchess as long as it' not against the written content of contracts. And this means against specific orders in it, not such handwaving as fairness...

When IBM et al figure out what you wrote they'll sue your ***

no one can sue Rolf's @ss,it's immune to such things