Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:36:19 08/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 25, 2002 at 00:24:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 24, 2002 at 18:23:14, Keith Ian Price wrote: > >>On August 22, 2002 at 22:35:25, Peter Hegger wrote: >> >>>On August 22, 2002 at 18:19:17, Keith Ian Price wrote: >>> >>>>On August 22, 2002 at 10:04:37, Peter Hegger wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 22, 2002 at 08:10:27, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>2. Hsu's creations _slaughtered_ the computer competition...ALL OF THEM! >>>>> >>>>>They did? Where are the game scores? I know that they claimed to have scored >>>>>around 90% against other programs during testing, but no game scores exist for >>>>>these games. >>>>>Are we to simply take their word for it that these games actually happened? >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>>Regards, >>>>>Peter >>>> >>>>I talked to Hsu and asked him specifically about this. He said he did not save >>>>the game scores. I listened to his answer while looking him in the eye and I >>>>believed him. What do you base your assertion that he is lying on? I am inclined >>>>to take a person's word without the personal interview, but in this case I had >>>>that added benefit. I don't really care if DB would beat today's programs or >>>>not, since it does not exist any longer, but I do not like people calling Hsu a >>>>liar with no evidence. If you have some, please post it. >>>> >>>>kp >>> >>>Proof? Evidence? I'm not the one who made the claims about my programs prowess. >>>But if I did, then I'd surely have game scores to back myself up. If I didn't >>>have the scores then I would keep my mouth shut. >>>As I stated in the part you snipped, time on a supercomputer doesn't come cheap. >>>Atleast not cheap enough to play dozens of games just for fun. >>>Peter >> >>They had all the time on the computer they wanted. IBM wanted to win the match. >>The games were not played "for fun" but just to see the progress they had made >>from Deep Thought, which lost to Fritz in the 1995 WCCC. They were unimportant >>to Hsu beyond the results, since he had no intention of publishing them, and >>giving Garry any insight into possible weaknesses of Deep Blue. But whether or >>not he was derelict in his scientific duties or not (I suspect not, since he >>wasn't trying to show he could beat the current commercials with the Deep Blue >>project, but rather beat the human world champion), that is not what I posted >>about. I have found that calling someone a liar with no evidence is usually the >>province of liars and not honorable men, since liars think everyone lies. But >>since you are a pawnbroker, and perhaps have people lying to you every day, I >>guess you are entitled to have no trust in another's word. But you say that, if >>you did not have the scores, you would keep your mouth shut. Why would you >>refrain from making that claim without proof, when you show no compunction for >>posting other claims, in fact somewhat libelous claims, without even having >>evidence? >> >>When I talked to Hsu about this, he showed real pride in the accomplishment, >>which doesn't square with his making a specious claim. As I recall, he never >>posted and boasted about this in any fora, but merely answered a question by Bob >>Hyatt through email about Deep Blue's performance relative to the current >>commercial programs. This was after the fact, and he had not kept the scores at >>that time either. Bob was the one who posted the claim. I'm not sure, since it >>has been several years, but I think Hsu said that he wished that Bob had not >>posted that, since he did not have the scores. He knew there had been a furor >>about it on CCC. > > > >I don't think he realized it until hindsight helped him. In fact, when he >gave me those results, I specifically asked "Is it ok to post this to the >chess newsgroup?" and he responded "I don't care, it is up to you. I don't >consider it top secret or anything..." > >I take it just like you did. He did this. He was surprised by the outcome, >particularly the fact that the new chess chip, even at a slow speed, was able >to attack the micros (which were notoriously bad at king safety back then >anyway) and end most games quickly. He was happy to see the new stuff working. >He went on and then mentioned it much later in some sort of email exchange we >had... > >I did the same thing with Crafty vs Cray Blitz last year. I played 10 games to >see how they did, Crafty got smashed, and I thought no more about it. The logs >were timed out and removed from the Cray, and I never saved them as I didn't >think it particularly interesting to anybody with Cray Blitz on permanent >retired status. Bob, I see two aspects. I agree that it's completely ok that you did it this way. Perhaps a different result would have inspired you to keep the records. But this is all speculation. Also Hsu had all the rights in the world to do what he wanted. But I see a second aspect, and this one is a real problem for both of you! The problem lies in your own description here. First Hsu: You mention king safety. Does that mean that Hsu or anyone in his team is capable to watch a game of chess without keeping record of the moves and then at the instant judging what's going on on the board? This is by no means a trivial task. Even if you watch that something is happening on the king's side, does that mean that you also discover the main mistakes? And even if you are doing fine so far, is Hsu or et al. able to keep the moves in their head to make some sound conclusions afterwards? Seems not to be the case because if they were eidetics then they could easily reproduce the whole games even today!! So, either they had the gamescores in mind _or_ they hadn't. But then they couldn't soundly discuss the games. King safety and stuff like this. This is a job for masters, you know! Of course a little superficial fuss is always possible even for beginners. But is this what you would believe about Hsu et al.? Surely _not_! So, we have a real contradiction. What is the truth? Then you, Bob: You say you didn't keep the logs. To me you once declared that keeping the logs of all your games would depass the capacity of all actually available discs. But what is with the chess content of such games? Look, we simulate even games against the long-time dead Capablanca or Alekhine. And you, Bob, are no longer interested in some games from CRAY? Your CRAY?? And also this - say, you observed a crucial tendence how exactly CRAY crushed Crafty, wouldn't it be interesting how exactlx it worked? This didn't interest you? I can't follow you _if_ all this should be true. As a chessplayer I ask you as a chessplayer, are you never interested in the chess? Of course you are! And exactly when you play CRAY (!) the chess of the games is uninteresting? Please give us a deeper view into such questions. This would be important in special for those here, who will never be able to work on such machines. Thanks. Rolf Tueschen > >I later mentioned this in responding to someone about Cray Blitz, and got a >lot of criticism for not keeping the logs. But at the time, they didn't seem >important nor useful. Crafty has played at least a Million games on the >chess servers. I didn't save _any_ of the old logs. Too much data. Too much >space. No reason to do so... But of course, one day, there will be a good >reason for wishing I had a few. :) > >I don't think the DB guys lie. I don't think they cheat. I think they set out >to do a specific task, spent all their time preparing, and finally delivered the >promised result in 1997. And some _still_ refuse to accept it... > > > > >> >>The reason for my snip was not to take away from your post, but because my post >>was an answer to the question, "Are we to simply take their word for it that >>these games actually happened?" My answer is 'yes'. It is something that most >>people do, unless they have been shown good reason not to. > > >Correct. There are lots of reasons for _not_ believing them. To produce >troll after troll, since there is no way to _prove_ that the troller is really >trolling. That is the most common reason. There are others that are probably >obvious to most. > > > >> >>kp
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.