Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 15:03:10 04/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2005 at 09:16:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 21, 2005 at 18:15:50, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On April 20, 2005 at 12:50:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 20, 2005 at 12:30:55, chandler yergin wrote: >>> >>>>On April 20, 2005 at 08:51:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 19, 2005 at 21:23:56, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 19, 2005 at 19:14:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 19, 2005 at 12:05:58, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On April 18, 2005 at 12:17:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On April 17, 2005 at 10:33:57, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On April 16, 2005 at 07:49:08, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On April 15, 2005 at 20:51:07, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Five years ago , Hsu's open letter to the world regarding a possible rematch >>>>>>>>>>>>with Deep Blue. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/feng.html >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Mike, the whole topic is uninteresting. The point Hsu didn't get five years ago >>>>>>>>>>>and earlier in 1997, is the fact that he and his team (IBM involved this way or >>>>>>>>>>>another) cheated on Kasparov during the process of the whole rematch in 1997. >>>>>>>>>>>For me it's so basic that they offended their own (pretended or not) defined as >>>>>>>>>>>science experiment. They wanted to show the class of DBII in its chess over the >>>>>>>>>>>then best human chessplayer. But what they proved in effect was not the >>>>>>>>>>>machine's superiority in chess but their success over Kasparov's psyche with >>>>>>>>>>>classical tricks from psycho-wars. Kasparov will never agree with this >>>>>>>>>>>interpretation because "complete control" is his obsession and he couldn't live >>>>>>>>>>>with the truth that they "psyched" him "out". So he worked with the absurd claim >>>>>>>>>>>that they did never prove their authentic output of the machine. But make no >>>>>>>>>>>mistake, Kasparov wasn't responsible during that match - for NOT being >>>>>>>>>>>vulnerable what psychology is concerned. Because he simply believed Hsu et al in >>>>>>>>>>>advance that they - even if they wanted to win - wouldn't cheat him, what they >>>>>>>>>>>did as a matter of fact. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Hsu et al (plus IBM of course) cheated >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>a) on Kasparov as their human client for the experiment which alone is indecent >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>b) on their own science responsibility for the experiment, which didn't mean >>>>>>>>>>>winning by all means but winning through the better chess >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>c) on their own interests, because they made all further experiments obsolete >>>>>>>>>>>with their participation, because everyone would know by now that they would >>>>>>>>>>>cheat on you with all tricks they could organize. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>d) on the silent contract for purposes of the massmedia: in 1997 it was clear >>>>>>>>>>>that from a chess point even the strong machine DB II still wasn't able to play >>>>>>>>>>>chess so that such a strong player as Kasparov normally could have been beaten. >>>>>>>>>>>That was only possible with tricks which led to the development that Kasparov >>>>>>>>>>>was psyched out or worse, that Kasparov was confused about the real strength of >>>>>>>>>>>the machine. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>All of the resources available were used to specifically beat ONE Player, >>>>>>>>>>Kasparov! Feng-Hsu made specific Chip modifications.. GM Joel Benjamin >>>>>>>>>>'tweaked' the Program after every game, changed the Opening Book, all >>>>>>>>>>for Deep Blue to beat Kasparov. They knew that Kasparov used the Commercial >>>>>>>>>>Programs during his analysis.. and thought Deep Blue used the Commercial >>>>>>>>>>Opening Books. He was Naive.. didn't realize how he was being 'sandbagged'! >>>>>>>>>>So there was human intervention. I call that cheating! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In that light, _all_ computer vs human games will have cheating in them. Why? >>>>>>>>>Last time I looked, _every_ program was developed by a human programmer (or team >>>>>>>>>of human programmers). Of course, I suppose it is perfectly OK for the human >>>>>>>>>players to have assistants to do opening preparation for them? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>this is a red-herring that is way off the mark of sanity... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You miss the point, as usual! You're the red herring here.. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Millions of dollars spent to beat one man; rather than just play chess. >>>>>>>>That is a bit off the mark of sanity also... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I miss the point? You _totally_ miss the point. IBM didn't spend millions of >>>>>>>dollars just to beat Kasparov. IBM spent millions of dollars to get tens of >>>>>>>millions of dollars of free PR. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>THE GOAL WAS TO BEAT THE WORLD CHAMPION! ARE YOU DENSE? >>>>> >>>>>Perhaps I am, but clearly nowhere near as dense as you, apparently. >>>>> >>>>>The goal of the DB team was to beat Kasparov. >>>> >>>>YES! Paid for by IBM! There would NOT have been a Match unless IBM had >>>>great confidence that the Deep Blue Team COULD Beat Kasparov! >>> >>>Wrong. The consensus among experts in computer science and computer chess was >>>that the second match _would_ be won by Kasparov, just like the first. IBM only >>>wanted the publicity from the matches, which was nearly priceless. The result >>>was not the important thing to the company. It was important to the "team" that >>>worked on the project of course. But the "team" is _not_ "IBM". >>> >>>Until you can grasp that, you will continue to run around in circles, making >>>lots of noise, and looking like an idiot. >> >> >>Since you said bye-bye to science for this question you can't preach about >>sanity and similar problems. The truth is simply that IBM lost interest in that >>chess thing when they saw that their team couldn't win without cheating science >>and Kasparov. > > > >I have no idea what that means. The "science" in this was designing the >hardware, developing the software, and so forth. So DB itself was most >definitely a product of and based on "science". > >The match was simply a demonstration of that scientific product. I didn't see >anyone at IBM say anything else.. > Ok, let's call it demonstration. So what can be demonstrated of your baby if you leave a normally optimal client in his - let's assume for a moment - self-induced confused state of mind? Is this a too difficult question? Where then remains your chess question? Or do you make the statement that DBII was a genial psychological weapon in the game of chess? Would surprise me. > > > >> Kasparov was on science while the team and Hsu were on >>unscientifical dope. Proof, they simply should have answered Kasparov's >>questions - in time.> > > >How does one answer an accusation of cheating? Anybody involved in such >demonstrations would realize that there is _no_ way to prove they didn't cheat. >The minute Kasparov made that claim, it became a "lose-lose" situation for IBM. >If they said nothing, they lost. If they said anything, they could not prove >they didn't cheat, so they lost. I agree insofar if Kasparov had have plans before to spoil the whole party with such a clame. But actually I believe that Kasparov was (probably for the wrong reasons you always explained in r.g.c.c.!) honestly and seriously confused by certain data and interpretations in his own team (Friedel!). My clame is that Hsu and team should have tried to explain the situation to be able to continue the experiment. But by simply reacting the way Campbell did react, it was bad for their own goal. And here I dont mean winning no matter how, but through chess. If your opponent is confused you don't win if you win by your chess alone... All that is trivial, no? > >That is why there were no further matches. Why would they violate the "fool me >once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" mantra??? > > > >> Kasparov didn't insult with his fair questions to Hsu and >>his team. > >Please. He _directly_ accused them of cheating. That wasn't a "fair question". > It was a direct accusation of cheating, made in public and not in private, >standing on a stage, in front of news media. Please! This was from a man directly after the event. Did you ever coach someone in sports and talked to him/her right after it? Wouldn't you be careful in your interpretation? Anyway, all that proves what I say that the team spoiled the own thing by losing control over the intended factors. Chess as number one. I suppose you forgot the details. They could well have talked to Kasparov even if they had wanted to hide their output by all means. But they didn't talk to him. Why? > > > > >> But scientist Hsu believed in getting away with such a misbehaviour >>because he believed that Kasparov would prefer to sack the money without opening >>his mouth. Hsu lost that game! Do you really believe that IBM wouldn't have sued >>Kasparov if they had known that Kasparov was plain wrong with the allegations? >>You bet. > > >Sure they could have. And what would that have accomplished? "big bad company >sues disgruntled world chess champion over cheating claim?" They already had >enough bad P/R. Why put the cheating claim in every newspaper, magazine, TV >news broadcast, etc??? > You agree that it was BAD P/R? Thanks. That is what I'm saying. But you always said that the only thing what mattered was that Kasparov was a poor loser... > > > > > >> - Hsu was simply naive believing that he could treat Kasparov in such >>a distasteful manner. - You still didn't understand the main point. You knew >>already at the time (and explained this straight and fair to me and others) that >>Kasparovs question couldn't be answered in a judicially relevant style. So, if >>Hsu, who must had known this too, had told Kasparov exactly this - Kasparov >>could have found a new playing motivation - for the best of the event. That was >>the least the science responsible of the show should have given his client in >>the experiment. But no, Hsu and in special Campbell thought that they could get >>away with denouncing Kasparov's quests as nuts. Hsu got the bill for that >>unbelievably stupid offense 6 years ago, when Kasparov didn't even answer him - >>did you hear soemething from Hsu since that time? > >On a few occasions, yes. He's moved on to other VLSI projects. But for >clarity, Hsu was right. The claim was "nuts". No, even if the claims were what you think, then Hsu should have clarified the situation by TALKING. > > > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>You are Naive! If the Team LOST, the Publicity would be Horrible! >>>>IBM would be the laughing stock of the Century! >>> >>> >>>So after 1996 when they lost the first match, IBM became the laughing stock of >>>the century? Do you now see why it is impossible for anyone to give any serious >>>consideration to your statements? You are not firmly grounded in reality, or >>>you would have remembered that they had _already_ lost a major match to >>>Kasparov, yet the project continued, and IBM was promoting DB to the hilt. And >>>had they lost in 1997, we would have seen chapter 3 the next year. Losing was >>>_not_ a problem. At least to those of us that understand what was going on... >>> >> >>Did you ever hear of the fatal consequence of an unjustified win? I doubt that >>Americans can understand that. Because it's opposite to all the rules of >>practice Americans believe in. As I said, chess has a different ranking of honor >>than the Americans believe in. Here I assist to Chandler. Why IBM/Hsu didn't >>simply play their chess and tried to improve it - the way you do it with your >>Crafty? Because they confused winning ugly with winning at chess. Something you >>never did, Bob. So why do you defend Hsu and IBM? Why? > >We played a similar match against Levy in 1984. We prepared the same way, by >preparing a special book, by tuning the program to avoid blocked positions. We >still lost. But we did the same exact sort of preparation. There was nothing >dishonest about it, because David also admitted that he had studied computers >for many years and had specific plans to beat both us and chess 4.x, which he >did. > >The only difference was that in 1997 DB won... Because Kasparov was beaten in a psycho war. > > > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> The goal of IBM was to take >>>>>advantage of the free publicity of such a match, win lose or draw. >>>> >>>> >>>> You notice >>>>>that after the first loss, they didn't fold their tent and run. The PR was too >>>>>good to walk away from. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>AT THE TIME IT WAS KASPAROV! >>>>>>THE PR WAS OF COURSE EXPECTED! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That isn't so hard to grasp, is it? Do you think Sonic pays those two morons >>>>>>>lots of money to look stupid? Or to bring attention to their fast-food chain? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It was _never_ about "beating Kasparov". That was a goal that I had, that >>>>>>>Thompson had, that Slate had, that Hsu had, that every commercial program author >>>>>>>had, etc. But IBM didn't have that as a goal. >>>> >>>> >>>>OF course it did! >>> >>>Of course it didn't. >> >> >>Just for clarification: >> >>you and Thompson believe in machines playing sound chess and this way winning at >>the moment when machines could play "better" practical chess against humans. But >>IBM and Hsu believed anno 1997 that the time was ripe to win by cheating their >>own science basics. Because winning ugly in chess isn't winning in chess. It's >>more a character defect or insanity. Don't you see that when you yourself follow >>that moral and logic in your own practice as a chess programmer!? Why then do >>you defend the misbehaviour of Hsu and IBM? > >I simply don't see any "misbehavior". For any contest between two competitors, >you first form a set of rules, then you hold the contest, and you verify that >the rules are followed. Can you cite any rule that the DB guys didn't follow??? Yes of course. They violated number one rule of science. If you want to find out about x (chess of the machine), dont test factor y, you can't control! Isnt that trivial? > > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>THe Heck they didn't! >>>>> >>>>>Glad you agree with me... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> IBM's goal is to make money, >>>>>>>make stock dividend payments, and keep the stockholders happy. Nothing more, >>>>>>>nothing less. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>To make $$$$$$$$$ YES! >>>>>> >>>>>>By Beating the World Champion, they expected to make a BUNDLE, and they did. >>>>> >>>>>You do realize they "made a bundle" after the _first_ match? How did that first >>>>>match end? Oh yes, a loss. It was the _playing_ of the match that generated >>>>>the world-wide interest. Winning made it even better, but had they lost, and >>>>>Kasparov kept the cheating claim in his hat, there would have been a third >>>>>match. And a fourth. But not after the insult hit the street... >> >>How a fair questioning the scientifical details could be insultive? Arent you a >>scientist yourself? > > >Ever heard of "praise in public, chastise in private?" The correct approach >would have been to ask Carol to check on this specific move, privately. I'd bet >that Hsu/Campbell/Hoane/Tan/etc would have provided the data with no questions >asked. But he did it in public. In an attempt to divert attention from his >poor play and onto the DB group with an accusation that could not possibly be >defended. > >"When did you stop beating your wife?" > >How to answer that? Not exactly that similar. How they should have reacted? Easy one. The declared in public "we have a serious problem of faith on the side of our client Kasparov but we will try to settle that in every thinkable manner that could help to solve the problem for Kasparov - as soon as possible before the next game has started!" The rest in private. But not the way Campbell replied: somehing like "he must be out of his mind..." That was NOT a university seminar but a real life situation where utmost care from the science side should have been applied. Not to give Kasparov a bully but to save science. It's so trivial. > > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>I notice you won't respond to the point about the first match. Which simply >>>shows that facts have no place in your arguments, just nonsense. >> >>Why he should respect the facts if you as a scientist is denying them too?! I >>answered you your question. IBM was interested as long as "they" were believing >>that this worked on scientific grounds. When they saw how Hsu et al spoiled the >>whole myth of a scientifical challenge IBM was forced to leave it in their own >>interest. Because the PR had turned against them. Winning ugly, cheating science >>(and their client Kasparov), that would have negative PR... That's the simple >>answer. It is true that a simple loss to Kasparov would have been positive PR! >>And so the first match was no problem for IBM. If Hsu et al wouldn't have played >>dirty a loss in the second match wouldn't have bothered IBM neither! Answer good >>enough for you? >> >> >> > > >Not even close > >The two matches were played the same way. Same kind of preparation by both >sides. The only difference was the final result the second time around. By chess or what? > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Kasparov was "Sandbagged" every step of the way! >>>>>>If you don't believe that you are Naive! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>One of us is "something". And it isn't "naive" either... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>IBM got a Billion dollars worth of publicity from that, so it was obviously >>>>>>>>worth it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>They got _exactly_ what they paid for, yes. Nothing more, nothing less. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Since the Program was specifically tuned to Kasparov's evaluation & Openings, >>>>>>>>other GM's with a different style would probably have Beaten Deep Blue easily. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Impossible to say. No way to tune a program _specifically_ to beat one player. >>>>>> >>>>>>That's NONSENSE and you KNOW IT! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Nope. But then again I have actually written a couple of chess programs. I'm >>>>>not guessing. >> >> >>You're not telling the whole truth because of course you can tune a machine for >>a three games event (for both colours). > >Perhaps you can. I can't. The chess tree is simply too large. I can't even >prepare a book that is safe for 6 rounds against the same opponent. You're not a chess GM like Benjamin. Of course I'm even less than you. > > >>It's also a gamble. You do know that you >>dont do this in your experiments against GM on the net. Because it would suck. >>You know quite well that only chess counts over longer periods. But Hsu could >>gamble. That was the job of Benjamin. > > >I see GM players lose against Crafty all the time, even though they out-play it >on occasion, because of the clock. Is that cheating or dishonest? I see Crafty >win or draw due to endgame tables all the time. Cheating? I see Crafty lose >and I tweak something so that it doesn't lose that way again. Cheating? Sounds >like exactly what the DB guys were doing to me... You filter your own story about your very distinctful manner to handle a conflict for Dzin. All what I want is that you get it what I'm intending. That the guys should have avoided playing dirty. For the sake of the whole event. And possibly future continuations. > > > >> >> >> >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Programs are specifically tuned to beat other Programs... >>>>> >>>>>"other programs" != "humans" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Changing the static positional evaluation is simple and easy! >>>>>> >>>>>>You are being dishonest here! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>You are being ignorant, since you haven't done this. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>They knew that Kasparov valued the two Bishops more than the Knights, and >>>>>>also how he evaluated Rooks, and GM Joel Benjamin 'tweaked' the Program weights >>>>>>for these & other factors! >>>>>>SPECIFICALLY FOR KASPAROV! >>>>> >>>>>Horsecrap. _everybody_ values two bishops higher than knights. It is mentioned >>>>>in every chess book ever written. >>>> >>>>ONLY in certain Positions are Bishops better than Knights! >>>>Even a Beginners Book tells you that! >>>>The more advanced Books tell you why! >>>> >>>>I suggest you review a few... >>> >>>I'll wager I know more about good and bad bishops than you do. And in 99% of >>>the positions the bishop pair is better. In certain blocked pawn structures the >>>knights are better. Good players preserve the bishop pair until they see an >>>unfavorable pawn structure, because it is not possible to anticipate the final >>>pawn structure at move 10 in many openings. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>You might prepare openings, but it was pretty obvious in this event that any >>>>>>>opening preparation was not going to work since Kasparov played things he had >>>>>>>not played before. >>>>>> >>>>>>He used "Anti-Computer" play as part of his plan... >>>>>>It worked; perhaps he should have stuck to it! >>>>> >>>>>He did and he lost because of it. >>>> >>>>NO! He gambled and lost... HSU in his book explains that! >>>> >>>>He did not continue his anti-computer strategy. >>> >>>Then you watched a different match than I did. He even gambled on the last >>>round by playing an opening that commercial programs of that time-frame could >>>not win from the white side. >> >> >>Bob, you dont address the Benjamin issue. Why did Kasparov play that horrible >>variant in the Spanish Opening. It's a losing choice. Why did he play that? >>Because he wanted to prove how weak DB II really was? What's your opinion? >> > > > >I believe that the answer is one of the two following ideas: > >1. He just screwed up by playing an opening he was unfamiliar with, he >transposed two moves, and lost as a result. > >2. He had tried that opening as black against Fritz, and won easily, and >thought the trap would work against DB. It didn't. > >Which is true doesn't matter. In neither case is DB at fault. You can blame >idea 1 on Kasparov's preparation and decision to play an opening he didn't play >much. you can blame idea 2 on his chessbase advisors. But he picked them. He >listened to them. It blew up on him... See the correction by Uri and me. (The opening was played in game 2) > > > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>No wonder they didn't want a Re-Match! Kasparov had learned from his games. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>This match did not prove machine superiority over a human! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It proved DB's superiority over Kasparov for a week back in 1997. >>>> >>>>Total NONSENSE! It proved NOTHING! >>>>Kasparov gambled and lost.. >>>> >>>> >>>>You consider a Match of 6 games significant in any respect? >>> >>> >>>Yes, considering that no world champion had lost any sort of match at long time >>>controls to a computer prior to that event. So it definitely has significance. >>>At least to most of us. >> >> >>Not in chess circles! Every expert in the sciene knew that Kasparov wasn't >>playing as Kasparov. If one can call this gambling? > > >All I can say, is that this has gone down in history as the first time that a >world champion (human) lost a match to a computer, played under tournament time >controls. Nothing more, nothing less. Under what circumstances? Against a sane opponent or a confused one? What did the result mean in truth? - All important questions. Also in chess. And you know that! > > > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>A loss of the last game to a stupid Computer is not significant! >> >> >>Chan, it kicked IBM out of the field... So it was a significant ugly winning the >>match for IBM. <g> >> >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nothing more, >>>>>>>nothing less. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>That is not my personal opinion but the verdict of several commentators out of >>>>>>>>>>>the GM scene. People who can read the game and its problems. In Germany at first >>>>>>>>>>>GM Unzicker criticised the match for its chess content and later GM Hübner >>>>>>>>>>>showed where Kasparov played out of fear. So that scientifically, I conclude, >>>>>>>>>>>the whole event didn't prove anything about the 1997 strength of a chess machine >>>>>>>>>>>in a meaning of superiority over human race. Its chess simply was too bad. With >>>>>>>>>>>the exception of the game two, where God's hand might have come into play... or >>>>>>>>>>>human interventions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Hsu's and DB II's main defender here in CCC and usenet, Prof. Hyatt, did always >>>>>>>>>>>point out that this was a match about winning. And this way it was in accordance >>>>>>>>>>>with all what makes American sports and spirit for fight so lovable. Bob always >>>>>>>>>>>explained that this wasn't about science, alone because of the leadership of IBM >>>>>>>>>>>that mainly had commercial interests. But we in the World of chess we do know >>>>>>>>>>>what we read and saw in the massmedia and we defend our hero Kasparov, about >>>>>>>>>>>whom we did well know that he was easily to irritate by suspicious details. That >>>>>>>>>>>was the only weakness he had. But therefore winning against him by such >>>>>>>>>>>hokuspokus disturbances did NOT decide who was the stronger chessplayer, since >>>>>>>>>>>all the pychotricks didn't come from DB II but from the ingenious team around >>>>>>>>>>>Feng Hsu. And therefore it's over for Hsu. He should challenge FRITZ, SHREDDER >>>>>>>>>>>or DEEP JUNIOR! But no more human chessplayers. Period.
This page took 0.01 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.