Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:57:15 07/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2002 at 01:00:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 17, 2002 at 17:30:01, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On July 17, 2002 at 09:23:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 17, 2002 at 05:24:50, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On July 17, 2002 at 00:03:24, K. Burcham wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>In game 2, Kasparov thought that there was human interference with this line. >>>>>He requested the logs to see for himself that these two moves were actually in >>>>>the Deep Blue eval. >>>>>Kasparov did not think any program would play 36.axb5 avoiding 36.Qb6 or the >>>>>move 37.Be4. >>>>> >>>>>But it seems that todays programs will accomplish what Deep Blue was trying to >>>>>do in the game. >>>>>Deep Blue opened up the a file and blocked Kasparov's play with 37.Be4, limiting >>>>>blacks mobility. >>>>> >>>>>Below in the examples you will see that two of todays strongest programs will >>>>>also accomplish this same objective. Both Fritz7 and Chess Tiger 14.0 will open >>>>>the a file and control the a file. also both Fritz7 and Chess Tiger 14.0 will >>>>>play Be4 limiting Kasparov's mobility with black. >>>>> >>>>>All three programs, Deep Blue, Chess Tiger 14.0 and Fritz7 put the >>>>>squeeze on black, blocked with the Be4 move, opened the a file, threatened to >>>>>capture blacks bishop, forced black to protect the loss of pawns, etc. >>>>> >>>>>I started each program after Kasparov's move 35...Bxd6. >>>>>after each program analyzed for several hours, I took the line from each >>>>>program and played it through to the position after blacks move 40. >>>>>This way we can cover both controversial moves> >>>>> >>>> >>>>What is the error in such experiments? >>>> >>>>Answer: You can't _prove_ something as authentic with repetitions on different >>>>machines built-up _after_ the event. History of CC has shown that we could never >>>>exclude special preps right on to the point. Therefore, logically, we cannot >>>>accept such "proofs". >>> >>>You _can_ disprove Kasparov's main "claim". That "no computer would play ..." >>>By demonstrating that at _least_ one computer _would_ play that move, his >>>statement is disproven for all time. And the rest of his claim can therefore >>>be taken with a mountain of salt. >> >>Not that I _ever_ was or would be your teacher of English resp. American >>English, but I must insist that Kasparov did _never_ say that no computer would >>_E V E R_ play these moves. > >First, let's get the quote right. He did say "no computer _could_ play this >move.." > > >> What he meant was at the time being and he was > > >And here you go on a tangent. Not saying what he _said_ but what he >"meant"... judge says "inadmissable, that is a conclusion, not a fact." No, I do not go on a tangent, because always we must interpret language. It is a tour de tangent if you pretend to be able to prove exactly what a certain phrase means out of itself. You are right, he said it. But what it means, what he said, is a question of interpretation. Now, you have a _little_ problem. > > >>talking about DEEP BLUE 2 in the first place. Now back to the many tries to find >>the moves with our commercial or amateur programs. Here I must insist. >>Afterwards (with so many possibilities to interfere) you can never prove that >>such progs could have found the moves at the time being. But with respect to the >>position of Ed Schroeder I would say that even if some alien prog could have >>found the moves, we are talking about DEEP BLUE 2 and we always were. Now - the >>deconstruction was the worst thing that could have happened. Because now we >>don't have any possibilities at all to corroborate or reject Kasparov's thesis. >>This alone was and still is the biggest violation of all ethics. >> >>Just another thought to think about. > >See my comment to Amir. DB2 searched Qb6 and _every_ iteration the score >dropped. Until it dropped all the way to +48 and the program decided that >axb5 was better by about 1/10th of a pawn. No mystery. No magic. Just >the opinion of the program, right or wrong. > >It's _all_ in the logs, if you just look. You know the answer! You yourself explained what "logs" really could mean at best. I don't want to re-open that can but I want to mention that after all what happened IBM and DB2 team _still_ are in a state of emergency concerning "explanations" and evidence. Ok, you can hold this open until the final solution, but for me, excuse me, this is not ok. You are in a double bind. DB2 team has to offer evidence, in special after the deliberate deconstruction of the machine. Now we'll never be able to repeat some thought processes. Bad luck for IBM/ DB2 team. They didn't pass the doping control. Their World Record can't be accepted as valid. > > >> >>We all know that DB 2 did not use the typical nullmove strategies of today's >>chessprogs. It would be the least what you and your collegues could do, that you >>elaborate what this could mean for the question of Qxb6 vs. axb5. Just for the >>sake of our own class of debate. If we could show that DEEP BLUE 2 would have >>been a much more difficult task to reject Qb6 > > >Just look at their log file, and the variation they produced (note that this >is never the full variation on deep blue since the hardware does not supply >a PV, meaning you only get the software PV and since it is from the hash >table it is not completely reliable nor always complete. > >The log shows why they rejected Qb6 quite clearly.. Maybe, maybe. Without doping control, not valid unfortunately. > > >> we would at least be able to >>understand why our logic is shaky when we conclude that if some PC progs could >>find the solution that then it might be possible for DB 2 as well. You know, we >>must not take Kasparov as our scientifical God but we should take him as the >>honest reporter from the chess angle of the problem. In other words. Even if you >>were right, that his "claim" could be refutated, he could still be right. >>Look, if that would come out in 40 years when you and me are dancing in >>paradise, it would be a pity if the security patrol would catch you for being >>guilty of supporting the confusion to the disadvantage of Kasparov, just because >>you are a friend of many of the DB 2 team. > > >I would defend deep blue whether I was _friends_ with the team or not. It >is their _reputations_ that cause me to defend them, not the fact that I have >been on a first-name basis with them for 20+ years. Yes, but it's five years ago now that I told you that they probably violated all ethics of science, no matter if they were working for IBM or not. The details after game two speak against them. They should have known better. Alas, when Hsu Feng tried to get in touch with Kasparov we saw what his reputation was worth. He left the field for good. He will never more be accepted from a top chessplayer. What did Kasparov say? "You must qualify yourself, then come back." What does that mean? Oh, nothing but the _fact_ that only with the friendliness of Kasparov your friends got the chance to play. And then they violated the silent mutual acceptance that "normally" a show like that would never happen, simply because it's unfair to the bones. You know, Bob, it's kind of strange, that you had to come forward with the "contracts". Of course you are right with the contracts. But at that moment you lost the track of the silent mutual acceptance. Their is a logic beyond contracts. In special with contracts for simple show events! I think that this is the best possible description of what has happened. Without insults. The facts alone speak their verdict. Against one certain side. They changed a show act into a World Championship and then denied to pass the doping control. The End. Rolf Tueschen > > > > > >> Friendship is one thing but Science >>and Ethics is something more important. And I tell you, the truth will come out. >>Now or in future. And you won't have a good excuse with the statement that >>Kasparov made a scientifically wrong thesis. We all know that he's not a >>scientist. But he's one of the best chessplayers we ever had. >> >>Rolf Tueschen >> > > > >And one of the biggest sore losers as well... > > > >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>The deconstruction of DEEP BLUE 2 right after the event, in special with the >>>>knowledge of the prior attitude of the DB team, which was one of secrecy (not a >>>>single game score existing!), speaks against the validity of DB2 output. >>>> >>>>THe deliberate deconstruction invalidates DB2 results. Just compare it with the >>>>refusal of passing the doping test directly _after_ the race. >>>> >>>>It's so basic! >>>> >>>>Rolf Tueschen
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.