Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:39:11 07/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2002 at 14:46:50, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 18, 2002 at 13:37:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 18, 2002 at 13:17:29, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On July 18, 2002 at 12:10:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 18, 2002 at 07:57:15, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 18, 2002 at 01:00:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 17, 2002 at 17:30:01, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 17, 2002 at 09:23:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On July 17, 2002 at 05:24:50, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On July 17, 2002 at 00:03:24, K. Burcham wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In game 2, Kasparov thought that there was human interference with this line. >>>>>>>>>>He requested the logs to see for himself that these two moves were actually in >>>>>>>>>>the Deep Blue eval. >>>>>>>>>>Kasparov did not think any program would play 36.axb5 avoiding 36.Qb6 or the >>>>>>>>>>move 37.Be4. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>But it seems that todays programs will accomplish what Deep Blue was trying to >>>>>>>>>>do in the game. >>>>>>>>>>Deep Blue opened up the a file and blocked Kasparov's play with 37.Be4, limiting >>>>>>>>>>blacks mobility. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Below in the examples you will see that two of todays strongest programs will >>>>>>>>>>also accomplish this same objective. Both Fritz7 and Chess Tiger 14.0 will open >>>>>>>>>>the a file and control the a file. also both Fritz7 and Chess Tiger 14.0 will >>>>>>>>>>play Be4 limiting Kasparov's mobility with black. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>All three programs, Deep Blue, Chess Tiger 14.0 and Fritz7 put the >>>>>>>>>>squeeze on black, blocked with the Be4 move, opened the a file, threatened to >>>>>>>>>>capture blacks bishop, forced black to protect the loss of pawns, etc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I started each program after Kasparov's move 35...Bxd6. >>>>>>>>>>after each program analyzed for several hours, I took the line from each >>>>>>>>>>program and played it through to the position after blacks move 40. >>>>>>>>>>This way we can cover both controversial moves> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>What is the error in such experiments? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Answer: You can't _prove_ something as authentic with repetitions on different >>>>>>>>>machines built-up _after_ the event. History of CC has shown that we could never >>>>>>>>>exclude special preps right on to the point. Therefore, logically, we cannot >>>>>>>>>accept such "proofs". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You _can_ disprove Kasparov's main "claim". That "no computer would play ..." >>>>>>>>By demonstrating that at _least_ one computer _would_ play that move, his >>>>>>>>statement is disproven for all time. And the rest of his claim can therefore >>>>>>>>be taken with a mountain of salt. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Not that I _ever_ was or would be your teacher of English resp. American >>>>>>>English, but I must insist that Kasparov did _never_ say that no computer would >>>>>>>_E V E R_ play these moves. >>>>>> >>>>>>First, let's get the quote right. He did say "no computer _could_ play this >>>>>>move.." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> What he meant was at the time being and he was >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>And here you go on a tangent. Not saying what he _said_ but what he >>>>>>"meant"... judge says "inadmissable, that is a conclusion, not a fact." >>>>> >>>>>No, I do not go on a tangent, because always we must interpret language. It is a >>>>>tour de tangent if you pretend to be able to prove exactly what a certain phrase >>>>>means out of itself. You are right, he said it. But what it means, what he said, >>>>>is a question of interpretation. Now, you have a _little_ problem. >>>> >>>>I don't have any problem at all. "no computer could play that move" is not >>>>open to "interpretation". Each word has a precise meaning. The >>>>"interpretation" that he later emphasized was "no computer could play such >>>>a move, so DB had human help in the background, somehow." >>>> >>> >>>No computer - does this mean for you that no comp _ever_? >> >>"no computer" means "no computer". Since he didn't say "No computer for >>the next ten years" I take that to be absolute. > >A big mistake! > A big mistake to assume he uses Webster's dictionary to define his words? Or do we have to assume he has a Bill Clinton dictionary with an alternative definition of "is" or "no".??? >> >> >>>And then, just below you give us the main reason for the reason why Kasparov >>>politely asked after game two. I'll continue the argument down there. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>talking about DEEP BLUE 2 in the first place. Now back to the many tries to find >>>>>>>the moves with our commercial or amateur programs. Here I must insist. >>>>>>>Afterwards (with so many possibilities to interfere) you can never prove that >>>>>>>such progs could have found the moves at the time being. But with respect to the >>>>>>>position of Ed Schroeder I would say that even if some alien prog could have >>>>>>>found the moves, we are talking about DEEP BLUE 2 and we always were. Now - the >>>>>>>deconstruction was the worst thing that could have happened. Because now we >>>>>>>don't have any possibilities at all to corroborate or reject Kasparov's thesis. >>>>>>>This alone was and still is the biggest violation of all ethics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Just another thought to think about. >>>>>> >>>>>>See my comment to Amir. DB2 searched Qb6 and _every_ iteration the score >>>>>>dropped. Until it dropped all the way to +48 and the program decided that >>>>>>axb5 was better by about 1/10th of a pawn. No mystery. No magic. Just >>>>>>the opinion of the program, right or wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>>It's _all_ in the logs, if you just look. >>>>> >>>>>You know the answer! You yourself explained what "logs" really could mean at >>>>>best. I don't want to re-open that can but I want to mention that after all what >>>>>happened IBM and DB2 team _still_ are in a state of emergency concerning >>>>>"explanations" and evidence. Ok, you can hold this open until the final >>>>>solution, but for me, excuse me, this is not ok. You are in a double bind. DB2 >>>>>team has to offer evidence, in special after the deliberate deconstruction of >>>>>the machine. Now we'll never be able to repeat some thought processes. Bad luck >>>>>for IBM/ DB2 team. They didn't pass the doping control. Their World Record can't >>>>>be accepted as valid. >>>>> >>>> >>>>It can by those of us that know them. Otherwise _no_ computer vs human >>>>game/match can _ever_ be trusted. As I have said many times, there is _no_ >>>>way to be 100% certain there is no outside intervention... >>> >>>Ok. Thanks again. But this is the main reason why I am on Kasparov's side and >>>_not_ on DB2 team's side. No matter of how many contracts they signed. If you >>>cannot prove the output, then you'd have to deal the question with care. And you >>>won't offend the human champion - or you want to do harm and win the show on a >>>privat backyard (of IBM). I wrote about fair play and all that. Bob, it's here >>>with you as in the clubs where you analyse games. There are always some people >>>who shout a shout some two or three moves variations and then an expert explains >>>patiently that this doesn't work because of such and such. You know, your two or >>>three moves are absolutely ok. But in the context they are false. So, we have >>>the eternal problem of Yes and No at the same time. At first we should find a >>>mutual understanding on such interesting results of logic. Yes and No at the >>>same time, simply because levels or perspectives are mixed up. >>> >> >> >>The problem is this. There have been _hundreds_ of computer vs human chess >>matches over the past 30 years. _hundreds_. Just as there have been hundreds >>of automobile races. But if a race is being held tomorrow, the "contract" >>will most likely stipulate the same things that a contract for a race last >>week stipulated. Because that _worked_. The "cheating" issue has been an >>issue since "the Turk" was done hundreds of years ago. It will remain an >>issue for all time. Because some things simply can not be controlled. >> >>Therefore, there is little point in arguing about things that are beyond your >>control, or anybody elses... > >This is a mistake. It's not about control, it's about research after the event. >In the 30 years before such a research was not necessary. For 1997 it wasn't >necessary because of Kasparov. He just had asked questions. The team was it. At >first GM Benjamin deceived everyone with his promise that he would give the >pre-games after the event. Then the team acted impolitely. And then the machine >was deconstructed! Three events I know of. And of course the logs are public and have been for years now. I have all 6 of them here for example. > > >> >>>At first they denied him the prints of the output and then after they "won" the >>>show event, they deconstructed the whole machine! No, you won't be able to >>>defend or help them out of the mess in a life-time. >> >> >>They _should_ have denied him the logs _during_ the match. He would hardly >>sit down with the DB team and tell them where DB had made mistakes, so that they >>might fix it. Why should they tell _him_ what DB was seeing so that he might >>find a problem and exploit it? > >You don't answer to the point. I didn't say what they should have done exactly. >A smart team has several choices! I would have known what to do... Me too. I would have said "no". You don't tell us what you are thinking about during a game. Neither should Deep Blue tell you what it was thinking about during the game by letting you see the logs. end of that story before it even gets started... > >> Have you _ever_ seen (say) a WC match where >>the two GMs sit down after each game and say "had you done this, I would have >>done this. Had you tried this opening move I had this trap ready to spring >>on you..." > >Bob! I didn't talk about opening moves or prep. The middlegame was the point. If >I did see such behavior? Yes! 1972! Wch!!! But I didn't start the WC debate. >Then all the show acts in Mainz or Frankfurt. Of course, you do _not_ see such behavior _during_ a match... And you do realize that DB's logs could show multiple book moves that _might_ be played, giving away information no GM would _ever_ reveal until after-the-fact... IE Crafty's logs certainly reveal all the moves, the various probabilities for playing them, learned results, etc... Should a GM have access to that during a match, when he doesn't tell me _his_ move probabilities? I don't think so... > > >> >>Of course you haven't... and it shouldn't have happened in NYC either. > >Show events! Please do not support the upcoming delusion in computerchess. > What "delusion"??? Kasparov lost. So what? Would he lose again? Who knows. If he went into match 3 as psyched as he was 1/2 wat thru match 2, he would have probably lost every game... > >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>We all know that DB 2 did not use the typical nullmove strategies of today's >>>>>>>chessprogs. It would be the least what you and your collegues could do, that you >>>>>>>elaborate what this could mean for the question of Qxb6 vs. axb5. Just for the >>>>>>>sake of our own class of debate. If we could show that DEEP BLUE 2 would have >>>>>>>been a much more difficult task to reject Qb6 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Just look at their log file, and the variation they produced (note that this >>>>>>is never the full variation on deep blue since the hardware does not supply >>>>>>a PV, meaning you only get the software PV and since it is from the hash >>>>>>table it is not completely reliable nor always complete. >>>>>> >>>>>>The log shows why they rejected Qb6 quite clearly.. >>>>> >>>>>Maybe, maybe. Without doping control, not valid unfortunately. >>>> >>>> >>>>Based on that logic, _nothing_ dealing with computers would be valid, because >>>>ensuring no outside influence would be impossible in the context of the match >>>>between a human and a computer. >>> >>>This is a typical mistake for beginners of scientifical methodology. Forget >>>about all the outside influences, if the machine had not been deconstructed, we >>>could check it out now. >> >> >>How? If they had had a human force a specific move, you don't think they >>could do a quick tweak to the evaluation function or search rules to make >>the machine _now_ play that move on its own? So you could prove _exactly_ >>what after the fact? Answer: zilch > >(Sigh.) That was exactly the reason for the research. Because the couldn't have >changed basics. I have no idea what you are talking about nor implying here. If I forced Crafty to make a specific move because a GM said "you must play this now" I could certainly, given a few minutes, tweak the program so that if someone asked "can you show us that position again and let us see why it thought that was good" I would be able to produce that move _without_ intervention the secomd time around. And there would be no prevention for such... > >> >>So once again, this discussion leads to nowhere... >> > >It's called subtle ! The results of our discussion are already there. > >> >>>If we had some games or variations from the prior-match >>>practice, we would also have much more insight, of course in addition with the >>>logs. >> >> >> >>If a frog had pockets, he would carry a gun and not have to worry about >>snakes, too. >> >>If... If... If... > >That's a bit unfair. If I try to explain something to you, I am forced to use >such technique. It seems as if you didn't like the points I could demonstrate. > > >> >> >> >> >>> Don't you see how far you must forget about your own experience to be able >>>to argue against my crystal clear logic? Because, only for younger readers, you >>>are by far _no_ beginner! You know exactly what went wrong with the whole event. >> >> >> >> >>yes I do. Absolutely nothing went wrong except that nobody likes the outcome. >>Nobody complained (yourself included) about the 1996 event. Same rules. Same >>secrecy. Same lack of logs. Same everything. Oh yes. The _result_ was >>different so it was ok. >> >>But in 1997, _what_ was different? :) >> >>only _one_ thing. > >Your memory is weak, but I can help you. IBM was sponsor and player! IBM was sponsor _and_ player in 1996 too. Or did you forget that? Yet nobody complained in 1996... > > > >> >>>I do not talk about the question of who did what. But about the conditions of >>>the event. And you know exactly that in such a case of >>>not-to-prove-interdependencies you must hold up by force the friendly climate, >>>otherwise you'd end in self-betrayal. This stands above the contracts, and you >>>know that! >> >> >>_nothing_ stands "above the contract". You sign. You are "in." > >(Sigh.) Climate. Ethics. Your choice! > > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> we would at least be able to >>>>>>>understand why our logic is shaky when we conclude that if some PC progs could >>>>>>>find the solution that then it might be possible for DB 2 as well. You know, we >>>>>>>must not take Kasparov as our scientifical God but we should take him as the >>>>>>>honest reporter from the chess angle of the problem. In other words. Even if you >>>>>>>were right, that his "claim" could be refutated, he could still be right. >>>>>>>Look, if that would come out in 40 years when you and me are dancing in >>>>>>>paradise, it would be a pity if the security patrol would catch you for being >>>>>>>guilty of supporting the confusion to the disadvantage of Kasparov, just because >>>>>>>you are a friend of many of the DB 2 team. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I would defend deep blue whether I was _friends_ with the team or not. It >>>>>>is their _reputations_ that cause me to defend them, not the fact that I have >>>>>>been on a first-name basis with them for 20+ years. >>>>> >>>>>Yes, but it's five years ago now that I told you that they probably violated all >>>>>ethics of science, no matter if they were working for IBM or not. The details >>>>>after game two speak against them. They should have known better. Alas, when Hsu >>>>>Feng tried to get in touch with Kasparov we saw what his reputation was worth. >>>>>He left the field for good. He will never more be accepted from a top >>>>>chessplayer. What did Kasparov say? "You must qualify yourself, then come back." >>>> >>>>I wonder why Kasparov would not say "yes, I will play your machine for the >>>>easy opportunity to pick up a million dollars."??? >>> >>>Easy one, Hsu misused his confidence once. He wouldn't let himself be fooled >>>twice. For the reasons I gave you. He did it "for" computerchess, not for the >>>money, didn't you know that? Are you familiar with the psyche of a chess genius? >>>He's a chessplayer in the first instance and a bad politician. And as a >>>chessplayer he always liked and admired computerchess. That he didn't say what >>>you suggested _proves_ that he's primarily not after the money. He already had >>>enough money. >> >>If I thought I could win, I would play for $1,000,000 against _you_ and whatever >>machine you had. Regardless of whether I respected or despised you. It would >>be about the money. Unless I was somehow "afraid"... > >But you can see that you can't buy a Kasparov! He will do many things if (!) it >is ok with his chess interest. Here he's like Bobby who prefered to leave the >tournament for good if something fishy against the players cold be foreseen. Kasparov was bought and paid for _twice_. In 1996 and 1997. that happens all the time, in pro sports for example. Nothing wrong with using your talents to cause someone to hire you for whatever reason... > >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>I can think of several reasons why he wouldn't. And the main one _did_ have >>>>something to do with Hsu's reputation. Because Hsu told him he would have >>>>a machine another 30X faster. I don't think Kasparov wanted _any_ part of >>>>that... >>> >>>And I say that inspite such a monster chess machine Hsu had exactly nothing in >>>his hands _without_ Kaspy. Do you believe that Hsu had left the field if he had >>>something out of himself? You bet. >> >>Hsu needed Kasparov to make the next potential match interesting. Without >>Kasparov, there would be no interest. No interest means no financial backing. >> >>No mystery there. Why do you think IBM got into this? For the science? Or >>for the potential public relations bonanza? > >The point is this. You accept this logically, but then you must agree that >Kasparov is the more important figure of the whole CC ballyhoo and not the >machine! But you argue as if Kasparov had to grovel before Hsu et al. and to be >thankful. At least here we've found agreement. You have it backward. Kasparov was _the_ best player in the world, and that was what the fredkin prize was all about... He held _every_ card in the deck, and then he complains because he dealt himself a losing hand. That was hardly IBM's fault... > > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>What does that mean? Oh, nothing but the _fact_ that only with the friendliness >>>>>of Kasparov your friends got the chance to play. And then they violated the >>>>>silent mutual acceptance that "normally" a show like that would never happen, >>>>>simply because it's unfair to the bones. >>>> >>>>You don't think the chance to win $1,000,000.00 had _anything_ to do with >>>>Kasparov's decision? It had _nothing_ to do with friendship. It had >>>>_everything_ to do with $$$... >>>> >>>>Otherwise don't you think Friedel would have set up a match between Kasparov >>>>and Fritz? Eh? >>> >>>(Laughing.) But Friedel did the gig with Kramnik. I already criticised Kramnik >>>for not letting Eduard play! But he wouldn't listen... :)) >>>The logic of Fred is that for FRITZ someone stronger than Kasparov had to be >>>found. (Laughing.) >> >>I don't think he has found that someone yet. Perhaps in 10 years... > >The irony is that Kramnik already was better than Kasparov, but during all the >FRITZ preparation he became weaker and weaker. Just joking. But he has beaten >Kasparov convincingly. 2:0! > >Please let's not debate without deeper thoughts. Give me something to bite! I >thought that you were defending the DB2 team and IBM. :) > >Rolf Tueschen I'm not defending IBM whatsoever. I am defending the reputations of the people involved in "the project"... IBM has nothing to do with any of this, other than they supplied a _lot_ of money to lure Kasparov into the match, and a lot of money to pay the group to do the development, and a lot of money to pay for the hardware, and a lot of money to do the pre-match publicity. In return they got more advertising and publicity than they could have bought by spending 100x that amount of money. Sound business, IMHO. > > >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>You know, Bob, it's kind of strange, that you had to come forward with the >>>>>"contracts". Of course you are right with the contracts. But at that moment you >>>>>lost the track of the silent mutual acceptance. Their is a logic beyond >>>>>contracts. In special with contracts for simple show events! >>>> >>>>I was taught _long_ ago. "if it is important, get it in writing. If it is >>>>not important, then a wink and a nod is perfectly acceptable." Kasparov signed >>>>a contract after negotiating the details of that contract. If you sign a >>>>contract to buy a Rolls Royce, and after you get it, you decide "this thing >>>>isn't worth this much money" it is _too late_. You negotiate _before_ signing, >>>>_not_ after... >>> >>>Excuse me for insisting, but you're really a bit rigid. :) >>>We're talking about a little show event, not concrete economics or rocket >>>science. The contracts were mainly about the chess clock, the funny ambience of >>>the living room atmosphere and so on. The rest _was_ confidence among friends... >> >>Where did you get that? The contract stipulated when and where each game would >>be played, the time control, the number of rest days and where they would be >>inserted, who could go to the bathroom when, you-name-it... >> >>Don't blame a lack of contract negotiation by Kasparov as a trick by IBM. >>He _did_ play the previous year, _same_ contract rules... But there was >>a difference of course... the outcome. >> >> >> >>>Therefore you irony always was most unwanted. But what could Kasparov do when >>>suddenly these chess beginners went completely gaga and thought that there baby >>>could be stronger than Kasparov this time - in special after the famous first >>>game? Not to speak about the marketing elites of IBM who didn't even know on how >>>many squares they actually played in chess. (Just assumptions.) >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>I think that this is the best possible description of what has happened. Without >>>>>insults. The facts alone speak their verdict. Against one certain side. >>>>>They changed a show act into a World Championship and then denied to pass the >>>>>doping control. The End. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>>> >>>> >>>>That is just your characterization. Not the general opinion. >>> >>>Thanks for the compliment, Bob. >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Friendship is one thing but Science >>>>>>>and Ethics is something more important. And I tell you, the truth will come out. >>>>>>>Now or in future. And you won't have a good excuse with the statement that >>>>>>>Kasparov made a scientifically wrong thesis. We all know that he's not a >>>>>>>scientist. But he's one of the best chessplayers we ever had. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>And one of the biggest sore losers as well... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The deconstruction of DEEP BLUE 2 right after the event, in special with the >>>>>>>>>knowledge of the prior attitude of the DB team, which was one of secrecy (not a >>>>>>>>>single game score existing!), speaks against the validity of DB2 output. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>THe deliberate deconstruction invalidates DB2 results. Just compare it with the >>>>>>>>>refusal of passing the doping test directly _after_ the race. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It's so basic! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.