Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:48:54 02/16/03
On February 16, 2003 at 03:27:07, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: >Will, > >Good article. If we were as talented as Mr. Kasparov we too would take monetary >gain for our talent. The only thing wrong with Garry is his enormous ego. Maybe >he will mellow with age. How can you say such a nonsense. There is no sane human being without a strong Ego. The problem with Kasparov is not his Ego but his habit to spread lies. The problem is neither his money greed, how could it be if it's the base of the American Way of Life? The real problem of Kasparov is his lying about "Science". The development of the Ego is never the character deficiency itself. Strong Ego does not mean big Liar. Perhaps we can better understand what 'Lying' means if we introduce the basic stupidity in general. Our human stupidity is infinite in its dimensions so to speak. So most lies are in truth ignorance. Stupidity marks the exact boundaries of our individual ignorance. Or the other way round. 'Lies' is always a term of higher levels of _less_ ignorance. NB also highly intelligent humans are infinitely ignorant, still less stupid than lazy pupils but perhaps bigger liars. Remember: 'lies' is only detectable with 'less' ignorance in respect to a specific realm. [To be able to understand why differently big ignorances still are all infinite in their dimensions, please consult the theories of Prof. Aleph in Higher Mathematics.] 'nough said to explain why yours truly as a normal mortal is able to prove why the chess genius Kasparov is spreading lies about Science. Only on this microscopically small field I can take Kasparov to task. Kasparov wrote that IBM 1997 was no science because he had no records of the event. Here is the first stupidity. As I could prove the event wasn't scientific because the IBM team of Deep Blue 2 spoiled their own research because instead of measuring their machine they suddenly measured the human player's psyche after confusional attacks. But that was never intended to do and visible the team had a big hole at the place of the necessary psychologists. If disruptive factors dominate the event the intended research is garbage. But Kasparov is not correct if he says that there was no record. I agreed and wrote that the record was not authentic, at least technically not assured in real time [what Ken Thompson supervised was already a print], but the then authorized output was published even on the Internet. So it is a big lie if Kasparov still claims that there are no outputs only because he had not been personally addressed. It's the other way round. Because the scientists did not care about the question of documentation of the machine's processes [perhaps impossible through the parallelism of the hardware design itself!], therefore there was no Science in the event. Now after the actual show event Kasparov simply denied the advantages of Deep Blue 2 and thought that he could "handwave away" the 100x factor advantage by the argument that chess were an infinite process. Here I am also a bit less stupid than Kasparov thanks to my education in logic. Kasparov claim is futile because also a chess genius does NOT touch the sphere of the infinite when he makes his concrete calculations or decisions based on his experience. Experts here have shown that factor 100x is a real knockout, sure perhaps not decisive against the best humans, because still below the human stupidiness, but Kasparov claimed that DJ was stronger than DB2 and this is nonsense. "The main difference, however, was that thanks to the sponsors, organizers, and participants, we brought computer chess back to its scientific origins." [Kasparov in the mentioned article.] So what is Kasparov's biggest 'lie' in the actual article? From a perspective of real Science it's very simple. He himself took part in the actual show event. So _he_, with his almost 1 million US $$ could not support science. What he could do was helping the program's side to perform as good as possible. There is no proof for such inflence but human experience tells us that a human being after such a high recompensation is usually no longer independant in a chess event. Why should the killer mode afterburner should be initialized? Ad what we see in Amir's reports here in CCC, there is the contrary of science! Where is the exact data for Bxh2? Was the output of the machine documented at all? Now it's already too late. Science is NOT when weeks later a tued machine could reproduce the Bxh2 sac with exactly 0.00 eval. It is beyond my science education why exactly Amir, who was in case of Kasparov's questioning DB2 output of great help, could dare to appear here with so little data and no answers on simple questions. Little data is better than zilch, that is correct, but i the memory of 1997 the actual secretiveness is bad and telling. Kasparov seems to be on the science train because this time he got DJ versions in advance and he saw no genial moves whatsoever. That is ok, but we, the spectators, saw real blunders from himself and outrageous nonsense moves from the machine, that remained unpunished by Kasparov. Questions must be allowed why Kasparoov played such a weak chess. We have two theories. a) fatigue and b) money greed. Both are human failures. But as we know Kasparov is still very sportive. So money greed for future events is the best solution. The same Kramnik, the same Huebner. Rolf Tueschen > >TJF > > > >On February 16, 2003 at 02:35:03, Will Singleton wrote: > >>Leave to the russkies... >> >>http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003081 [Kasparov - Not the Ego but plain Lies about "Science", 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.