Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:58:42 07/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 2002 at 10:24:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 23, 2002 at 09:40:09, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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. > > >Perhaps you need to study two words: (1) insult; (2) truth. Then you >might see why my simple comment above is _not_ an insult... That leaves >as an exercise for the reader to determine what my comment really was. It's indecent and insulting to use metaphors of being able to follow a cow walking down the street _in case of a physically handicapped_! You haven't learned your kindergarden lesson good enough yet. You're simply not a gentleman, neither in the case of Kasparov vs DB2 team and IBM in 1997 and here in our debate. Period. > > > >> >>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? > > >I don't understand the question. For anyone that understands iterated alpha/ >beta, the DB logs are reasonably easy to follow. After asking them questions >about some of their notation, the rest is also easy to follow. They released >two sets of logs. One "pristine" which included a lot of "crap" or "noise" >produced by the program. The other set was "cleaned" which means they removed >the status updates and stuff to make it more readable. Anybody that can under- >stand a crafty log file can understand a deep blue 2 log file. > >The DB PVs are incomplete because of the hardware. The PV is a variable-length >thing with multiple values (moves). Trying to back that up thru a finite-state >machine design is impossible because one PV might have 6 moves, the next might >have 60. The hardware would have had to been far slower to accomplish that, >and they were willing to put up with the lack of information in order to get the >necessary speed. You don't get the chess relevant and scientific question! A typical type of answer from you. The wanted to win at all costs and therefore it's ok that something is hidden and therefore the impossibility to do research doesn't matter. And you want to insult me for being stupid several times in your posting? You leave science although being a scientist, you leave fairness in sports and then you insult the critic of such a strange happening and let me follow in vain a cow walking down the streets. This speaks for itself. >> >>************************************************************************ >> >>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". > >Totally true statement for _any_ parallel search chess engine. Crafty >included. I have already explained why too many times to count. Both >here and in r.g.c.c. No need for the long affirmation. You should better find some explanation for for the tradition of CC, of not allowing exact research on the thought processes and output of the machine. I'm not a programmer, I can only make the scientifically correct analyzes on the base of your statements. Let me ask a theoretical question: if someone, say Murray Campbell came forward and explained that they played a dirty psycho game from the beginning on when they designed the first machine, would you still be happy about the factual win in 1997? And if no, by chance, could you give us some less serious faults which would influence you to change your position. From when on you would no longer defend the DB2 team and IBM? Just asking you as expert and chessplayer. >> >>All together the three obstacles for a sound interpretation of the output of DB2 >>make the performance of DB2 worthless. > > >It might have been worthless to you. It was _not_ worthless to many of >us. It answered a question we had been asking since the early 1960's... See my paragraph right above this statement. > >> 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. > > >It is funny. But not the part you think... > > >> >>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! > >If you weren't so prejudiced and stupid, you would _understand_ what those >of us testing axb5 vs Qb6 are doing. But since you are so prejudiced and >stupid, you don't _want_ to understand and want to continue to cloud the >issue further. We are working on one _specific_ item. Having _nothing_ to >do with deep blue. We are testing Kasparov's claim that "no computer could >play this move..." > >And we have proven that statement _false_. With no reference to deep blue of >any kind except by you... > >We are testing his claim. Not deep blue's performance. > >His claim is _provably_ false now. Are you serious? I told you that Kasparov didn't mean "no computer ever and no matter how tweaked". You are simply making a classical mistake. You can't prove "axb5" with such testing. Are your machines independantly finding axb5 or not? How could you say yes, if you had 5 years for the creation of the machines? If you know what I mean. This isn't sound science and logic. > >Whether deep blue had human help or not is not the issue for _this_ test. Who had said that? I didn't. > > > > >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>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! > > >All we have to show is that a program considers the two moves to be _equal_. >That refutes Kasparov's statement. That has now been done. Objection. Nor has Kasparov meant what you want to imply, nor could machines of today prove that DB2 could have found it too, the move axb5. Or are you correcting your earlier positions? >> >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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! :) > > >As I said, Kasparov said "that was the only move" while another GM says "that >was a bad move." > >Take your choice. I tend to rely on #1. He has _proven_ that his judgement >is pretty good in playing the game, wouldn't you think? Again, you miss the point. Many of the moves criticised are of that sort. Kasparov wanted to say that other moves are not better, but it doesn't mean that g5 is a good move. It's a bad move, but the only one for K. Is that ok for you? Logic isn't so simple, I agree. > > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>>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! > > > >You are responding to yourself, there... :) I didn't write a word... Of course. I wanted to explain that the lack of differentiations is the deth verdict for a scientist. This was adding something. Footnotes begin to surprise you? Look, I take a discussion here as a whole. I'm not changing my position at will. I like our debates mainly because I can analyze the logic of someone's thought process. And in this case I know for sure that your defense of DB2 team against Kasparov is false. I still believe in the possibility to explain something to you and that you'll listen. Incidentally I learn something about CC when you make your good explanations. The debate would be really good if you could try to become a little bit more a gentleman. See 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... >>>> >>>>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? :) >> > >Are we now talking about Kasparov or you? The subject changes too >frequently for me to follow. About DB2 actually. > > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>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???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > > >I did answer your question but I will not do so again. They played the match >during testing. They thought the results interesting. But not startling. >They cleaned up the file system and removed them not seeing any benefit in >keeping them. Later they told me about the experiment. By then, it was too >late as the files were long gone. > >Easy to follow? I didn't save the logs from the crafty cray blitz match >as I expected the Cray to win but played the games when I had time and for >fun... Then let me say a simple truth. No chessplayer would behave like that. If CC members behave like that it might be a special hybris but it's wrong and very strange. We must spend more thoughts for the many CC lovers. Human chessplayers should be treated with respect and the CC fans should be treated with respect and gratitude. You did so many goods but sometimes you behave like the famous elefant damaging china. If you know what I mean. Let's not escalate this. Just try to respect my questions from science. Rolf Tueschen > > >> >>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 0.01 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.