Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:02:15 07/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 2002 at 13:04:01, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 22, 2002 at 10:22:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 22, 2002 at 09:42:50, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On July 21, 2002 at 23:45:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 21, 2002 at 14:40:35, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 21, 2002 at 08:05:33, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 21, 2002 at 07:32:32, Geo Disher wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>OK after 56 hours the evals are exactly the same .88 for axb5 and Qb6. >>>>>>>Hopefully in another few days axb5 will surpass Qb6. >>>>>> >>>>>>It is not clear if axb5 is better than Qb6. >>>>>>I believe that it is not better. >>>>> >>>>>Exactly the reason why Kasparov became suspicious. >>>>> >>>>>Ed >>>>> >>>> >>>>I suspect we can find _many_ positions where Kasparov made a move that >>>>was inferior. I saw him do it several times in match 1 against DB in >>>>fact. So I don't quite understand why _he_ thinks that his analysis/ >>>>opinion is so infallible that because _he_ believes Qb6 was better, it >>>>actually was. >>> >>>This is again something for the private tutoring. Lesson 60. >>> >>>Bob's logic says that both make mistakes. DB2 _and_ Kasparov. And therefore >>>Kasparov has no right or extra-right or simply the status to declare or pretend >>>that he has a higher position to judge about chess variations. Although Kasparov >>>is the best player, actually. >> >> >> >>No, it has _nothing_ to do with judging positions. It has to do with the >>question "can a computer choose axb5 over Qb6?" The answer seems to be "yes", >>whether that is the right move or not being 100% irrelevant. My program is >>getting closer and closer to changing its mind, iteration by iteration. After >>a very deep search Fritz says the two moves are _identical_ in score. That is >>all that is needed here to answer that question. If the two moves are equal >>at some deeper depth, then serendipity could cause _either_ to be played. And >>since Qb6 started off _higher_ and slowly dropped, while axb5 started off >>_lower_ and slowly climbed, then it doesn't take much to conclude that if the >>experiment is continued, it is likely that axb5 gets better than Qb6. > >So, chess is basically about serendipity and one-dimensional de- or increase? >What if after even a deeper chapter the whole trend is reversed? What then? (NB >that we could only know this in 40 years when computers are able to go that >deep!) > We already _know_ that Fritz says the two moves are _identical_ in score. We _know_ that. That is enough to say that serendipity could cause a program to choose _either_ since at least at that depth, Fritz sees _no_ difference in them. Is that so hard to follow? Apparently so... >> >>Note that this is _exactly_ what the DB2 log showed too, although it didn't show >>the score for axb5 until the last minute, it showed Qb6 dropping each iteration >>until axb5 finally popped out as just a _little_ better. > >You know what? If DB2 were not deconstructed Rolf would test a few positions to >decide whether DB2 really was capable of to deny the present of three pawns. See >our teacher Ed! There is no "present of three pawns". My program quickly says that Qb6 is almost 1 pawn better than axb5, not three. after less than a minute it says Qb6 is barely 1/2 pawn better. After several minutes it is down to .3 pawns better. Fritz even says they are _equal_. What is your problem here? Comprehension? Reasoning? Or ...??? > >> >>That _certainly_ suggests that axb5 would be expected from a computer as fast >>as deep blue, since others would play it too given enough time. No conspiracy >>or mystery there, except for those that _want_ a mystery... > >The air is a bit hot though... (To the young readers: Hot air is a metaphor for >starting wild guesses or fantasies.) > No wild guesses. Easy-to-confirm hard evidence. Use my program. Or use Fritz. Your choice.. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>True logic: we must at first introduce the parameter of overall chess strength. >>>Here Kasparov is leading the ranking lists. So, there is a direct connection >>>between chess strength and the quality of judgements about moves or lines in >>>chess. Now let's take a look at DB2. Except the 6 games from 1997 we have not a >>>single gamescore of the practice of the machine. The first game of the show >>>event reveiled that DB2 was as weak as typical machines. Some moves were >>>absolutely nonsense. The main line leading to its loss wasn't foreseen, which is >>>typical for machines. >> >>Please point out a move in game 1 that was "nonsense". Kasparov never found >>one and mentioned it. He was, in my opinion, quite lucky to win that game, >>as DB _did_ win material. > >Give me some minutes, I will check that in my bases. > > >> >> >> >>> >>>Verdict. Kasparov is the far better player than DB2. While DB2 is or better was >>>a good calculator, so that no amateurs were able to play it successfully, but >>>since its understanding of chess is infantile a good GM with eidetics and good >>>calculation is far better. If it comes to "judging lines" Kasparov is of >>>outstanding class compared with the idiot savant DB2 who must rely on the >>>telephone book like databases, features called 'forbidden' in human chess. >>>Chess is more than calculating till the point of definite blindness. Chess is >>>knowledge and experience. "Eidetics helps, but without the chess genius eidetics >>>is simply computerchess" (Tueschen July 22th, 2002). >> >>And your verdict means _nothing_ when it is about tactics. Examples: Who >>resigned in a tactically drawn position? Who overlooked tactical drawing >>facilities in game three, thinking he had it won? GMs make as many tactical >>mistakes as anyone else, and given the choice of taking a GM's opinion or a >>computer's (after a long search) I will tend to go with the computer's unless >>I see some odd characteristic of the position that might make the computer >>error... Your "lecture" about who is the best is pointless. Does Kasparov >>_ever_ lose a game vs a lower-rated player? (hint: Krmanik for one, there >>have been others recently). Therefore, better != perfect, by _any_ stretch. > >You are right, but you must think tactics in the overall context of a game. >There's no tactics isolated as in the puzzle books. The reason for errors is of >multiple character. Please lock your computer room so that monkey can't get to the keyboard. I have a hard time reading the above... > > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Fritz seems to be exposing that as false. Had I run Crafty long enough >>>>it would also probably have liked axb5 since the scores of the two moves >>>>were heading in opposite directions, albiet a bit slowly. >>> >>>For all I know, you would have run this test _if_ it had been sure the result >>>would have shown what you expected... Concerning our general addiction *time* >>>should be no obstacle! >> >> >>"for all you know" doesn't cover very much ground. Why do you think many of >>us spent > 24 hours verifying that Kasparov resigned in a drawn position? >>Because we simply wanted the _truth_. > >And how comes that you didn't think about Rolf's Law of the non-comparability of >such different machines. Or did I miss something you yourself explained, that >DB2 wasn't just commercial progs plus speed. So, excuse me, I always thought it >was Bob's Law. Now you've a problem again. Why suddenly your Law is no longer >true? Because you want to imitate DB2 with commercial progs? To minimalize the >ugliness of the deconstruction of DB2? No, to simply show that nothing DB did was "impossible" for today's programs, given enough time. Which is _the_ point... > > >>Ditto for qb6 vs axb5. And the truth >>seems to be what we all (except for a few) expected. It was logical, >>predictable, and repeatable by other programs... > >But I repeat the question why you hadn't time enough to wait for final answers? >(Hot air in my eyes.) > >> >>If it hadn't been, we would have needed to search for _other_ reasons why DB2 >>might have chosen Qb6. But, we don't need to now, because we _know_ why it >>played that move. > >Objection as before. You can't compare bananas with asparagus! Objections from unqualified attorneys are automatically overruled... > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>>BTW do you know where the game scores are from the 10:0 tests of DB2jr or sen >>>against some commercial progs? Just take your time for the search. Thanks. >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen >> >>This has been answered by them. They are in the same place as the logs for >>the games I played between Crafty and Cray Blitz last year. I didn't keep >>them because at the _time_ I didn't consider them important... Neither did >>they... > >I see, Hsu or them read CCC but they do not post, so that you post for them, and >they and you as their speaker didn't see the questions teacher Ed had? Is this >your understanding of serious and true science? Istn't this the confession that >it was about something different than the truth? > The match was over. They gave me the results several _months_ after it happened. By then, you are right. Logs were gone.. >Rolf Tueschen > > > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Uri
This page took 0.02 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.