Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:29:38 12/24/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 1998 at 07:01:15, Ralph E. Carter wrote: >On December 24, 1998 at 01:15:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 23, 1998 at 18:07:40, Ralph E. Carter wrote: >> >>>On December 23, 1998 at 10:17:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On December 23, 1998 at 01:31:12, Ralph E. Carter wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 22, 1998 at 23:02:59, Steve Lopez wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 22, 1998 at 20:09:45, Richard Heldmann wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Which PC program recommends ...h5? Please post the answer. I'd like to see >>>>>>>someone disprove Kasparov. That should be simple enough, agreed? >>>>>> >>>>>>OK, Richard, glad to oblige. Junior5 (running as an analysis engine in >>>>>>ChessBase7 with 8 MB hash tables) finds 11...h5 as its preferred move in 7:50 on >>>>>>my Pentium II. >>>>>> >>>>>>The silence has been broken by the sound of Garry chomping crow (especially >>>>>>since he has stated a preference for Junior5, so I'm sure he can check it for >>>>>>himself). >>>>> >>>>>I am happy to hear about this! >>>>>I am sure you are pleased too. >>>>> >>>>>But the other side in this argument does not eat crow. >>>>>There will not be an end, or an admission. >>>>>They will find more positions to question. >>>>> >>>>>It is MOST ironic, and especially satisfying to ME, that JUNIOR is on THIS side >>>>>of the argument!!! >>>> >>>>It might be embarassing (in a way) to Junior's programmer however, since he is >>>>a Kasparov "supporter". However, as you can see, Kasparov's credibility has to >>>>be near zero with most everyone now... every time he makes a claim, or a >>>>blanket statement (no program can find this move...) he ends up looking like an >>>>idiot yet again... >>> >>>((That's what I meant by MOST ironic! My posts are often ridiculous, but Junior >>>5 speaks with an authority that is unlikely to be challenged in this case!)) >> >> >>You obviously don't know Kasparov very well... :) >> > >(((You disappoint me Dr. Hyatt. When I said "there will not be an admission", >and "THEY will find other moves to question", I had someone ELSE in mind. > >Once upon a time, there was a long, long thread in CCC. It was presumably a >search for truth, since it was conducted by two famous programmers in a public >forum. The following was posted, I paraphrase: > >"Under a multithreading operating system, with more than one process competing >for I/O, often the sequence of events suggested by the ordering of the output is >misleading. In this case, it cannot be used to conclude that one process ended >before another." > >I was hoping to hear the conclusion of this thread, it had been so long. The >reply was: > >"Yes, you are right. My argument was based on a false assumption. Thank you." > >No? There was no reply? >Maybe the thread was NOT a search for truth. My naivete humiliates me again.))) > >>facts mean little when he is talking about deep blue, it seems... sorry... I was focusing on the comments made directly by Kasparov, which is where the remarks/comments originated. We finally got to the bottom of the misunderstanding on the axb5 move... had nothing to do with multi-processing or anything else. The output was perfectly normal. A "word" in the output was changed by someone in the discussion "recovering vs reconstructing" and that led down a path that was not important at all. Once that was caught and we explained what the "recover" meant, all mystery disappeared and the "conspiracy" went away on that move... it was perfectly obvious that DB did everything that the output said, and the output was quite clear in what was going on and why. This latest comment happened *way* after the match (as in a week or two ago) which is why I didn't consider any "others" in the conspiracy theory. :)
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.