Author: chandler yergin
Date: 14:12:40 04/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2005 at 13:29:53, Matthew Hull wrote: >On April 25, 2005 at 11:00:28, chandler yergin wrote: > >>On April 24, 2005 at 23:36:41, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>>On April 24, 2005 at 19:52:16, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On April 24, 2005 at 19:43:45, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 11:42:17, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 11:26:32, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 10:13:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 05:14:48, Peter Berger wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On April 23, 2005 at 23:52:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Several of us have looked at the logs for the games, and game 2 looked perfectly >>>>>>>>>>normal and the program even reported a fail low and "panic time" where it >>>>>>>>>>searched longer than normal because of the fail low. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>This is a red herring and crap. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>When was the first time someone independent had a look at these logfiles? Have >>>>>>>>>you and the several others had a chance to look at the logfiles right after the >>>>>>>>>games took place, say May 1997? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The logfiles IBM published eventually mean nothing at all. This was more than a >>>>>>>>>year after the games, wasn't it? Even I could produce most impressive logfiles >>>>>>>>>given that much time .. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yes. Several looked at the log right after the event. I believe that Ken sent >>>>>>>>me the section from the game although I don't remember whether it was the Qxb6 >>>>>>>>(not played) or the Be4 position. I believe that Amir posted something about >>>>>>>>the position early, but his comments were based on either not understanding what >>>>>>>>DB's log output meant, or something else. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>This was about the "fail low (panic time)" that caused DB to search much longer >>>>>>>>than normal and may have been on the Be4 move although I simply don't remember >>>>>>>>much about it since it was not a particularly significant event in my mind >>>>>>>>because at the time I posted an excerpt from a Crafty log that looked >>>>>>>>_identical_ in concept. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Nothing ever looked strange about the log stuff to me... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Kasparov never saw them did he? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He was the one that requested them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>He was the one under pressure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Review by third parties 'after the fact', >>>>>>> >>>>>>>way after the fact, do not excuse what happened. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I doubt if any Grandmaster, then or now, would go into a Match >>>>>>> >>>>>>>against 'any' Opponent blind, or accept the Match conditions Kasparov did. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Kasparov was seriously believing that this was a science clarification but when >>>>>>the scientists behaved like known crooks in sports he was completely losing his >>>>>>motivation to play decent chess. That is the crucial point. The position of Bob >>>>>>Hyatt is absolutely ok if you forget about the usually good relationship the >>>>>>team around Hsu had towards Kasparov. But if you dont forget that then you begin >>>>>>to realise what a fishy job they had played vs Kasparov who formerly was their >>>>>>buddy. Psychologically that is trivial. At first you woo somebody and when you >>>>>>won him, then you can play dirty and the guy is completely lost, most of all >>>>>>because of his perception that he could be so blind and to be so naive. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>GK was beaten in a match by DeepBlue II. It was a portent. Now, on ICC, you >>>>>can watch GMs getting smashed, thrashed, pumelled, flogged and slaughtered, all >>>>>day and night long. They win a few games here and there and get evicerated the >>>>>rest of the time. >>>>> >>>>>All whining defenders of human chess superiority need to grow up. Humans aren't >>>>>as consistently good as computers anymore. Humans are toast in chess, now. >>>> >>>> >>>>In Blitz and Rapid, yes. >>> >>> >>> >>>Post where a GM prevails in a match of any length at long time controls. If you >>>can't, then your position is unscientific. >>> >>>You blather all day about DB logs and "cheating science", yet you can't produce >>>the score or log of any match showing GM domination of current chess software. >>>You would "cheat science" with your unfounded assertions. >>> >>>In reality, we see GMs taking their beatings on chess servers, tournaments games >>>with long time controls, and in matches as old as two years ago. Your position >>>has no data points. My position has many. >> >> >>That just shows you don't understand how a Computer works. >> >>It also shows your bias against humans... how sad. >> >>Quoting: >>In Scientific American, May 1996, there is an interview with the designers of >>DB, a parallel system with 16 nodes. "In three minutes, the time allocated for >>each move in a formal match, the machine can evaluate a total of about 20 >>billion moves; that is enough to consider every single possible move and >>countermove 12 sequences ahead and select lines of attack as much as 30 moves >>beyond that. 'The fact that this ability is still not enough to beat a mere >>human is amazing', Campbell [one of the six IBM prophets behind DB] says. The >>lesson, Hoane [another one] adds, is that masters such as Kasparov 'are doing >>some mysterious computation that we can't figure out.'" > > >Idiots also do mysterious mental computations that no one can figure out. "Savants" do.. which is amazing... Keep trying... You can't get over the fact that Humans are not inherently evil and need 'saving'. You resent the fact that Humans can outhink a computer... How sad... Too bad... Lost again in fantasy.. > > >> >> Keep trying Matt. >> >>> >>>Now we see that yours is a position of no scientist but of a religionist >>>instead. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Grandmasters prepare a dossier against their opponents and study them for >>>>>>> >>>>>>>months before a match. The Deep Blue team would not let Garry have access to >>>>>>> >>>>>>>even a glimpse of the Prematch training games of Deep Blue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>With good reason of course; they knew that the Computer could not beat him fair >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and square.
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.