Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:29:29 07/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
New exposition: ################# On July 20, 2002 at 22:16:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: About control and safety and American logic: ############################################# >We can argue for all time about "how many angels can dance on the head of a >pin?" But since there is absolutely no way to measure the size of an angel, >no answer can be proven correct. Discussion is pointless. > >In chess, we have the same problem. It is simply impossible to prevent >outside intervention in a game, and it is also impossible to detect that >it happened in every case. If you can't prevent it in 100% of the cases, >and you can't detect when it has happened with 100% reliability, The >"interest" in the issue wanes a bit... > >Should we argue about how long it will take man to reach Alpha Centauri? I >claim zero time. And I leave it to you to prove me wrong by showing with >absolute perfection that exceeding C (speed of light) is impossible under >_all_ conditions... > >Many discussions are pointless. Trying to "interfere-proof" the DB matches >falls into that class... This is all interesting and true but it's also totally wrong for our problem in computerchess. Who did want to prove something? Here we have the first historical lie. From the 40's on computer scientists tried to prove what they could achieve. Now this is ridiculous. We have computerchess experts who try to prove that their creations could play chess. But JUNIOR became CCCWch in Paris without knowing something about the underpromotion! Unbelievable! Then DB2 was presented without any attempts to prove the authenticity of the output and more, the machine was already sold, so that any attempts to do some research were impossible by definition. Can you Americans spell 'David Copperfield' and 'delusion'? Is it true that you believe in American logic with a complete reversal of traditional logic? Not you must prove something you pretended to do but the world must prove that you did something wrong? And that in a situation where you guaranteed that no research could be started? God bless America! And forget about the rest of the world? This is kind of strange logic. It is a logic of hypocrisy and fiction. But isn't it more a logic of political power? Because there is no American science, there is no American logic! You are simply proclaiming false logic and because you have the power and the money you think you have the right to define what is the truth and what is logic? About deconstruction of DB2: ############################# >They are obligated to keep a multi-million dollar computer around for >your personal edification? The machine was sold. It was sold _before_ >the match, but delivery was delayed so that they could use it. Cray did >this for _me_ many times.... Nearly every year Cray Blitz played in an >event, had you asked to see the machine to test a position a few weeks >later, you would have been out of luck as the machine would have been shipped >and installed at a customer site... You have the nerve to present such a paragraph as a proof for the seriousness of the DB2 team and IBM? You identify habits with rightful practice? Do you believe in the supernatural too? From what date on you'll define it as reality? About the control of the output of a machine: ############################################## >Because "safe output" is an oxymoron. A contradiction. A physical >impossibility. Any of the above. All of the above. Etc... If it >doesn't exist, and can't possibly exist, then what is the point in discussing >it ad nauseum??? > >We can state that such security measures are, by definition, impossible. >Again, which makes the discussion pointless. > >Hence my argument all along... the machine is far too easy to modify to >make any attempt to "security" 100% reliable. Did you in the USA invent the Fredkin prize? Or was it already part of the biblical tradition? Sorry, but otherwise I can't teach you about real logic and lame excuses. You create some magic and the rest of the world must accept it as reality and real truth? You never heard of the saying that you should prove what you declared? Is it true that you are thinking that you are proven right as long as nobody could prove that magic is only magic but not reality? Such thoughts remind me of a famous court case in the US. Justice said that he was guilty and he was executed. How come?? Isn't it the _whole_ USA believing in magic and delusions yet? Is it perhaps concentrated on CC? Or did e.g. Heisenberg you a bad job when he found his 'relation of fuzziness'? Can you spell 'Hand of God' or 'Maradona'? About Kramnik and the value of brutal violence: ################################################ >No... what you see is a Kramnik with better advisors. And a Kramnik that >_knows_ that ChessBase needs _him_ and not vice-versa. Therefore he dictated >the match conditions as favorable to him as he could imagine. Kasparov _could_ >have done that or more. _could_ have... How many times more must I explain that chessplayers must not dictate such thing to prove that they are stronger than a machine? I know e.g. that I must not persuade _you_. But why do you drift into such Lucky Luke logic after all? I always thought that DB2 team was lucky to play Kasparov. What the hell came into them that they suddenly thought it convincing to to beat Kasparov - if not in chess, then in a psycho war? For what purpose if even you, Bob, do _not_ believe that comps are already strongrer than GM? Again magic looking through the bathroom window'? Or is it possible to substantiate reality by pure power or brutal violence? Does civilization prove the allegation? I don't think so! About the American way of life: ################################ >I don't spend a lot of time worrying about things that I can't do anything >about. For example, I don't have any meteor protection over my house. I >don't think I could build anything big enough to protect me from any reasonable >size of meteor. There is no way to make a machine totally immune to outside >intervention, if the people that build the machine are intent on doing such. >So I don't give it any thought. There is no way to detect such intervention >with any reasonable reliability. So I don't give that any thought either. Is that the reason why people live in houses out of thin wood and wonder when the wind or other reality bursts could not be sufficiently answered? Are you really one of such people or was it just a misleaden metaphor? About propaganda: ################### >I think most understand that. Unless they don't _want_ to understand it, >due to an agenda... If I take the logic of all your paragraphs I must agree with you. If most understand it isn't so sure. I would already be happy if _you_ could correct your delusions. It's a terrible mess to see you crawl and still with that certain smile on your face. Couldn't that be from Melville? But then - who's Moby? ;) Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0 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.