Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:54:58 09/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2002 at 02:12:04, Ingo Althofer wrote:
>Helloa Martin,
>
>thanks for your open reply, and sorry when you now feel like in a bashing sack.
>That was not my intention.
>
>
>On September 09, 2002 at 18:31:32, martin fierz wrote:
>>you have to take the report as what it is: a very personal account of my
>>experience in las vegas. it is not a scientific paper, more a casual write-down
>>of my impressions during and right after the tournament. personally, i rather
>>read honest accounts of what's going on in people's brains than reading some
>>kind of censored version after the fact, and that's why i wrote it this way.
>
>No problem with this - I like to do it just the same way (and from Jonathan
>Schaeffer's book you know that he, too). Your report is really nice, and I
>enjoyed it a lot.
>
>
>I don't want to react on all the thoughtful follow-ups, but let me repeat my
>main philosophy: To have done a thing first is worth more than to repeat it in
>improved or refined ways.
>
>Some examples from other games besides Checkers:
>
>CHESS
>The Deep Blue team was the first to beat the strongest human player.
>Here some people would like to distinguish between Feng-Hsiung Hsu and his
>colleagues on the one side and the ("bad blue") IBM company on the other. But
>also IBM deserves honors. In 1989 they made a 3-years contract with Hsu,
>Campbell, and Hoane with the understanding that within these three years
>Kasparov would be beaten. This view turned out to be too optimistic - but IBM
>payed the DB-group for another five years (and even longer).
The defense of IBM fails to succeed for two reasons. Please don't feel as if in
a bashsack because we're only exchanging arguments. And I'm sure that you don't
want to claim that you have hired the truth. This is not about mathematical
proofs here.
1. IBM made the wrong choice in believing that the original question had been
answered. Because the DB2 team with Hsu was forced (?) to react impolitely to
Kasparov they could no longer prove that DB2 was the only factor that lead to
the final result. However we know for sure that Kasparov was so deeply hurt so
that he was no longer in the match after game two.
2. No matter what the contract said between IBM and the team with Hsu, the team
of scientists had had the duty to oppose any such influence that might have
forced them to act impolitely against Kasparov. Not for some religious motifs.
No, but because the whole event, organised to see who were stronger, the machine
or Kasparov, would have been destroyed no matter of the final result. Because
it's simply trivial, that if you psych out a chessplayer then the resultof a
game is not only given by the chess you played but the mean psychology you
exerted. Therefore in experimental social sciences it's the worst thing you
could do, if you acted impolitely to make upset your clients
This is so basic!
Rolf Tueschen
>
>CONNECT 4
>The game was solved in 1988, independently by Allen and Allis.
>Their programs had not been able to play the game perfectly in realtime, but
>they were the first to compute its game-theoretic value.
>
>MUEHLE (translated to "Mill" or "9 men's morris")
>Ralph Gasser from ETH Zuerich solved the game in 1994.
>Today the only available database for perfect play in Muehle is the one by Peter
>Stahlhacke (with a nice user interface). But Ralph Gasser was the person who
>solved Muehle.
>
>
>By the way, Peter Stahlhacke is my student. The Muehle database was only a
>starting point for his Ph.D. project. Traditional Muehle is a game with a very
>broad drawing path, even broader than in Checkers. Peter's scientific task
>(besides some others) is to invent and/or completely analyse variants of Muehle
>which are more interesting than the original game, especially with respect to
>the drawing crisis.
>
>Alloahe,
>Ingo.
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.