Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:23:34 07/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 2002 at 16:55:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 23, 2002 at 16:19:46, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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. > > >First, I am _not_ trying to prove that axb5 is better than Qb6. Nowhere I have said you did. On the other hand it's almost the same. I said something related to the question of depth. I am very certain that Fritz or Crafty - no matter how long they calculate - are unable to solve the position. It's interesting that you always declare that Kasparov had no knowledge of DB2's PV. This is interesting because a) Kasparov felt that from the overall chess of the machine this decision could not be expected and b) the PV as it was published showed that the machine had renounced this possibility to win 3 (!) pawns without a clear contrast in the evals. Again Kasparov didn't know this but still he felt that something was strange. Then they denied him the prints. They gave something to Thompson. Thompson later declared that he didn't se something strange. But this is a very unclear declaration and Ken knew this. Because he felt unhappy about the attitude of IBM/ DB2 team. He knew exactly that _he_ - who didn't have the strange feelings before - could never understand what Kasparov might have had in mind. He was angry and later said that he'd quit the job for good. Saying he would never ever do such a job! Hear a bell ring??! I explained the whole happening sometime ago. Later I read the same in the report of Richard Feynman about his work in the Apollo desaster clarification commission, my expression. Richard explained how it must be done if responsibles want to cheat and hide something before the eyes of the most intelligent experts, here a commission. As I've understood, this is very simply done. You give expert A something and forbid him to talk about the specific content, to expert B you give the next part of something with the same "nono". What are the consequences of that practice? The forbiding of any declaration and communication as well means that 1.) the experts can't short-cut themselves to find the _complete_ connections of the complete evidence and 2.) the even worse consequence, that the public gets the following impression: wow, Nobel Prize Winner XY (our A above) has seen _all_ the evidence, and it's very clear, that if he had found something fishy, he _would_ have said so! Which is a totally false assumption! 'A' simply is _not_ allowed to speak. Richard Feynman explained very well in what a dilemma he suddenly was. He found a very smart solution to escape the zwick! And if you read carefully what Ken has said, Ken has also betrayed at least in what a strange bound he was in. That's all. We must understand that reality is not just a one-dimensional flood of little data but it's a complex and often contradictory patchwork of interdependencies in several dimensions. Very difficult to understand. Perhaps you can understand that any kind of explanation or thesis can quickly be dragged through the mud - with apparently convincing arguments. Only deeper analysis reveils the limitations of these "apparently convincing" arguments. Ad finitum. It is the interest of the officials, at least in the USA this has a long tradition, that as soon as possible the term "conspiracy" is launched into the debate. With the consequence that a) those who like the debate are stigmatized as delusional psychos and b) the debate as such becomes a taboo for all "decent" citizans. I am sure that Bob Hyatt himself, unaware of the real truths, let himself convince by such thoughts "Ken saw the output and he saw nothing strange, Ken is a friend of mine". But what exactly he saw is of course part of the screcy of the job Ken had in the event, being paid by IBM! > >Second, I _am_ trying to prove that "some" computer will conclude that axb5 >is better than Qb6, which means _that_ computer would play the move. Give me CRAFTY 8.9 and help me with the code and I'll help you to program that CRAFTY8.9 will display axb5 in 10 seconds of time. But don't ask me if CRAFTY8.9 could become the future World Champion! :)) Honestly I never saw such a stupid experimenting. After 5 years letting a few commercial machines find the move that made Kasparov so suspicious. Kasparov verbalized the difficulties he had with this position but the whole thought process he had, was nowhere published until now. Perhaps he had even more significant positions in mind!! Perhaps he took this position for objectlively weaker reasons but in a hurry he thought that here it could have been proven without any difficulties! This is all so clear if you onc start to think this all over, that it is very odd to see you all deep in the research of "axb5". I could repeat a hundred times that K might not have meant that no PC 'ever' couldn't find the move, you will deliberately stay to your agenda and repeat that he did 100%. As Ed said, you want to blacken him wherever you can. But it all speaks against yourself. > >Third, I don't know _when_ crafty will change yet. I had searched this to >depth=25, which took well over a day, and the scores were roughly .08 >apart if memory serves. Then a power failure and a bad UPS battery caused >the cluster to go down and everything was lost. I have re-started, but it will >be at least tomorrow or the next day before I get back to where it was in its >analysis. Oh, bad luck then. Perhaps we'll have the answer in a couple of days. > > > > > > >> >>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!? > >Who said I did? That is _your_ nonsense. I am simply addressing the claim >"no computer could play axb5 instead of Qb6". Nothing more, nothing less. >I'm not trying to prove that axb5 is better, or that Qb6 is better, or that >they are equal. I am trying to disprove that statement and _nothing_ else. >Any other obfuscationary attempts are simply clouds of fog generated by >yourself, not me... The fog you're trying to evitate is called - please spell it with me - c-h-e-s-s!!! > >> >>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? > >Who cares? Does DB therefore have to find it for the _right_ reason, or did >it just have to find it for _some_ reason, right or wrong? Don't shift the >goal when a solution is "in sight". Read also above the paragraphes. I'm not shifting. But I take care of the chess here. Noway impostoring me as a GM. The argument had a different source. K knw what the chess was in the situation! And he had the impression that DB2 as any PC couldn't find axb5 against the seductive Qb6. Is this so difficult to understand? K didn't simulate Isaac Assimov! He was just talking about those days in 1997. And of course he was _not_ talking about Komputer Korner 14 days long distance analyses. He meant the tournament situation! > > > > > >> >>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. > >I didn't conclude any such thing. I concluded that Kasparov said that Qb6 >was way better than axb5. Deep Blue disagreed. Now Fritz has also disagreed >and Crafty was within a whisker of disagreeing when I had to restart. All I >conclude is that axb5 does not sac a bunch of pawns. It doesn't sac _anything_ >at all, in fact. Neither does Qb6. I have no idea where the pawn sacrifice >stuff comes from and don't care. The question is about axb5 vs Qb6, nothing >more... Please do not reveil too much about your chess allergy! People could misunderstand you as a pure engineer of computerchess. > > > >> 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. >> > > >Lose the monkeys, please... > Another insult. Disabled to walk behind a cow, lower than a bacterium, surrounded by monkeys - what's next? Go visit DrKerkovian again? > >>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 don't think Kasparov had _any_ "correct assumptions" about axb5 vs Qb6, >any more than he had about resigning in a drawn position, for example. Shows very good how deep you are into chess. Perhaps it's a general hole in your knowledge. Because although you are the best expert on earth after the Elo rankings, you could still make very odd faults. It was a consquence of the earlier confusion about axb5 and perhaps much more things! It's by far not the same if you or me had overlooked the same draw. This is all part of logic and science - very basic lessons of course. > > > >> >>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. > > >wrong again. For some reason, as a post reaches a particular length, when I >try to add text, netscape crashes, losing everything I type. I tried three >times and only _then_ did I first snip everything but your specific comments, >and then added my own. > >Again, a conspiracy in every corner. When, in reality, the truth is so much >simpler and easier to understand.. You wrote 1 billion posts, you never snipped, netscape "usually" crashes, but only here with my post you did snip, and I should have known this, because it is the truth! Continue with such nonsense. We have much more interesting aspects to talk about. > >Anybody can go back one post if they want to see what I snipped, so since I >can't edit old posts, how could I hope to hide _anything_? > > >>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. > > >I think the metaphor is quite clear. If you can't follow a cow slowly walking >down the street, then you _certainly_ are not going to follow my fast-moving >technical explanations here. And you have proven you can time and again... > > > > > >> >>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! > >And you can't... QED... > > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>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. >> > >I explained what I meant. I think it was obvious to everyone except >for you, wanting to make more noise... > >> >> >>>> >>>>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. > > >Got any pictures of an atom coming apart in a fission reaction? I've never >seen one. Because no one has spent the time or money trying to get such an >image. Knowing that it happens is _more_ than enough for the nuclear physics >guys... This is not what methodology is about. > >Got any pictures of a complex hydrocarbon combining with oxygen and releasing >heat? Do you still drive your car not understanding that basic chemical >reaction? I do... > >Science is surrounded by things that we know work, without having detailed >documentation to _prove_ how they work. Sometimes the proof is so difficult to >obtain, and so expensive to obtain, that we just accept the result and move >along... But we know that we can't violate the iron rules of methodology or we must create special conditions and new rules. > >> >>> 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. >> > >In Hsu's words, "fast == good"... Not the whole truth because why then the importance of Benjamin? > > >> >>>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. > > >All nonsensical of course. How to _exit_ the aircraft. At 40,000 feet? at >600 knots? Only people that _know_ what is going on should make suggestions. >The rest just generate reams and reams of worthless noise that can't be >accomplished. You are a bad teacher. Try to understand the good in my idea! Think positive! > > > > 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... > >That is pretty funny. Speaking of "blind spots". For most of us they are >very rare. In your case, maybe you should be talking about the tiny spots >here and there you _can_ see, not the ones where you can't??? Besides the bashing of foreigners for their language probs, now, the extinction tool is put into position. Monkeys all around him. We are shortly before people will post psychiatric diagnoses! You are very wrong. Blind spots might be small, but for most experts they have a long duration and this is the problem. What do you think are the reasons for the conservative mechanisms of the resistance against any changes in a department in universities etc.? In such cases there is no chance to make reforms. New personal alone could change that. > >> >> >> >>>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. > >Again, see the above. Show me that picture of an atom coming apart. Or do >you refuse power from a reactor? Ditto for fuel for your car. Or oil to >heat your house... Of course you made a point also important.But your belief in simple practicism is gone after the details of Sept 11. Look for the sloppyness in the airports etc. I think I gave you the more important danger! Also the CIA with all the computer power couldn't frame the terrorists personality. That is what I meant. But you are also right that we need a minimum of routine to be able to live a normal life. > > > >> >> >> >>>>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! > >OK... and if you go back to 1997 and give fritz enough time, it _could_. >As has been proven. But it wasn't what K meant. Tournament 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? > >No I don't... What a pity. But is it true? How about your constant talking with GM Roman about dangerous positions for Crafty? Remember? > > >> >> >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? >> > > >To show that the two moves are equivalent from the computer's perspective? >Are you still there? Or has your attention drifted in the middle of all >this precise stuff? Excuse me, adrenalin is overflooding you, I was simply mentioning the importance of the difference of the displayed eval and the real thought process. > > > > > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>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. > > >No, we are talking about the statement "no computer can ..." > >_not_ deep blue. Is it satisfying you to believe in such myst? I explained how we should read this. > > > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>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. > >Where/how do I store > 1,000,000 files, many of which are over 1 megabyte in >size? Stop the nonsense and think _realistically_ for a while. Then you will >quit making such stupid suggestions. I don't have a way to store 1,000 >terrabytes of data. Nor do I have any way of searching it if I could store it. As I said. Gamescores with the _moves_. Not logs. > > > > >> >>Do me a favor and try to think about the possibility if my questions and ideas >>were good. > > > > > > >That only takes about 30 milliseconds. Answer is "no"... This is a pity (for you). It's the same when often people here write "I cannot understand you" and begin to insult the author. Yes, this happens here in CCC. But think for a minute. If someone cannot understand what someone said. Would you expect that the reader should be qualified to be in the position to judge about the sanity of the author? But this is what happens here in CCC. Even moderators misbehave like that. Could you give me a few explanations? Rolf Tueschen > > 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.