Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 14:53:18 07/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 2002 at 17:18:08, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 22, 2002 at 14:02:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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... > >"We know that??" That the moves are identical?? Are you now the PR manager for >ChessBase or what's going on here? What FRITZ is saying must be the final truth? >How could this been proven? Is chess already solved? I must confess that I can't >follow you! > >> >> >> >>>> >>>>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 ...??? > >What my problem is?? Perhaps the knowledge that Crafty or Fritz are still no GM >at all! Perhaps from your chess strength the two machines look almighty. But I'm >not believing in magic. > > >>> >>>> >>>>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.. > >Now suddenly already gone through all tests? This morning you only talked about >guesses that your prog might change to axb5. Suddenly it has changed? Which >Crafty and after how many hours? > > >>>>> >>>>>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. > >********************************************************* >********************************************************* > >Here are some of the moves where DB2 failed to understand chess: > >10- h6? >11- Qa5? >12- Bc7? >13- g5? >33- Qb5? >36- Kf8? > >NB that REBEL 8 played only the two last moves too! > >******************************************************* >******************************************************* > > > >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>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... > >Clear! You don't like too many differentiations. > > >>>>>> >>>>>>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... > >As I showed already REBEL 8 (!!) played different than blundering DB2! > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>>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... > >LOL - So you are allowed to violate the rules of logic only because I objected? > > >>>>> >>>>>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.. > >You must train your reading abilities. I was talking about the games scores of >the games prior to the match. What's going on with you, Bob? > >Rolf Tueschen
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.