Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:40:09 07/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 2002 at 23:06:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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! > > >I don't believe you could follow a cow, walking down the street, personally, >even knowing how slowly a cow walks. Now, after you couldn't find a way-out for my questioning of DB2 team behaviour, the insulting begins, automatically; this has a long and well documented tradition, it's a pity. Therefore I repeat for the readers that you have no idea of the methodological questions that should be the object of a 'meta' computerchess. This is not your fault, but it shows how limited even great experts in a field could be. If you can't understand that the DB2 team failed to find a sound practice for the _output_ of the machine, the most important part in tournaments or matches, you will never get the reasons for the critics against the happenings of 1997. For instance (in 1997) you were first with the declaration that "even if they had given him the logs he wouldn't have understood them because usually as I could see for many times that the output of their DEEP must be worked on to be understandable". This is a precise translation but in rgcc you wrote something like that. If you want to deny I'll show you the original text. What does this mean? You explained. "There are so many parts in the output which are information for the team but without sense for a reader." Now in 2002 you added that "we have only the line till move (xy - I don't remember the exact number for the moment) and the next xy moves are invisible because they are _hidden_ by the _hardware_"! ************************************************************************ My question form that meta level: where are the _unequivocally_ exact commands for the "translation" of thought processes of DB2? ************************************************************************ Finally you added (years ago) that "it makes no sense to examine the exact output for purposes of repeating the experiment e.g., because simply DB2 worked in multi-parallel-mode, so that the output can't be deterministic by definition". All together the three obstacles for a sound interpretation of the output of DB2 make the performance of DB2 worthless. From a science view. Your standpoint is in favor of magic gambling in show events even if scientists are the main engineers. Fine with me, but we know by now that it was about gambling and any attempts to analyze the details of the output for instance are a waste of time. But the bluffs of a poker match won't be researched too after the event. It's all about winning, no matter how. So, we have left science and sports as well. Period. > >Fritz is not the "final answer". Neither is Crafty. And neither is (gasp) >deep blue. The question was did deep blue play axb5 without help or not? >If another program will choose axb5 without help, then there is little to >suggest that a machine 200X faster would not be able to do so either, and >the discussion ends... > >Until your next troll of course... This is funny. You make a classical beginners blunder and teach me about trolls. Not discussing your own performance. This is funny. Ever heard of double blind testings? What is the reason for such complicated games? Answer: the generally possible doctoring, Bob! Therefore I laughed out loud, because how could _ever_, in a later moment, a different machine provide evidence for the earlier event? Logic! Science! The basics! Lesson 1! Tutoring! RolfTueschen@aol.com! > > > >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>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. > > >I have no idea what you believe in and really don't care. I think everyone >_else_ is "getting the point" so that will have to be good enough for me. I get it! From the early Turk over Morphy, Alekhine, GNUchess, CRAY BLITZ, Jenny Shahade, Kasparov AND Crafty18.11 - ALL play the same chess and could well be compared on a single ranking list. Only quantitative differences. Nothing qualitative. You bet! Just a tiny question for you: Did you ever hear of the fact that in chess moves could be found for the wrong reasons? You tweak a machine and suddenly it will show axb5! Shocks. No reason to make deeper thoughts! - You bet! > > > >> >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>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? > > > >I didn't say crafty _had_ changed. I said that after 10 minutes it had the >two moves very close. Someone else reported that after a longer time fritz >had the two moves with _identical_ scores. That is good enough. When Crafty changed to axb5? When Fritz? Or didn't they change? What is with your claim then? Or is it your logic to think that DB2 is proven for axb5 because the commercial machine "came to a close eval"? Pay attention, Bob, we have dangerous trolls here, perhaps this could be taken for a good excuse if you can't find a good answer! Just offering a helping hand from my side! >>>>>> >>>>>>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? > >Kasparov said g5 was "the only move". > >Guess that shows what _he_ knows since you have declared it bad... I should have known better. I forgot that I was talking to you, Bob. How about Nunn, Benjamin to blame? You have the guts to blame them for their judgement? And a mild smile for you, because you tried to challenge "?" with the remark that Kasparov said "only move"! Where's the difference? The position is already difficult and weaker. REBEL played e5 and the GM assist. But don't bother to keep your silence! Let's not discuss too much about chess here! :) > > >>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. If this is a troll, then I'm proud to be a troll. But in real this is the death verdict for a scientist! >> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>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! > >Has anyone said that the moves played by DB were "blunders"? Kasparov >sure did _not_... It was a typo, Bob. Should be "stumbling". Is that ok now? :) > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>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 > > > > > > >I can't begin to follow your twisted reasoning. So I'll just leave it at >that... twisted reasoning. You forgot to answer my question! Where are the moves = game scores of the 10:0 events???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Excuse my twisted reasoning, but I would like to see the gamescores. Excuse me, I'm just a researcher from Europe (where logic has been invented!). Just to make this clear: Hand-waving and insults are no good answers and won't be accepted. Rolf Tueschen
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.