Author: chandler yergin
Date: 09:36:16 04/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2005 at 11:53:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 26, 2005 at 11:16:21, chandler yergin wrote: > >>On April 25, 2005 at 20:49:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 25, 2005 at 16:46:15, chandler yergin wrote: >>> >>>>On April 25, 2005 at 12:13:36, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 25, 2005 at 10:36:07, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 22:56:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 18:59:35, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 15:42:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 13:13:22, Rolf Tueschen 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... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>The point is that you explained at the time that it would cost almost no energy >>>>>>>>>>to fake the output so that it looked koscher. So - what do you want to say with >>>>>>>>>>the above. In truth the later outputs mean nothing in a judicially relevant >>>>>>>>>>sense. The question is why they didn't discuss the thing with Kasparov in time >>>>>>>>>>before the following game so that the event could have been continued as >>>>>>>>>>planned. If they didn't have to hide something. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>OK, we go full circle. I could certainly produce a fake log to support any move >>>>>>>>>that anybody would want to see Crafty play. As I said back in 1997, it is >>>>>>>>>_impossible_ to prove they didn't cheat. But, the other side of the coin is >>>>>>>>>that it would be possible to prove that they did, all one needs is to know the >>>>>>>>>methodology or catch them in the act, or whatever. But this was never proven. >>>>>>>>>In fact, no methodology for cheating was ever mentioned. Normally when you >>>>>>>>>accuse someone of cheating, you state the violation clearly. "He spit on the >>>>>>>>>ball". "His raquette head is too big". "His golf club face is improperly sized >>>>>>>>>or weighted" and so forth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Exactly, and that does prove at least to me that Kasparov didn't exactly accuse >>>>>>>>them of chesting. How could or should he? All he did was making public his >>>>>>>>astonishment, his disbelief. Wouldn't it have been ok if they had cared for him? >>>>>>>>In what style or with what material they should have done this, that is a >>>>>>>>different question. But why a player like Kasparov shouldn't have been allowed >>>>>>>>to express his confusion? Exactly with your explanation from that time Kasparov >>>>>>>>could have been given back his peace and new motivation to continue the fight. >>>>>>>>Without any humiliations. And with the hope to get a valid result of the match. >>>>>>>>(Perhaps I'm missing a specific lingual undertone in your messages to me, so >>>>>>>>that I'm still missing your exact position in the debate, but I can't figure out >>>>>>>>why it should be so difficult to get the sense of what I'm saying. Couldn't you >>>>>>>>explain, why in your eyes my science argument isn't good in respect to the >>>>>>>>original question of the research, namely could a machine play better than the >>>>>>>>best human? Why do you throw it into the bin? Are you really believing that a >>>>>>>>win, also a win with certain unfair methods, could prove anything at all?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>As I have said before, it proved just one thing. That the human world champion >>>>>>>could be beaten by a computer in a standard time-control match on that >>>>>>>particular day. There are plenty of other questions that could be asked now. >>>>>>>But the question back then was asked, and answered... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>No, it shows that Kasparov 'gambled' the the Computer would retreat the Knight >>>>on the 6th move! That's all! >>>> He certainly wasn't outplayed at that point. >>>> >>>>As soon as he realized he had underestimated the Program, >>>>he knew he was lost. He had played the line himself. >>>> >>>>>No >>>>>Kasparov lost because he did not play well later. >>>> >>>> >>>>He played for the audience... >>>> >>>>If you were at a Boxing match, and the contender knocked out the Champion >>>>in the first 10 seconds of the 1st round... and you paid $200 for your ticket, >>>>how would you feel? >>>>Cheated? >>>>Of course... >>> >>> >>> >>>That is pure unadulterated crap. How many 10 move "GM draws" have we seen over >>>the years? Do you _really_ think a GM will play on just because the audience >>>wants it? >> Of course! You are Naive not to think so! >> >>How many GM Games have you seen where one was 'busted' but played on so as not >>to go in the record books as one who lost a "miniature" game. > > >Easy question to answer. "Not Any". GMs resign when they are lost, except for >rare circumstances. > > >> >>A loss in less than 10 or 15 moves is very embarrassing. > > >How stupid do you think GM players are? If they are lost at move 10, they will >play on for 15 moves just to get past the 20 move mark so that it isn't a >miniature? That is so far beyond real-world GM play it isn't funny... > > > > > >> >>Humans have pride, players have reputations, a Computer does not. >> >>Playing on in a lost position can still provide knowledge and add to Theory. > >What? :) > > > >> >> >>> >>>you _really_ need to come back to reality. >> >>If you don't understand what I write, and/or refuse to grasp the obvious >> you are the one lost in fantasy, self deception and denial. >> >>It does you no credit to keep protesting. > > >It certainly does you no credit to keep up on this ranting pathway with zero >supporting evidence.. > > > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>The Public wants a contest... >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>He also knew the Public would be infuriated if he resigned at that point, so he >>>>>>gave it his best shot. To his credit! >>>>> >>>>>No >>>> >>>>YES! >>>>> >>>>>There is certainly no reason to lose the game so fast like Kasparov did. >>>> >>>>What don't you understand about this Uri? >>>>"Kasparov 'gambled' the the Computer would retreat the Knight >>>>on the 6th move! That's all! >>>> He certainly wasn't outplayed at that point." >>>> >>>>As soon as he realized he had underestimated the Program, >>>>he knew he was lost. He had played the line himself. >>>> >>>>Get real! >>>>You know hindsight is great... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Here is the game >>>>> >>>>>[Event "New York man vs machine"] >>>>>[Site "New York"] >>>>>[Date "1997.05.??"] >>>>>[Round "6"] >>>>>[White "Comp Deep Blue"] >>>>>[Black "Kasparov, Garry"] >>>>>[Result "1-0"] >>>>>[PlyCount "37"] >>>>>[EventDate "1997.??.??"] >>>>> >>>>>1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Ng5 Ngf6 6. Bd3 e6 7. N1f3 h6 8. >>>>>Nxe6 Qe7 9. O-O fxe6 10. Bg6+ Kd8 11. Bf4 b5 12. a4 Bb7 13. Re1 Nd5 14. Bg3 Kc8 >>>>>15. axb5 cxb5 16. Qd3 Bc6 17. Bf5 exf5 18. Rxe7 Bxe7 19. c4 1-0 >>>>> >>>>>I think that there was no reason to play 16...Bc6 and 16...Nc7 is better. >>>>> >>>>>White has a better position at that point but there is no reason that white will >>>>>win so fast. >>>>> >>>>>Kasparov did a lot of mistakes in the game >>>>>8...Qe7 is not considered to be the best move by theory. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>> >>>>Seems like you have a bias against Kasparov too. >>>>How sad.. >>>> >>>>He's the greatest, and will be rememered.. >>>> >>>>Deep Blue will not. >>> >>>Deep Blue already is in every AI book published. >> >>Why? There was no intelligence in the Program. >>It was an utter failure as far as Science was concerned. > >Yes, it was a total failure. It dominated computer chess events winning all >that it competed in except for one (1992). It beat human GMs in exhibition >matches all over the world. It beat the world champion in a 6 game match in >1997. Yes, it was a complete and total failure... > > > > > > >> >> It probably always will be. >> >>History will be rewritten, and the truth will be known. >> >>Rolf is correct! > >"History will be re-written" > >Doesn't that make it not "history" but "fiction" instead? History is what >actually happened. Not what you wish had happened... But like all other points >in this discussion, you won't get that one either no doubt... No contemporary writer can give an accurate view of anything. Only long after purported events as information is accumulated, and the Historians assimilate the totality of the evidence, can a more accurate picture of what really happpened be provided. This is true for War.. Politics, Stock Market, Religious thought, and 'Cultural' events. I'm surprised at your position on this.
This page took 0.03 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.