Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:54:15 01/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2003 at 01:58:02, Bob Bachman wrote: >What I cannot understand about the opinions expressed here about the Kasparov-DJ >game is how quickly everyone gets on a soapbox and makes some obviously >inappropriate comments, like why DJ is terrible, why another program should have >taken DJ's place, how could the program play so bad, I will never buy a program >that can play so bad, etc. Since I've never read something from you before let me say a first hello to you. I think you made a good message, expressing your very personal opinion. Having said that I wish that you might understand why it is so normal and important that we all should tolerate the opinions of all writers. Unless they pass that border into insults and dirty language. Now let me please analyse what you have written. As I said, not the fact that you have written but only the content is interesting me. So if I might sound harsh it is only because I am a bit astonished or desperate about the content of your message. Finally please accept my apologies if my bad English might cause you grieve or headaches. This is not a personal fight but a smooth discussion between friendly people. Let me pass through the points one by one. At first you express your astonishment about something people have written in a first reaction on game one between Kasparov and Deep Junior. You wrote that you cannot understand. Perhaps this is because you are not so deep in the myths of computerchess? Let me tell you what I think. To me personally such a show event is a shame and a hoax. Let me give the reasons for my standpoint. Such programs, either Deep Fritz (against Kramnik) or Deep Junior now (against Kasparov) are simply not strong enough for the two best human players. And all experts know that. But - in case some people think they could make money with such events, then even experts produce fog to confuse the general users or interested. To me you sound like one who had invested money because he was told that this was a fantastic event and you simply are shocked about the first comments. Sure, if you have believed all the nonsense before, about the superiority of today's Deeps over Deep Blue 2 from 1997, about the fantastic evaluation codes that would make them better even with a 100 times slower motor, of course you are confused now. But the trick is, you shouldn't be shocked or confused, because all is in order. But the PR simply was impostering and nonsense. Now as a psychologist I can tell you this, always when people had believed in certain myths or plain lies, they become angry when they must realise that they were cheated. Also we all have a certain vice, namely the one of schadenfreude, a German term. Although - when you use the wording, that people went on a soapbox, you make me smile, because the truth is that the spin doctors (from ICGA, ChessBase and Kasparov[sic!].com) created the actual soapbox and NOT the commentaters. Since you give the education in your profile, I am astonished that you the egg and the hen in this case. A German expression, excuse me. Yes, you sound, as if you should help to save something, a ship going down under the water, or casualties after a terrible crash. It is to me at least a bit too telling that you say that people expressed obviously inappropriate comments. This is a typical sentense by a spin doctor. Normally. That means I wouldn't say that you are one. Because you make proposals without even discussing them. Why is all this inappropiate? > >These statements are all over reactions. I saw the same general thing after each >game of the Kramnik-DF match. Let us step back a minute. Kasparov-DJ followed >previous games until white's 13th move (although DJ apparently was out of book >earlier). These previous games certainly are not convincing in White's >superiority. Yes, that's it, now we enter into chess, thanks. I do not understand you exactly. What do you want to say? Do you mean that if we had 20 games by 1-0 that then it were convincing for you? We are touching a very important misconcept of the book builders in computer chess. Namely those who rely on results. I will not give away all the knowledge because then the message would become a book of 1000 pages. I can only hope that you begin to reflect your sentence above. It is wrong. Previous games either speak or not but they should speak in terms of chess and not in terms of numerical maths. With no statistics you can replace chess. A beautiful misconcept of ChessBase products. I would even say - this is a bit harsh, but I already excused - that no stats is better than too much stats for uneducated people and, ahem, from uneducated people. >So what do you expect the DJ team to do, anticipate TN's on >Kasparov's part and adjust the book accordingly? Is the program (or any other >program) good enough to anticipate these TN's many ply's in advance. Bob, if I may be allowed, let me tell you that nobody, literally nobody, accused the DJ team of anything. You completely twist and confuse the topic. The topic is the hoax of the fact that people could think that a show evwent between Junior and Kasparov could be sensible also from the chess standpoint of view. It isn't. It is a good money & PR event, but that's all. Kasparov is paid for the rest, the chess. Now yesterday he showed how weak DJ is. Tomorrow he will tell you the good sides of DJ and his own 'fatigue' after the difficult match yesterday. If you know what I mean, tongue in cheek. :) Or did you think that Kasparov is forgetting that he was paid for a PR show? No! He needs at least still two further shows to equalize the losses at the stock market! In Germany German champions had to re-start in the tournament circle after they lost their money on Sept 11. That is the truth. Yesterday that was just a sign for the chess world knowies. The chess experts. Tomorrow or in the next games follows the sign to the computerchess world. Believe me. > >To see how bad DJ's evaluation function is, why do we not play some engine >matches with various black alternatives to 13 ... b5. I have a suspicion that >these alternatives are not great for black (I am not good enough to make this >statement however). Therefore it comes down to Kaspaov's superb insight or >pre-match preparation. Take your pick, you got to love it. Personally I am >ecstatic to be even able to watch such a match. Yes, you made a good point. It is of hidden irony that you see such a myth in the moves prior to 13-b5. But here you underestimate the daily practice of GM chess. I mean real GM not computerchess GM machines. In CC we concentrate on the GM chess results of - say - the Middle Age. All the new things are still hidden in the heads of the GM and masters, even experts, and only wait to be born in tournament practice. THEN after their birth CC book doctors come running and make a new update. Just read the anecdote of the hare and the hedgehog! CC the hare. But the hedgehog is always already there when the hare comes running - out of breath. That is a moral, CC must at first try to understand. You sound as if you would like to complain to the earlier GM practice, that they did not discover early enough what a danger is hiding in the whole line. But, Bob, this is what I am trying to express for years. Without success. That books are impostering a status that simply doesn't exist. Unless you haven't analysed the complete chess thoroughly. But by definition this is not possible. And therefore come down from your tower and admit that CC is still NOT GM chess at all. Period. :) > >On another matter, I am continually amazed at all the conspiracy theorists who >abound in this forum, on why this and previous matches results are pre-ordained. Again you sound like the spin doctors. Of course the people here think that a show event, where the human player is paid with around 1 million dollars, you can't expect that he will produce pudding out of the product. That would be inhuman in a way. And such a GM would never more be invited. So by definition the result is more or less a matter of show too. You are not really amazed about such a fact, no? You are a scientist as well! C'mon! :) >Why, is chess alone so crooked or is it all sport? If you believe this I think >you fall into the Fischer thinking that all matches after 1972 were fixed. Give >me a break. Players have egos and they want to win. Winning always means more >money and more prestiege. Only when fear gets you, do you lose your fighting >spirit and play for the draw. You are simply confusing sport with show event or commercials. Period. > >Enough of my rant. I prefer to watch the games, no matter what the outcome, >enjoy them for what they are Also for what they are not? Are you not deceived a bit after the ballyhoo about DJ stronger than DB2???? >and then analyze thme and wait for the next game. >What are the alternatives, no man-machine games at all. What we are are >witnessing is what the group collectively dreams about, shouldn't we be happy. >It is a golden time (even the mainstream media likes it). > >Bob Again you confused something. Man-Machine like the famous AEGON - God bless the Dutch people! - and pure commercials. You are really a dreamer. We want real Man-Machine fights, but not such ridiculous events of pure business. Period. 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.