Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:02:45 07/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 2002 at 16:50:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 21, 2002 at 14:30:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 21, 2002 at 09:29:29, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>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? >> >>The answer has been the same for 30+ years. "Can a computer beat the human >>world champion in a match of six games at standard tournament time controls?" >>That has been the _only_ question. > >Are you talking about chess? You should mention it. :) > > >>It was answered in 1997. > >Funny. Ok, first lesson from me to you! You can only answer something if you >have defined the conditions of what is an answer for example in the first place. >If it's about chess, you've several rules to follow. Also in CC. > The game of chess is well-defined. The tournament time control has always meant either 40/2hrs or 40/2.5 hours. Either one. Not much difference. The conditions were _well-defined_. Computer chess program vs human in a match at tournament time controls. I don't see how it could be defined any better... > > >>If you want to >>re-pose the question in a different way, feel free. Perhaps you can also get >>someone to answer it. But don't make the question _you_ want to ask into >>the question _they_ wanted to ask. They _had_ their question, and _they_ >>produced an answer... > >All I want is that you might understand that if you disturb me during a show you >have neither won nor lost in chess. Perhaps I could use the results for a study >in psychology. But excuse me, this was not about 'chess'. Can you hear the >little FIDE bell ring? Kasparov disturbed himself. The DB guys showed up to play chess and they did. Kasparov imagined the "conspiracy" and let his imagination run wild. That was _hardly_ the DB team's fault... > >> >> >>> 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! >> >>Why? I saw a program win a game without knowing _how_ to promote in any >>case, not just under-promotions. It was at one of the very early ACM computer >>chess events, it pushed two pawns to the 8th, left them as pawns, and _still_ >>was able to win the game... > >Once I saw a blind chicken find a little grain now and then, but I never saw a >blind chicken become Superintendant of Scotland Yard. Three minutes for you to >find the answer why. I can see larger fields now, where we must organise some >serious private tutoring for you. > I'll take the tutoring _after_ you take some professional help... You first, however. You need it more. > >> >>>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'? >> >>Can you spell obsession? Obfuscation? falsification? >> >>> 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? >> > >Now please fasten your belts! We have climax here soon! >######################################################## > >> >>Actually, _yes_. That is why I choose to live in the USA, where I am >>"innocent until proven guilty." That is the basis of our legal system >>and I happen to like it. > >Difference between justice and science? None... In this case... > >Without carefully making the experimental design there is no science, although >you're still not guilty but very innocent. > >Difference between science and a little show act? "what science"? This was simply an experiment to answer a specific question. No more. No less. > >Without careful experimental design for your machine you can't even say what >happened in show events. > >Since when the leading power in science, the USA, is proud about the lack of >science in computerchess? I am no less concerned about that than I am by the fact that I can either compute the position of an electron, or its speed, but _not_ both... Some things are simply given to me as constraints. I live with them when they can't be circumvented. > > >>>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. >> >>And _your_ logic would be a logic of what, exactly? > >This will be part of our first lesson of the private tutoring I poposed to you. > > >> The logic of changing >>the goal at a whim? The logic of trying to do something that is totally >>impossible. The logic of _attempting_ to do something that was totally >>impossible, so that even the attempt would have made the match so expensive >>it would never have happened? > >Price and "number of units" and their interdependancies, oh, and >interdisciplinary science. From lesson 5 to 10!! > >Look, it's funny to see you defend bad practice and then showing 'deep sorrow' >about the difficulties and their price. If you had begun to find solutions in >the 60s we hadn't todays problems. > > >>Did you complain after the 1996 match? Why or why not? > >No time. I wasn't in the internet yet. Crapola. Care to check Deja? > > >> (I know the answer >>of course, you did _not_.) > >I did if I had been asked! > > >>If you didn't complain after 1996, then why >>complain after 1997 when _everything_ was the same, match-condition-wise? >>I also know the answer to that... > >Now you became a weak-willed tool of your fantasy. Only seconds and you'll >become a clairvoyant. "When will Bob Hyatt become a true member of the >reformated CC?" As fast as possible! > >> >>> >>>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? >> >>There is no "false logic". The original question, as posed in 1960 or so >>was "can a computer beat the world champion at standard time controls in a >>match?" IBM answered that clearly in 1997. > >Clearly? Is it clairvoyant mode now? It was a yes/no question. The answer was "yes". > > >> "yes". Nothing else is >>particularly important. Yes it would be nice if DB2 were still around so >>we could study it to understand it better. But it _did_ answer the question >>asked, in a scientifically rigorous fashion, that _almost_ everyone has >>accepted... > >"Scientifically", no please, this is too much, now you are exaggerating a little >bit. Let our heirs speak their own judgement. "Bob" or "Rolf". Let's not spoil >all the fun today with the topic of who is (or has) the greatest. At least I >have one letter more in my name. :) > > Your counting is bad. My first name is "robert". :) > >> >> >> >>At least I don't believe pigs can fly. > >But they can! See the dinos long ago. > >> And I don't believe that _I_ get >>to set the rules for what IBM does. They are a _company_ charged with making >>money. Nothing more, nothing less. DB and DB2 were both projects they >>undertook for financial gain. Nothing more, nothing less. To Hsu and >>the rest, it was a bit more, because they, like me, enjoy computer chess >>immensely. They got to do something they enjoyed. IBM used it to make >>money. The entire project answered a long-running question. Seems to me >>like _everyone_ achieved their desired goals at the same time. A good >>outcome for _everyone_. > >Minus the chessplayers and some billion scientists all over the world and space. > > >> Even after all his whining, Kasparov made a small >>fortune from IBM and the match. So even _he_ did pretty well, IMHO, even >>with all the mistakes he made. I sure wouldn't mind getting mauled by a >>computer and getting paid $400,000 dollars for doing so... > >Youdidn't know that chessplayers are idealists? They're independant of money... > > Not _any_ chessplayer _I_ personally know. Money is at the top of the list. >>> >>> >>>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? >>> >>> >> >>I won't even venture a guess as to what that rambling response means. I >>am talking about reality. You seem to be talking about some drug-induced >>euphoric state where reality disappears and fantasy abounds. > >No please. Keep cool. I was just mentioning that you identified possibly bad >habits with rightful practice. Can't you se the importance of my >differentiation? A tradition must not necessarily be good practice. This is >another lesson of logic and science of science. > > > >>> >>>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. >> >> >>Rolf, I doubt if you could teach me _anything_. There is a prerequisite >>condition that must exist between a teacher and a student. I think you can >>figure out what that is and why it is missing in the context of you: teacher, >>me: student. > >Can you spell 'humility' vs 'hybris'? Or 'interdisciplinary'? Why not seeing >further than one's nose? :) OK... a more direct hint then. The _teacher_ must know more than the "student" for a teaching relationship to work. That is why this one won't.. > >> >>Yes, the fredkin prize was a US product. So what? Computer Chess was a >>US product as well. Again, so what? > >Konrad Zuse was the inventor of computers. German. Not in my history book. But I said "computer chess". I can refer you to the _original_ paper if you wish. American author. Shannon was the name, chess was the game, the computer was the means. > > >> >> >> >>> 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? >> >>I believe _they_ did this. They "proved" their machine was able to do >>what they thought by playing a 6 game match and winning more than they lost... >> >> >> >>> 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? >> >>What is all the magic/fantasy stuff? There were no smoke and mirrors in >>NYC in 1997. > >Can you prove it? Yes I can. I was there for one game. Not one bit of smoke, and no mirrors on the stage with Kasparov... > >>Just a computer, a program, some special-purpose hardware and >>a man by the name of Kasparov. _all_ were real. _all_ were present. The >>rest is captured by history. > >Could you give us a few details about the special-purpose hardware to begin >with? Some games beyond the 6 games with Kasparov? I mean games of DB2? Or did >the machine only play 6 games in a whole year? Where are the game scores of the >10:0 results against commercial machines? You see, I ask only because you said >that _all_ was real and present. If a tree falls and no one is present, is there sound? Physics says absolutely yes. Philosophers say "no". I go with physics... > > >> >> >> >>> 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! >>> >> >> >> >>Your basic premise is flawed: >> >>1. Do I believe that comps are better than GMs in general? No. >> >>2. Do I believe that comps _can_ beat GMs OTB. I can _prove_ it in fact. >> >>Are the two beliefs contradictory? Not at all. And to believe that they >>are contradictory shows that you simply do _not_ understand science in >>general. And statistics in particular. > >Didn't you know that a scientist shouldn't argue with the weakness but the >strength of the positions of the opponent? --> Lesson 34 till 40 of our private >tutoring. > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>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? >> >>I am "really one of them". Nothing can stand against an F-5 Tornado. So >>worrying about it is impractical, unless I want a home totally underground >>which I would not have. So "I pay my money and take my chances" just like >>those that live along rivers and streams that occasionally flood, those that >>live along the coast and occasionally have to deal with hurricanes. Those >>that live up north and occasionally have to deal with 6 feet of snow. There >>are risks and rewards. I make decisions based on those two factors, where >>the reward is measurably better than the risk. > >Why not constructing elevators for your houses, so that houses could be saved in >the soil? Copyright @ Rolf Tueschen 2002... > >Didn't you know that we live only one single life? So - learning by doing or on >the job could be fatal. Lesson 50. > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>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 >> >>No connection with whales at all. Kasparov wasn't a life-long obsession with >>the DB guys, no more than he was an obsession with me. It was "the best chess >>player in the world" that was an obsession for all of us in computer chess, >>regardless of whether that was Fischer (which it was in the early 70's), >>Karpov after that, and eventually it became Kasparov. And eventually it will >>become yet someone else... >> >>It's the "concept" of machine beating man that was (and is) interesting. > >Again, excuse me, I would prefer the whole thing to be traight and fair. Without >secrecy and - where are the gane scores? Just asking. > >Let's not be divided the two of us! > >GENS UNA SUMUS. > >Rolf Tueschen OK... this is going nowhere further. I'm not going to dance around this tree forever. You may continue, and I may respond if I see something _new_. But no more repetitions...
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.