Re: Karpov-Polugaevsky, Tilburg 1983 - a fix?

"  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

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.

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.

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.

Whether IBM cheated and whether the match conditions were fair are two
completely separate questions.  Please try not to confuse them.

Dave.

David Richerby napisal(a):

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.

Of course that`s what  I meant however Taylor as a computer programmer
couldn`t grasp it with his his software  :-)

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.

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.

Traditionally, legal systems are based on the presumption that the
accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Dave.

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.

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.

 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"?

 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 (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 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.

 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.

 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.

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 ?

Why irresponsible and unfounded ? There are so many unanswered question
about DeeperBlue needing explanations that those Kasparov`s  accusations are
not unsounded.

 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.

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