Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:10:03 07/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2002 at 07:57:15, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. I don't have any problem at all. "no computer could play that move" is not open to "interpretation". Each word has a precise meaning. The "interpretation" that he later emphasized was "no computer could play such a move, so DB had human help in the background, somehow." > >> >> >>>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. > It can by those of us that know them. Otherwise _no_ computer vs human game/match can _ever_ be trusted. As I have said many times, there is _no_ way to be 100% certain there is no outside intervention... > >> >> >>> >>>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. Based on that logic, _nothing_ dealing with computers would be valid, because ensuring no outside influence would be impossible in the context of the match between a human and a computer. > >> >> >>> 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." I wonder why Kasparov would not say "yes, I will play your machine for the easy opportunity to pick up a million dollars."??? I can think of several reasons why he wouldn't. And the main one _did_ have something to do with Hsu's reputation. Because Hsu told him he would have a machine another 30X faster. I don't think Kasparov wanted _any_ part of that... >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 don't think the chance to win $1,000,000.00 had _anything_ to do with Kasparov's decision? It had _nothing_ to do with friendship. It had _everything_ to do with $$$... Otherwise don't you think Friedel would have set up a match between Kasparov and Fritz? Eh? > >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 was taught _long_ ago. "if it is important, get it in writing. If it is not important, then a wink and a nod is perfectly acceptable." Kasparov signed a contract after negotiating the details of that contract. If you sign a contract to buy a Rolls Royce, and after you get it, you decide "this thing isn't worth this much money" it is _too late_. You negotiate _before_ signing, _not_ after... > >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 > That is just your characterization. Not the general opinion. >> >> >> >> >> >>> 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.