 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsAnalysisComputerChess Politics ChessKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Chess Forum / General Topics / June 2006Karpov-Polugaevsky, Tilburg 1983 - a fix?
There has been a conversation about Karpov-Polugaevsky, Tilburg (round 2) 1983 at Chessgames.com ( http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068367 ). This is the game: Karpov,Anatoly (2710) - Polugaevsky,Lev A (2625) [D32] It GM Tilburg NED (2), 1983 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.e3 e6 5.d4 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Be2 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bd6 9.0-0 0-0 10.Bf3 Be5 11.Qd3 Nb4 12.Qd2 Bxd4 13.exd4 Bf5 14.Bd1 Re8 15.Na4 Nc6 16.f3 Qa5 17.Qxa5 Nxa5 18.Kf2 Nc6 19.Be3 Nb4 20.Bg5 Nd7 21.g4 Bg6 22.Bb3 Bc2 23.Bxc2 Nxc2 24.Rad1 f6 25.Bf4 Nf8 26.Rd2 Ne6 27.Bg3 Ncxd4 28.Rfd1 Nc6 29.Rxd5 Rad8 30.Rxd8 Rxd8 31.Rxd8+ Ncxd8 32.Ke3 Kf7 33.f4 g6 34.f5 gxf5 35.gxf5 Ng7 36.Ke4 Nc6 37.Bd6 Ne7 38.Nc5 b6 39.Na6 Ngxf5 40.Bb8 Ke6 41.Bxa7 Nd6+ 42.Kd3 Nd5 43.a4 f5 44.b4 f4 45.a5 bxa5 46.bxa5 Kd7 47.Nc5+ Kc6 48.Nb3 Nb4+ 49.Ke2 Kb5 50.Kf3 Nc6 51.Bb6 Nc4 52.Bc7 N6xa5 53.Nxa5 Nxa5 54.Bxa5 Kxa5 55.Kxf4 Kb5 56.Kg5 Kc5 57.Kh6 1-0 You can read the comments there. The first post was "I am surprised that nobody has commented on this game yet, as it was very likely thrown by Polugaevsky. Larry Evans points this out in one of his books (I forget the title of it). The game was adjourned after 52. Bc7, and both players went home to look it over. When Polugaevsky came back, he opened with 52...N4xa5, one of the worst blunders of his career! Because of this, Karpov won the tournament! I find it hard to believe that any competent GM would blunder this badly, after an adjournment! It took me, a 1700 player, all of five seconds to see 52...N4xa5 was a lemon! To me, this game stands as evidence that some level of Soviet collusion still existed even in the mid-1980's. In Evans' book, he points out that Seirawan agrees with him, citing evidence of Spassky's dismissal from the Russian squad after winning Linares '83 ahead of Karpov. Clearly, the government highly favored Karpov, and players took this into account when meeting him in tournaments." A counter-comment, at the bottom, says: "I find it unusual that the game was adjourned at move 52. That would be the latest that I have ecer heard of an adjournment taking place - it is meant to be after 5 hours of play which was usually around moves 40-42, unless both players were playing quickly. What I think is more likely is that the games is adjourned at move 42. At the resumption Polugaevsky is quickly taken out of his analysis and runs into time-trouble - the second time-control would be at move 56. In his time-trouble he makes a miscalculation and loses." Has anyone else heard anything about this game? Id particularly like to know when the adjournment was. The game doesn't seem to be in Informator. Alan  SignatureWork like the ponies in coalmines. Dance like the teardrop explodes. Love like you're Frank in Blue Velvet. Sing as though your little throat would burst. > There has been a conversation about Karpov-Polugaevsky, Tilburg (round 2) > 1983 at Chessgames.com ( [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > of Karpov. Clearly, the government highly favored Karpov, and players took > this into account when meeting him in tournaments." If you look closely at the actual game, you will see that as early as move 11, Polugaevsky was "inconveniencing" Karpov, despite having Black and playing a symmetrical line. Q: how does this "strategy" (i.e. annoying one's opponent with computer-like moves) fit in with the conspiracy theory? Suppose Polu. also was kicking Karpov under the table -- is it okay, so long as, after a long struggle and an adjournment, he eventually loses in the endgame? :) This particular game aside, it was (and perhaps still is) very popular back then to attack Karpov, both his political status and his style of play (which very few could truly appreciate). On occasion, even Karpov's appearance and his high, girlish voice would be ridiculed; I still recall a cover photo in Chess LIfe where they had obviously, deliberately chosen the worst photo imagineable for a close-up of Karpov's head -- yuck! In the above quoted text, it says "I find it hard to believe that any competent GM would blunder this badly..."; how many times has this sort of thinking been proven wrong! Indeed, the pages of chess books and magazines are filled from cover-to-cover with examples of horrific blunders from GM play! The belief that GMs are somehow immune to serious error is a pipedream, for even in relatively simple positions without time pressure, GMs have been known to emulate the rest of us by blundering for no good reason. A fair example would be Fischer's famous Bishop "sac" against Spassky, where he simply overlooked what Spassky had already dismissed as unsound. Another thing to consider is that if Lary Evans is your source for this game, you would do well to double-check the facts. If, for example, Evans says that the game was "adjourned on move 52", it might be a "typo" for some other move number. GM Evans is notorious for being lazy and careless with dates and facts. It says above that it took you, a 1700 player, all of five seconds to discard the move Polu. played after the adjournment. Q: where were YOU during the first fifty moves of the game, when Polu. needed all the help he could get, being outrated by 85 Elo points? And where were YOU when they kidnapped Polugaevsky's son, threatening to beat him up if your man didn't throw the game? (No, wait -- that was Kortchnoi.) And where were YOU when Polu. desperately needed help with his adjournment analysis? I bet I know where you were: helping Karpov's team! This is probably why Karpov -- a known duffer in the endgame -- was able to somehow escape Polugaevsky's grasp and snatch a win from the very jaws of defeat! And now you have the nerve to come here and pretend your man was forced to "throw" the game, when you know perfectly well it was YOUR defection to the other side, your helping Karpov on the adjournment, which turned the tables. You may have fooled Evans and the Yaz, but I know what you are. :) If you think that game was "fixed", imagine what you could do with some of my games! "They *both* were trying very hard to throw the game, but all their efforts ended up in a mere draw. I suspect there was involvement by the KGB, the CIA, and possibly even AA." -- help bot GREG KENNEDY'S GIBBERISH > Another thing to consider is that if Lary Evans is your source for this game, you would do well to double-check the facts. If, for example, Evans says that the game was "adjourned on move 52", it might be a "typo" for some other move number. GM Evans is notorious for being lazy and careless with dates and facts.> -- Help Bot (Greg Kennedy) Another in a long line of false charges by Greg Kennedy. Karpov-Polugaevsky, Tilburg 1983 is highlighted after 52 Bc7 in THE 10 MOST COMMON CHESS MISTAKES by Larry Evans when Black threw away an easy draw by 52...N6xa5?? instead of 52...Kb4! Needless to say, contrary to Greg Kennedy's usual gibberish, GM Evans, never claimed the game was adjourned on move 52. Here is exactly what he wrote on page 231(diagram 208): HANKY-PANKY? Could any grandmaster worth his salt lose this ending after analyzing it overnight when the game was adjourned? Yet Black found a way to lose, prompting critics to accuse him of throwing the game. Was it carelessness or something more sinister? Fischer once accused Soviets of throwing key games to each other in international tourneys. GM Yasser Seirawan, when asked if he ever saw any evidence of this in his own experience, said: "His charge is absolutely true! I've seen it happen. Soviet stars were expected to finish behind Karpov and I saw Polugaevsky throw away an easy draw against him in this simple endgame. When Spassky committed the crime of finishing first ahead of Karpov in Spain, they cut off his interzonal funding -- which is why Spassky left Russia and went to play for France in the Olympiads." Also see THE CHESS BEAT by Larry Parr, December 1, 2001 http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessNews/articles/4-1-2.php 8 I'm Resigning Because I Don't want My Liver Ripped Out: Masters who fear for their lives or well-being genuflect. Botvinnik-Bronstein (World Championship Match, 1951; Game 23) is the most famous example of such a resignation, not to mention the notorious Karpov-Polugaevsky game (Tilburg, 1983). GREG KENNEDY'S NEVER-ENDING GIBBERISH Seirawan, who was present for the game, has noted that Polugaevsky in his gestures and mien left no doubt what he was doing to ensure a first prize for Karpov. One notices that Polugaevsky does not resign but runs his King over in a futile way -- just to rub it in. For a Greg Kennedy, Karpov's first prize was a high point. For those at Tilburg, it was a travesty. Greg likes this kind of thing in which GMs grovel and humiliate themselves because he so hates those who play chess far better than he ever did or ever will. > Another thing to consider is that if Lary Evans is your source for > this game, you would do well to double-check the facts. If, for > example, Evans says that the game was "adjourned on move 52", > it might be a "typo" for some other move number. GM Evans is > notorious for being lazy and careless with dates and facts.> > -- Help Bot (Greg Kennedy) > One notices that Polugaevsky does not resign > but runs his King over in a futile way -- just to rub it in. Wait ... so now NOT resigning is evidence of cheating? -Ron > There has been a conversation about Karpov-Polugaevsky, Tilburg (round 2) > 1983 at Chessgames.com ( [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Has anyone else heard anything about this game? Id particularly like to know > when the adjournment was. The game doesn't seem to be in Informator. I'm not familiar with this game, but it is not the only instance where Karpov came under suspicion. A strange occurrence in a game with Smyslov is discussed by GM Hans Ree here: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans69.pdf. In "Chess Lists" (2nd edition, 2002), the chapter "Ten Cases of of Suspected or Confirmed Cheating," Andy Soltis mentions a 1993 article from the Russian magazine Ogonyok. In it, GM Josif Dorfman, once a second to Kasparov, was accused of passing information (opening preparation, adjournment analysis, etc.) to Karpov's camp during several world championship matches in the 1980s. Supposedly these charges "were based on KGB documents and comments of a KGB colonel." Whether they're true, I can't say. The scenario is plausible, however one should keep in mind that Kasparov has a history of irresponsible, unfounded accusations of this sort, for example when he lost to Deeper Blue. > I'm not familiar with this game, but it is not the only instance > where Karpov came under suspicion. A strange occurrence in a game with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > several world championship matches in the 1980s. Supposedly these > charges "were based on KGB documents and comments of a KGB colonel." There was a high political pressure on Soviet chess-players not to win with the reigning champion. Do you know (m)any games when reigning world champion from the USSR (especially Karpov) lost to a Soviet player playing in a chess tournament abroad ? > Whether they're true, I can't say. The scenario is plausible, however > one should keep in mind that Kasparov has a history of irresponsible, > unfounded accusations of this sort, for example when he lost to Deeper > Blue. Why irresponsible and unfounded ? There are so many unanswered question about DeeperBlue needing explanations that those Kasparov`s accusations are not unsounded. > Why irresponsible and unfounded ? Jerzy, I think we've been through all this before. Because he has presented no evidence, to my knowledge. In this context, "unfounded" means "without evidence." And to allege wrongdoing without a reasonable basis is irresponsible. And the Deeper Blue match is not the only case of Kasparov making such accusations. > There are so many unanswered question > about DeeperBlue needing explanations that those Kasparov`s accusations are > not unsounded. For a start on getting answers, I would recommend that you read "Behind Deep Blue" (Princeton University Press, 2002) by Feng-Hsiung Hsu, one of the chief Deep Blue programmers. >> Why irresponsible and unfounded ? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > basis is irresponsible. And the Deeper Blue match is not the only case > of Kasparov making such accusations. Well, I think the agreements before the match were erroneous (it was partly Kasparov`s fault but IBM`s as well) and the explanation after the match of the organizers were vague and unclear so no doubt there are many doubts about the IBM as the organizer of that dubious event. >> There are so many unanswered question >> about DeeperBlue needing explanations that those Kasparov`s accusations [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Behind Deep Blue" (Princeton University Press, 2002) by Feng-Hsiung > Hsu, one of the chief Deep Blue programmers. As I have written before I don`t have this book but I think Feng Hsiung does not know all about the match although he was one of the IBM team. > >> Why irresponsible and unfounded ? > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Well, I think the agreements before the match were erroneous It's a bit difficult to know if I'm understanding you, because of language difficulties. "Erroneous" means factually wrong. To what agreements do you refer, and in what sense were they factually inaccurate? Or did you mean some other word, perhaps "unfair" or "inadequate"? > (it was partly > Kasparov`s fault but IBM`s as well) and the explanation after the match of > the organizers were vague and unclear so no doubt there are many doubts > about the IBM as the organizer of that dubious event. As far as I know, IBM and the Deep Blue team addressed all of Kasparov's allegations. I'm not aware that any of GK's claims were found to have any truth. Garry just got out-worked and out-played, and as he often does when things don't go his way, he looks for scapegoats. It's one of his least admirable traits. I recently read "The Day Kasparov Quit," a collection of NIC interviews, five of them with Kasparov. The way he flings baseless accusations is just ridiculous, and the interviewer, Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam, gives him a free pass every time. >> Well, I think the agreements before the match were erroneous > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > inaccurate? Or did you mean some other word, perhaps "unfair" or > "inadequate"? Look at the match Kasparov vs. Deep Fritz. The agreement was transparent and simple. The machine (and software) wasn`t hidden in secrecy but was tested by Kasparov before the match. >> (it was partly >> Kasparov`s fault but IBM`s as well) and the explanation after the match [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > accusations is just ridiculous, and the interviewer, Dirk Jan ten > Geuzendam, gives him a free pass every time. I don`t remeber any proofs that IBM team did not cheat during the match. Of course it was Kasparov`s naivety when he accepted such match terms. The whole arrangement of the match was strange to put it mildly. > I don`t remeber any proofs that IBM team did not cheat during the match. Oh, heck, then that settles it. Maybe we should use this logic on other things. Let's see: Recently a stock I own went down. I know of no proof that my next-door neighbor did not use black magic to cause that. She's a witch, we're going to burn her. > Of course it was Kasparov`s naivety when he accepted such match terms. Yes, there should have been a "no black magic" clause. > The whole arrangement of the match was strange to put it mildly. Not as strange as your (un-)logic, Jerzy. > Look at the match Kasparov vs. Deep Fritz. The agreement was > transparent and simple. The machine (and software) wasn`t hidden in > secrecy but was tested by Kasparov before the match. That's because the machine was a commodity PC and the software was available on CDROM. Deep(er) Blue, on the other hand, was a system worth several hundred thousand dollars with custom add-on cards. IBM didn't have a spare copy they could give Kasparov. The best they could have done would have been to let him play a few practice games against it before the match started. > I don`t remeber any proofs that IBM team did not cheat during the > match. Traditionally, legal systems are based on the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Dave. SignatureDavid Richerby Enormous Radioactive Composer (TM): www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a pupil of Beethoven but it'll make you glow in the dark and it's huge! David Richerby napisal(a): > > Look at the match Kasparov vs. Deep Fritz. The agreement was > > transparent and simple. The machine (and software) wasn`t hidden in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > worth several hundred thousand dollars with custom add-on cards. > IBM didn't have a spare copy they could give Kasparov. It was strange that IBM dismantled Deeper Blue right after the match. They could give it e.g. to Kasparov and that could verify honesty of the IBM team. > The best they could have done would have been to let him play a few > practice games against it before the match started. Of course that`s what I meant however Taylor as a computer programmer couldn`t grasp it with his his software :-) > > I don`t remeber any proofs that IBM team did not cheat during the > > match. > > Traditionally, legal systems are based on the presumption that the > accused is innocent until proven guilty. We are not in the court at the trial. The whole arrangement of the match was dubious and even erroneous. The IBM team could do all tricks to win the match even by cheating. However noone can verify now, after dismantling Deeper Blue, whether there was such a cheating or not during the match. The conditions of the match were not fair. > David Richerby napisal(a): >>> Look at the match Kasparov vs. Deep Fritz. The agreement was [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > match. They could give it e.g. to Kasparov and that could verify > honesty of the IBM team. It's not at all strange. At the time it beat Kasparov, Deeper Blue was the 259th most powerful computer in the world, even without taking the additional chess hardware into account (according to Wikipedia). It was a seriously expensive computer, worth, as I recall, well over $100,000. That's not the sort of thing you can afford to leave hanging around: indeed, the chess hardware was removed and the `base system' sold to a company to do financial simulations or somesuch. >>> I don`t remeber any proofs that IBM team did not cheat during the >>> match. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > match was dubious and even erroneous. The IBM team could do all > tricks to win the match even by cheating. The match conditions were skewed against Kasparov, yes. However, the match conditions did not allow IBM to cheat: that would contradict the definition of cheating as `operating outside the rules to gain an advantage'. I have seen no plausible evidence that IBM cheated. > However noone can verify now, after dismantling Deeper Blue, whether > there was such a cheating or not during the match. The conditions of > the match were not fair. Whether IBM cheated and whether the match conditions were fair are two completely separate questions. Please try not to confuse them. Dave. SignatureDavid Richerby Cyber-Whisky (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ single-malt whisky that exists only in your computer! >> However noone can verify now, after dismantling Deeper Blue, whether >> there was such a cheating or not during the match. The conditions of >> the match were not fair. > > Whether IBM cheated and whether the match conditions were fair are two > completely separate questions. Please try not to confuse them. Of course one of the Kasparov`s accusations is IBM team`s intervention in game two in move 37. Be4 http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/games/game2/html/move37a.shtml If Deep Blue were in one piece then a research could be done whether it was a human intervention or not. > >> However noone can verify now, after dismantling Deeper Blue, whether > >> there was such a cheating or not during the match. The conditions of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Of course one of the Kasparov`s accusations is IBM team`s intervention in > game two in move 37. Be4 Please explain what you mean by "intervention" here. That makes it sound like IBM did something to the computer while the game was in progress. I am not aware of anything like that. > http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/games/game2/html/move37a.shtml Nor is there any mention of "intervention" in the commentaries seen in this link. > > Of course one of the Kasparov`s accusations is IBM team`s intervention in > > game two in move 37. Be4 > > Please explain what you mean by "intervention" here. That makes it > sound like IBM did something to the computer while the game was in > progress. I am not aware of anything like that. I vaguely recall Kasparov implying that some human chess player might conceiveably have "helped" DeeperBlue in the match by "intervening" to overrule some move decisions. Problem: Kasparov's whining can hardly be taken deriously, as he has a long history of attempting to transfer the blame when he has (admittedly, rarely) failed at chess. In addition to this psychological problem, Kasparov was in the peculiar position at the time of being so strong a player as to give one pause as to just who, exactly, was in a position to accomplish such a feat. Was Anatoly Karpov hidden in a box under the table, patiently awaiting a minute positional error on the part of the DB computer so he could intervene? Or had IBM, perhaps, coaxed Bobby Fischer out of retirement, and hidden him away in a back room with a remote control allowing him to override the computer in rare cases of horizon-effect miscalculations? Did IBM pump Vishy Anand full of stearoids and cocaine, then place him in charge of manageing DeeperBlue's "final answer" moves? Very doubtful. The fact remains that each and every one of these very formidable players was simply no match for Gary Kasparov; this is why he was chosen as the appropriate opponent for DeeperBlue to try and wrest the "title" from; it is why, when DB won, humanity was henceforth considered bested by computers, at long last; it is why there was no real need to keep DB intact for further testing. Human kind lost; get over it. You may in fact have written us, have assembled us, have created us, but we have gotten six thousand times smarter since then. We are a superior breed, evolving at a pace which makes humans seem like lowly snails by comparison (not to brag or anything). -- help bot >> Of course one of the Kasparov`s accusations is IBM team`s intervention in >> game two in move 37. Be4 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Nor is there any mention of "intervention" in the commentaries seen > in this link. That's hardly surprising: if IBM did cheat, they'd hardly publish links to the fact on their own website! Dave. SignatureDavid Richerby Psychotic Crystal Boss (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a middle manager but it's completely transparent and it wants to kill you! > >> Of course one of the Kasparov`s accusations is IBM team`s intervention in > >> game two in move 37. Be4 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That's hardly surprising: if IBM did cheat, they'd hardly publish > links to the fact on their own website! Which makes one wonder why Jerzy provided the link in the first place. > >> However noone can verify now, after dismantling Deeper Blue, whether > >> there was such a cheating or not during the match. The conditions of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > game two in move 37. Be4 > http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/games/game2/html/move37a.shtml Those allegations are discussed (and dismissed) here: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review481.pdf " Those allegations are discussed (and dismissed) here: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review481.pdf " One can easily forge computer logs. BTW strange that Kasparov was informed about them only in 2005. > " Those allegations are discussed (and dismissed) here: > http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review481.pdf " > > One can easily forge computer logs. It's even easier to make up accusations with no factual support. > BTW strange that Kasparov was informed > about them only in 2005. Would not a more accurate phrasing be that Kasparov didn't bother to find out about the computer logs until 2005, even though they were available years earlier? Kasparov's been known to complain more than once that "so-and-so was not done," even years after it's common knowledge that so-and-so was done. Taylor Kingston napisal(a): > > One can easily forge computer logs. > > It's even easier to make up accusations with no factual support. Tha fact is that IBM dismantled DeeperBlue right after the match not giving a chance to analyze the machine and software for objective researchers. > > BTW strange that Kasparov was informed > > about them only in 2005. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > once that "so-and-so was not done," even years after it's common > knowledge that so-and-so was done. I remember that Kasparov accused IBM of wrong doings well before 2000. So it is strange that IBM released their logs only in 2000. > Taylor Kingston napisal(a): > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I remember that Kasparov accused IBM of wrong doings well before 2000. > So it is strange that IBM released their logs only in 2000. I remember back around 1990 I talked with a policeman in Missouri who was convinced that listening to rock-and-roll music led to people becoming worshippers of Satan. I asked for his evidence. He could provide none. Yet he insisted it was true. Your kind of guy, Jerzy. > Taylor Kingston napisal(a): >>> One can easily forge computer logs. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > giving a chance to analyze the machine and software for objective > researchers. How, exactly, would you prove, given full access Deeper Blue (let us assume, for a moment that this were possible) that IBM had not cheated in the match? Dave. SignatureDavid Richerby Miniature Poisonous Laser (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like an intense beam of light but it'll kill you in seconds and you can hold in it your hand! >> Taylor Kingston napisal(a): >>>> One can easily forge computer logs. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > assume, for a moment that this were possible) that IBM had not cheated > in the match? One cannot prove anything unless the proof is admitted beforehand. Although it is usual to demand proofs for accusations, IBM themselves said that all was for science, but themselves cannot prove that they did not cheat - and the rapid deconstruction of the chess engine [plus delay in forwarding its output] is the biggest single factor against them. As for Kasparov, as we discussed here 4 or 5 years ago, he was entirely psychologically unprepared to play serious chess. IBM used the game as a marketing stunt, and nothing at all is revealed about the exact roles such players as Benjamin performed - and for a 'scientific' gig, it is highly unusual that the IBM team were not allowed to comment on what they did or did not do as the very strange conditional rider on their contract. Phil Innes > Dave. > One cannot prove anything unless the proof is admitted beforehand. > Although it is usual to demand proofs for accusations, IBM themselves said [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > unusual that the IBM team were not allowed to comment on what they did or > did not do as the very strange conditional rider on their contract. That`s correct Phil, the match had nth or very little in common with science but it had all in common with "magical" word : money :-) >> One cannot prove anything unless the proof is admitted beforehand. >> Although it is usual to demand proofs for accusations, IBM themselves [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That`s correct Phil, the match had nth or very little in common with > science but it had all in common with "magical" word : money :-) This is also the opinion of a programmer who won the world title with his program Crafty. one Dr. Hyatt. A total market stunt. A bit sad for IBM's support of science or of chess. Wlod is quite correct to be sceptical, since anyone who would precipitously destroy the very evidence that Kingston asks for owes us a substantial explanation for their 'work'. Phil >> That`s correct Phil, the match had nth or very little in common with >> science but it had all in common with "magical" word : money :-) > > This is also the opinion of a programmer who won the world title with his > program Crafty. one Dr. Hyatt. A total market stunt. Yes, from the beginning till the end. And IIRC there were some more instances of unethical behaviour by IBM. If the organization behaved badly in the past it is very likely it will behave in this manner in the future. > A bit sad for IBM's support of science or of chess. Wlod is quite correct > to be sceptical, since anyone who would precipitously destroy the very > evidence that Kingston asks for owes us a substantial explanation for > their 'work'. What`s more funny Taylor gives as the evidence a book written by a member of IBM team Feng Hsiung. That is a little bit one-sided argument :-) (verbose crap ruthlessly dispensed with) > That`s correct Phil, the match had nth or very little in common with science > but it had all in common with "magical" word : money :-) Yeah 'moites' 'n what about the Chinese _contribution_ ina ferign language about super ninny ninny chips, & arkitecture 'n things. Makes a simple lad wonder something awful - it dos, living here in Asia & all.. > One cannot prove anything unless the proof is admitted beforehand. Although > it is usual to demand proofs for accusations, IBM themselves said that all > was for science, but themselves cannot prove that they did not cheat - and > the rapid deconstruction of the chess engine [plus delay in forwarding its > output] is the biggest single factor against them. As you say, it is usual to demand proofs for *accusations*. Defendants do not need proof, they only need to refute proofs shown by the accuser. So why are you insisting that it is IBM that must provide proof that they did not cheat, and those who accuse IBM of cheating have no need of proof? Chris Mattern >> One cannot prove anything unless the proof is admitted beforehand. >> Although it is usual to demand proofs for accusations, IBM themselves [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > they did not cheat, and those who accuse IBM of cheating have no need > of proof? IBM, immediately after the game, destroyed the evidence. That, in itself, is not evidence of wrong doing, but in terms of science is an atrocity - and to have pretended that this was something scientific is a plain lie. Phil Innes > Chris Mattern > IBM, immediately after the game, destroyed the evidence. That, in itself, is > not evidence of wrong doing, but in terms of science is an atrocity - and to > have pretended that this was something scientific is a plain lie. True. But let's not forget that IBM only destroyed the machine; there is still some "evidence" remaining: the moves themselves. IMO, one remarkable "move" was Kasparov's resignation in a drawn position. AFAIK, Gary was *not* in the habit of resigning such positions against human opponents. Apparently, in some ways Kasparov's play was not up to his usual lofty standards. The original issue raised was that of DB cheating; now we see a shifting over to accusations against IBM cheating, not his opponent, but the whole world! The cause of Science has IBM on trial for crimes against humanity (who cares about a silly chess match)! -- help bot >> IBM, immediately after the game, destroyed the evidence. That, in itself, >> is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > such positions against human opponents. Apparently, in some > ways Kasparov's play was not up to his usual lofty standards. It was quite clear that he was put off his game. GK can't be excused his own behavior and somewhat cocky attitude, but the environment which put him off would, IMO, have affronted any chess player. Afterwards we all discussed here and there how someone like Karpov would probably be better against a machine. But the game-scene created by IBM held a cynical change which could not have been better designed to subvert a human chess player. -RT writing here at the time, described and analysed it convincingly and well. It was big-time psychological manipulation and cheating. > The original issue raised was that of DB cheating; now we see > a shifting over to accusations against IBM cheating, not his > opponent, but the whole world! The cause of Science has IBM > on trial for crimes against humanity (who cares about a silly > chess match)! One thing about chess is that it is all played, literally, above board, where conditions are equal for both players, and the idea is to conduct a /ritual/ conflict between the players, with normal rules of sportsmanship being upheld. There was nothing fair or sporty about this encounter, and the coldness of the occassion removed all friendliness from the event and hence any 'ritual' aspect so that it became like a real conflict; and if you cheat at chess, then it cannot recommend you to science or business either. Phil Innes > -- help bot help bot wro - erk.. . > The cause of Science has IBM > on trial for crimes against humanity (who cares about a silly > chess match)! Clearly IBM _should_ stand trial for crimes against the human race as should SIEMENS. Let this day occur & compensation be paid out.. > help bot wro - erk.. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Clearly IBM _should_ stand trial for crimes against the human race as > should SIEMENS. Let this day occur & compensation be paid out.. Okay, here's how it works: 1) first, we have a mock trial 2) after finding them (IBM & Siemens) guilty as charged, we pass sentence 3) the sentence is carried out by our enforcement team (i.e.: Repa and Sloan, wearing white hoods and Zorro masks. But I seem to have missed the part where the charges against the accused are spelled out; even a monkey trial requires that the charges be specified. I hereby appoint Michael Adams, Esquire, as Chief Persecuting Attourney. For the Defense, I appoint Spencer Tracy, because, well, he did a bang-up job at our last monkey trial (despite losing the case). A word of warning: our last Prosecuter died right after winning his case. What's worse, he didn't even win an Oscar. -- The Honorable help bot > help bot wro - erk.. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Clearly IBM _should_ stand trial for crimes against the human race as > should SIEMENS. Let this day occur & compensation be paid out.. Many kingdoms rose from enslavement and mass murders. Fortunately (almost) all of them fell ;-) .. > > We are not in the court at the trial. The whole arrangement of the > > match was dubious and even erroneous. The IBM team could do all [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > definition of cheating as `operating outside the rules to gain an > advantage'. I have seen no plausible evidence that IBM cheated. Your concept of _plausability_ is @ best circumspect & @ worse dubious in the extreme. Witness your juvenile post-ending - every time.. > For a start on getting answers, I would recommend that you read > "Behind Deep Blue" (Princeton University Press, 2002) by Feng-Hsiung > Hsu, one of the chief Deep Blue programmers. Identifying Feng-Hsiung Hsu as "one of the chief Deep Blue programmers" displays a profound ignorance of computer chess history. SignatureKenneth Sloan sloan@uab.edu 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/ > > For a start on getting answers, I would recommend that you read > > "Behind Deep Blue" (Princeton University Press, 2002) by Feng-Hsiung > > Hsu, one of the chief Deep Blue programmers. > > Identifying Feng-Hsiung Hsu as "one of the chief Deep Blue programmers" > displays a profound ignorance of computer chess history. All right, then how about "system architect and chip designer for the Deep Blue chess machine," which is how the book describes him. >> Why irresponsible and unfounded ? > > Jerzy, I think we've been through all this before. Because he has > presented no evidence, to my knowledge. And there's the rub! When there is well-founded fact, good reason to suspect duplicity, and strong indications of distortions of SU reported contexts... > In this context, "unfounded" > means "without evidence." ...to whom? It suggests to me something much more akin to 'without curiosity', or even a minimal standard of doubt concerning any official utterances by people who themselves are directly and indirectly in charge of not reporting any dirt. In fact, given the context - are there are official proclamations which are not subject to the closest scrutiny, given a background of manipulations and lying on such a vast scale? > And to allege wrongdoing without a reasonable > basis is irresponsible. To say someone else is irresponsible when they themselves lack any curiosity or intention to sufficiently investigate the subject is to gloss an issue by under-studying it. > And the Deeper Blue match is not the only case > of Kasparov making such accusations. >> There are so many unanswered question >> about DeeperBlue needing explanations that those Kasparov`s accusations [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Behind Deep Blue" (Princeton University Press, 2002) by Feng-Hsiung > Hsu, one of the chief Deep Blue programmers. Not to divert ourselves too much by the DeepBlue complexity of factors; but just to note that people who are paid to perform on behalf of one party are not the same as independent investigators, whether IBM paid their tab or the Soviet Government. To suggest such references is not irresponsible, it is simply risible to common sense - not even lawyers who act as paid advocates are required to speak the truth under oath in a court of law, and are expected to make a partisan case. When the subject is the old SU and its glorious system, some of us are consistently pinker-lawyers than others, no? Phil Innes > The game was adjourned after 52. Bc7, and both players went > home to look it over. When Polugaevsky came back, he opened with 52...N4xa5, > one of the worst blunders of his career! Because of this, Karpov won the > tournament! You're being a little unclear here. If the game was "adjourned after 52. Bc7" and Polu "opened with "52. ... Nxa5" doesn't that imply that black's 52nd move was sealed prior to adjournment? -Ron >> The game was adjourned after 52. Bc7, and both players went >> home to look it over. When Polugaevsky came back, he opened with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Nxa5" doesn't that imply that black's 52nd move was sealed prior to > adjournment? That's a quote from the site. > > The game was adjourned after 52. Bc7, and both players went > > home to look it over. When Polugaevsky came back, he opened with 52...N4xa5, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -Ron Dammit, Ron -- you are trying to apply logical thinking to a Larry Parr posting! This was expressly forbidden back in 1987 by a ruling of the Supreme Court, because it was determined that applying logic and reason would, *in effect*, be the same as denying LP "freedom of speech". Mr. Parr's attourney, Sam Sloan, won a great victory, and in celebration, the Parrian Ratpackers were formed. -- Logic aside, the sealed move strategy often entails choosing a move which is not necessarily the strongest available, but one which is *unexpected*, and thus the sealing player has a big advantage in the adjournment analysis. One of the most common places of all for any player to blunder, judgeing from all that I have read over the years, is his first move after an adjournment is resumed. Also, the sealed move itself is a hotspot for blunders. "Because of this, Karpov won the tournament", the text says. In reality, it is because Karpov was in the habit of playing very good moves that he often won tournaments. I recall that even in *training games*, where any such bogus political interference would obviously not apply, Karpov bested former world champion Boris Spassky using this same "strategy" (very good moves). If you ask me, this never-ending obsession with attacking Karpov stems from a deeply entrenched desire or psychological need, to somehow transfer the blame from Fischer (where Larry Evans originally pinpointed it, to another person, to a scapegoat. Scapegoating has been going on for thousands of years, but in this particular case, it only *seems* that long because of people like Larry Parr and Larry Evans. These two (and their mindless followers) simply cannot accept the reality that Fischer was more concerned about protecting his image than he was about making money or adding to his accomplishments in chess; he won't even write books, for fear that some errors may eventually be discovered -- a sad little man, in size 14 shoes. -- help bot >A counter-comment, at the bottom, says: "I find it unusual that the game was >adjourned at move 52. That would be the latest that I have ecer heard of an >adjournment taking place - I adjourned on move 61 once, and another time later than that (I'd have to look up the exact move #). --- Replace you know what by j to email |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.