DanHeisman wrote:
Don't know if anyone is interested, but I worked at both the
Kasparov-Deep Blue matches, and the inventor of UNIX (and computer
chess program Belle), Ken Thompson, was hired to watch Deep Blue's
monitor as it analyzed.

Hired by whom?

After the second game, when the controversy
broke out, Thompson was asked if Deep Blue could have cheated. His
reply, and I am paraphrasing, was "Not only did Deep Blue analyze Be4
before it played it, but so far it has analyzed every move before it
played it."

You must be joking. This shads very little light on the issue.

So unless one wants to call one of the world's most famous computer
scientists a liar (and Thompson was not an IBM employee), then Deep
Blue did not cheat.

No need to make such preposterous logical (false) implications.

- Dan Heisman
www.danheisman.com

Thank you for adding the link to your page.
I like it. It gave me an idea for rgcm (which
may be a topic for another thread, on rgcm).

Regards,

Wlod

wrote in message
oups.com...
Although some of the hardware used for Deep Blue was remissioned for
other purposes, the software lives on. Since the project was completed,
no further investments have been made and it has not been enhanced. To
IBM, Deep Blue was simply a fun way to develop its concept of "deep
computing", that resulted in a much bigger PR payoff than expected.
There was no cheating. Garry could have drawn the final game, and
therefore the second match, but he took a calculated risk to try and
win it, that didn't work. Bravo for Garry ... he demonstrated that even
the largest amount of compute power that had ever been assembled for
chess could at best play even with the top human player.

I suppose that beyond the idea of human intervention [what was Benjamin
actually doing there, eg?] the second cheat foisted on the public was the
idea that the program beat the chess world champion.

How many moves did the program play out-of-the-book?

When did it begin to make out-of-book-moves?

Did it use end-tables? [and thus rejoin the book by using look-ups later in
the game]

[[look-up of material is not legal chess, btw, and cannot be compared with
legal chess]]

What was the technical role of the TD - ie, what were his terms of
reference?

If I had a massive database of all GM moves in the openings, then I could
confront any GM in the world with it, no? especially if it takes me no time,
but takes them an hour to negotiate my course to get to move 20. And this
would also consume GK's time and sap his energy.

GK played his weird anti-computer lines precisely to get around this
formidable problem - but his conceit was that this would advantage him more
than the program - which it did not. And so we have on a technical basis GK
playing daft chess, not his own game, or indeed chess-as-we-know it.

This is the second aspect of the cheating which IBM's apologists do not
address.

Phil Innes

"DanHeisman" wrote in message
oups.com...
Don't know if anyone is interested, but I worked at both the
Kasparov-Deep Blue matches, and the inventor of UNIX (and computer
chess program Belle), Ken Thompson, was hired to watch Deep Blue's
monitor as it analyzed.

Hired by IBM, but with a confidentiality caveat to his contract?

After the second game, when the controversy
broke out, Thompson was asked if Deep Blue could have cheated. His
reply, and I am paraphrasing, was "Not only did Deep Blue analyze Be4
before it played it, but so far it has analyzed every move before it
played it."

This is all well known Danny, but the question is not if a brute-force
evaluation of all moves 'were analysed' by DB, but what was the evaluation
process in /selecting/ moves?

To wit: all moves were analysed, but who or what selected the moves, since
the analysis itself was not presented after the games as requested.

So unless one wants to call one of the world's most famous computer
scientists a liar (and Thompson was not an IBM employee), then Deep
Blue did not cheat.

There can have been cheating notwithstanding Thompson's comment.

Phil Innes

Ironically, if you give the same position to Kasparov's favorite PC
program Fritz 9 in 2006, it will now also rate Be4 as about the equally
best move very quickly!

- Dan Heisman
www.danheisman.com

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod) wrote:
Anybody who followed about the second
Kasparov-Deep Blue Match, and who
knows the disgusting lack of ethics at
the large US coompanies (I am sure
that it's not different in other countries
but I happened to know about the US)
can't have any doubts that IBM has
cheated Kasparov out of winning the
match.

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod) wrote:

This shads very little light on the issue.

sheds

*****

Wlod

For the sake of an intellectual exercise
let's assume that losing a FAIR match
against a computer was a criminal
offense on the part of the world champion.

Now the situation is: IBM is accusing
Kasparov of losing a FAIR match.
Thus IBM (or someone on behalf of IBM)
should prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Go ahead guys!

Regards,

Wlod

"Chess One" writes:


If I had a massive database of all GM moves in the openings, then I could
confront any GM in the world with it, no?

No.

It all depends on your frame of reference.


GK played his weird anti-computer lines precisely to get around this
formidable problem

That was his choice. It was the wrong choice. He got bad advice from
"computer experts".



This is the second aspect of the cheating which IBM's apologists do not
address.

GK's bad choice of strategy is evidence that IBM cheated?

Interesting frame of reference.


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Uzytkownik "Kenneth Sloan" napisal w wiadomosci
...

This is the second aspect of the cheating which IBM's apologists do not
address.

GK's bad choice of strategy is evidence that IBM cheated?

No, however the players hidden behind the curtain should be visible in
public. There was no transparency in that match, of course because of
naivety of Kasparov.

"Jerzy" writes:

Uzytkownik "Kenneth Sloan" napisal w wiadomosci
...

This is the second aspect of the cheating which IBM's apologists do not
address.

GK's bad choice of strategy is evidence that IBM cheated?

No, however the players hidden behind the curtain should be visible in
public. There was no transparency in that match, of course because of
naivety of Kasparov.

Was the team of assistants "hidden behind the curtain" on Kasparov's
team "visible to the public"?


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Jerzy wrote:
Uzytkownik "Kenneth Sloan" napisal w wiadomosci
...

This is the second aspect of the cheating which IBM's apologists do not
address.

GK's bad choice of strategy is evidence that IBM cheated?

No, however the players hidden behind the curtain should be visible in
public.

This reminds me of a passage about leprechauns in the novel
"Falstaff" by Robert Nye. Falstaff said that the only way to prove
leprechauns do not exist was to "see them not existing!"

Actually, Garry's loss was a dissapoinment to the IBM research team.
They didn't think that DB-II would be strong enough to beat him. Their
projection was that 400 million positions per second of calculating
power would be needed... so they were anticipating the need to build
DB-III. After the match, there was even talk of continuing the
experiment with Garry in more of a consultant role, but by then Garry's
pride had kicked in, so that idea was dead on arrival.