Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:19:46 07/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 2002 at 13:18:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 23, 2002 at 11:58:42, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >> >>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. >> >> > >You brought up the word "follow". I pointed out that I don't think you >know what "follow" means. Particularly when you can't follow the technical >discussion about proving that axb5 and Qb6 are considered equal by more than >a couple of programs now... 1. I know that Fritz or Crafty of 2002 can't prove that axb5 is better than Qb6. This is why the position is so difficult. Until now you have not answered the question when Crafty will change to axb5. 2. How could you believe in such a thing that Crafty could find the correct solution of this position from a deep GM standpoint of view!? 3. Even if Crafty would prefer axb5 from 8 plies on, it wouldn't prove that Crafty found it for the correct reasons. How could we research this topic BTW? 4. You said to Ed that Crafty wouldn't go for the three pawns. It gave a different line. And - you concluded - this proves that DB2 had even better reasons to change to axb5. Also this conclusion, if you really believed in such mechanisms, is false. Out of logical reasons. There is no such thing as the one-dimension where _all_ CC thought processes is proceeding. Because of the right for wrong reasons factor we have at least two dimensions. We have many more, but that is not the question here. Think about this for 2 minutes. You get a result. But you don't know the reasons leading to that result. Hence? You don't know details about the result. This is so basic for a scientist. And you know that. All your a half or a third point nearer leads you nowhere. 5. Here is a surprise for you: the question is, if DB2 was even stronger than commercial progs at the time. Ed asked some questions back in 1997. Because it could well be that DB2 - this was Kasparov's theory - could not find axb5. Why could that be? Because from the picture of the whole appearance and you won't doubt that Kasparov had a few correct assumptions about it!? I give these 5 reasons why I couldn't follow you, as I wrote. And what did you do? Instead of staying in the debate, you couldn't control your emotions again and you had to do a nasty job, correct? It is correct that I used the word follow. But this was explained and honest. It wasn'T tongue in cheek. - I was very surprised to see you snips here. For obvious reasons you snipped although you never did it before. Simply because the proof is in the exact text. You didn't stop with just laughing about my following you, but you had that inspiration of a cow walking down a street - _very slowly_. And I wouldn't be able to follow her. Think for a minute if that is decent or not in my case. Here is the quote for you: >>>>"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. Let's not escalate this, but I think it is clear what you've meant. I'm not really hurt because I know you and you have said much more "delicate" things about me. I mean not arguments but pure name-calling. I even like the picture of me behind a cow and breathing the fresh air than being called something deeper develloped than a "bacterium". I remember a nice event when I was in the Swiss mountains just among about twenty cows, sitting, walking around on their meadow, but all very carefully watching me, so that I didn't think about me following the cows but more they going after me. That's how people must feel during the spectacular event in Spain where many bulls run down small streets and the Spaniards and crazy tourists try to be faster than these beasts. With the known effect of deads and severely wounded every year. But I digress. >> >>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. >> >> > >As I said, their primary _goal_ was to build a fast machine. One of the >things they gave up as a result was the ability to back up a PV from the >hardware to the software part of the search. That was simply a constraint >they had to work within. Isn't it strange? Ok, speed is fine, but a sound documentation isn't especially bad. Thinking of competition or show matches. I wished to talk with these scientists some day. > The DB circuitry was _very_ close to not fitting on >the chip as it was, Hsu's book will tell you just how close it was when it >becomes available. So they lived within the constraints they had, and made it >work as it did. As I said, the _goal_ was to "go fast. As fast as possible." >Nothing more, nothing less. I got the impression (also due to Benjamin's work) that it was about good chess. >They made compromises to make that happen. Same >thing happens _everywhere_. Wouldn't it be better if airplanes had steel frames >and skins? It is _much_ stronger. Of course, you might only carry a dozen >passengers on a 747, but that is not important compared to making it as safe as >possible, right? Another "compromise". I would prefer to have a parachute better than a life-jacket in a plane perhaps comming down from the sky. You see, I have proposals for many life conditions. I am unable to think without seeing the interdependencies. Others have the disadvantage of having this blind spot through their big knowledge as experts. So, it's useless trying to show them where they could be possibly wrong. No chance! Perhaps you've made the same experience. BTW this is why interdisciplinary cooperation is always the best solution although you must work with people you would quickly call "stupid". Life isn't one of the easiest things that could happen to us... >It happens daily. It happened to them >and for completely non-sinister reasons. Yes, I forgot what the Muslims call it but the Hindu call it kismet. I was educated to believe that in science we could control the conditions of our projects and thereby have the joy to get first-class results with a good validity. I must admit that here in Europe I couldn't know that the DB2 team had so little chances to dominate the machine but that the machine dominated them. It's a terrible destiny. Kubrik's 2001 and Alien come to mind. I feel a lot of compassion for you in the States. >>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. >> > >I am neither happy with the win, nor disappointed. I wasn't involved. I was >surprised, but nothing more. There are constraints they lived with. Parallel >search is but _one_ of them. However, ask _anybody_ working on a parallel >search about "can you get rid of the non-deterministic behavior?" and see what >answer you get. Perhaps by the 10th or 15th "no" you might begin to notice >a trend and finally conclude that "this is normal"... You are right. I am slow and thoroughly. In special I have a good spine, if you know what I mean. And even if 200 programmers would get after me, I would stay to my judgement that despite all parallelism and speed problems scientists shouldn't cross that thin line to gambling and magic. >> >>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. > > >kasprov said "no computer can make this move." At the time! > >Deep Blue's log shows that Qb6 was best at first, but dropped each iteration >until axb5 was slighly better and was played. Crafty and Fritz are _both_ >showing the same thing and _neither_ has been "tweaked" to do so. Just standard >crafty and standard fritz. You do never take such famous positions and let your baby solve it and then think about certain things you could or should change? >Again, _you_ want to make the conspiracy deeper by >suggesting that we "tweaked" the programs to produce DB's move. There is no >way to "tweak" fritz that I know of. And anybody can try the test with any >version of Crafty they want to see if the two moves are really +3.0 apart... Why suddenly the displayed eval is so important for you? >> >> >>> >>>Whether deep blue had human help or not is not the issue for _this_ test. >> >>Who had said that? I didn't. > >kasparov did... > >> >>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? > > >Nothing can prove that DB _did_ find it. But _any_ program can prove that it >is _possible_ that DB found it with no help. +that+ is the point. "no computer >can ..." -> "a computer can" means the "no computer" is wrong. > >That is _all_ we are looking at. I understand what ou mean, but excuse me if I insist, you have proven nothing if some progs also think about axb5. We are talking about DB2. > > > > > >> >> >>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. > >Kasparov said "g5 is the _only_ move black can play and maintain any hope >of staying in the game". That is _clear_ as to its meaning. It does not >mean it is bad. It does not mean other moves are not better. It means that >move is _the_ move to play... He said he would play it himself. What more >can there be??? There is more exactly what you seem to overlook. That the situation is already difficult for Black. Look the 4 mistakes before. I say that "?" and "only move" in such a position is _not_ a contradiction. >> >>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. > >Sorry. _I_ behave like that. In fact, I'll bet that _nobody_ saves the logs >from every game they play. Had I done that I would now be the owner of over >1,000,000 log files. I don't even know how to manage that many, much less find >something important in one of them. I _always_ have the most recent 300 logs >from Crafty. But no more. Sometimes this is 1-2 days worth of logs, sometimes >1-2 weeks. But I keep what I can work with, what is important at the time, and >I cull the rest. > >No mystery about how or why. That is what you see. But I say that you must keep everything you could lay your hands on simply because people could ask curious questions. Like the scientists do it. Do me a favor and try to think about the possibility if my questions and ideas were good. Try to debate the best possible interpretation of my opinions and not the worst possible. Let's find answers for the best of CC and not for our individual importance! 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.