Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:04:45 07/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 2002 at 00:02:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... I think Kasparov asked valuable questions about the identity of the machine! > >> >>> >>> >>>> 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. > The "more and greater" obsession again? So far about professional help, thank you. > > > >> >>> >>>>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... Thank you for the revelation of this horizon effect. > > > >> >>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 even trying to define the machine with the known technique? I see. But you may have the power to define that definitions are most unwanted. Thank you for the revelation. > >> >>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... You are quite right here. > >Some things are simply given to me as constraints. I live with them when they >can't be circumvented. Thank you for the revelation. DB2 team had no reason at all to define something or to prove anything because this wasn't possible anyway... <LOL> Because medical experts can't heal cancer it should be allowed that quacks do the job with the same expected quality. Sounds fair enough! >>>>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? Ok, I challenge you. I was _not_ in international groups. I started right after. Didn't you know that you were proven wrong so many times already when it came to details? But here, why the sudden emotional reflex to challenge this. Before my rgcc presence I was in a national German group of my provider. Just take a look at "Andreas Mader" who made the same mistake you make here and who later apologized - something that will not happen here in your case of course. It's a pity with you. Why isn't it possible to discuss the problems of the deficits in the whole presentation of DB2? Only from a science view. They were scientists, you are a scientist - why the whole agitation in case there wasn't something fishy? What we do here is just average practice for science. There is no space for censorship or suppression of questions in science. I ask to the benefits of CC (= computerchess) because DB2 and the whole event in 1997 did harm to CC and its credibility. And I insist: this is _not_ because some cheating has been _proven_! But because the DB2 team - as we know by now - did not do their homework good enough. They practiced the ridiculous (scientifically) but understandable (in the view of the traditions of CC) "surprise routine" in such a perfect manner that they felt obliged to hide the exact and authentic output of the machine even from their own conscience! Now, if you declare (explain in your eyes) that this is typical for CC, then we must all together admit that CC did something wrong all the time and we must change that. So basically we have something odd here: mistakes and their relevation and critics lead to a reformation. Where's the problem for you? Do you think that people will forget about the good what you'd done in the past? You gave us so many good reports about the difficulties to work on he CRAY, not to speak of the constant time pressure, that nobody will condemn you and CC for committing nothing but faults. Is that clear enough to prevent further emotional eruptions? You must never fear reformations. >> >> >>> (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". It was _not_ even answered because the computer was not well defined. But you knew that already. No need to repeat all the reasons. > > > >> >> >>> "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". :) I must apologize! Bob was far better and I bet that some people even called you Bobby in your childhood. But look at this. Robe----rt. My name is rt!! Now, if this isn't spooky! Twin brothers? > >> >>> >>> >>> >>>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. > The readers should read the confession from your own lips. If I had written it for example it would have caused the Dow Jones to shrivel. :) But you must be aware of that many of your experiences from ICC are a little bit biased by this aspect! Ok, let's go on. We won't change the human nature. I for one always take the idealism in chess for granted. > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>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. Because you couldn't find an answer, I know by now that you really do not understand the difference between science and justice, see above. In science, and you know this, Bob, the slightest suspicion against a researcher must be openly discussed. A scientist can't say I'm innocent until proven guilty, leave me alone! That would cost him his career. Of course in justice there is a similar process. If say the pope would be officially accused for sexual child misuse he surely would lose his position long before the final verdict. In other words there's something beyond clean logic of justice. This is why the DB2 team did so much bad to CC. Even, note well, if absolutely nothing was fishy in fact. Why is this so difficult to understand? I think the beginning of the mess (besides the traditional blindness for the documentation of the output) was the press interview after the second game by a team member, when he described Kasparov more or less as idiot who was urging something absolutely out of any rational sense. But this wasn't true. Such checks are used in many sports. TV frames have been researched. Doping controls have been made. _Always_ the athlet could react like the DB2 team member. With open disgust and and cynism. But now we know that Kasparov did ask for more than just DB2's output, he had challenged the whole CC with its traditions! Let's find sensible answers! >> >> >> >>>> >>>>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.. Contra-hint then: a beginner or layman in a field could well be a good expert in another field, and therefore he could teach you valuable lessons. It's so basic! >> >>> >>>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. Computer chess. Perhaps many German studies and papers were destroyed or "exported" right after capitulation. Who knows. Spaceflights is a German project as you know. It's very doubtful that ZUSE shouldn't have been collegues with chess interests. So let's keep open the question. For the moment you are correct. >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... Older question, known answer, but anyways: Bob, if IBM had engaged you, would you have been able to find certain ways to do the "dirty" job, so that nobody would have seen any smoke or mirrors? Just a short yes would do right now. No details needed. What I wanted to say is that such statements here like this "not a bit of smoke" are themselves _smoke_. But again, because of the sloppyness of traditional CC we can't know the real answers. > > >> >>>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... May I teach you as expert that only specific philoshophers follow the described version? The rest in our private tutoring No. 70 pp. From then on you will be able to go again with physics _and_ philosophy! You will enjoy! >>> >>> >>>> 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... As I said earlier this year. Sometimes people without a greater view think that there is a constant repetition of always the same. In reality it's all happening on a spiral going higher and higher. But they only see the same circles and ellipses. A new dimension is always something new, Bob. Lesson 100. 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.