Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:10:34 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 06:48:54, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. How do you know that this is nonsense? It is an opinion. You can have a different opinion but you have no proof. You cannot prove based on deep blue's speed that it was better because hardware is not everthing. The gap between the best programs and part of the free programs programs is more than 500 elo on equal hardware. Hardware that is 100 times faster will not be enough to compensate for that difference. We do not know what was the level of the software of deeper blue because it never played games on equal hardware. I also doubt the claim that the hardware was 100 times faster and we have no proof for the number of nodes that it searched(200M nodes could be a psychological war against kasparov when the real number was only 20M). Uri
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.