Author: David Dory
Date: 05:08:55 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. I believe his point was that Kasparov's ego is too self-centered and self aggrandizing. Generally lacking in humility. >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? Greed is NOT the American Way of Life, Comrade Rolf. Opportunity, including for yourself, naturally, is. I can't tell you how tiresome it is having Germans, etc., tell us about the American Way of Life. :( > The real problem of Kasparov is his lying about "Science". Garry doesn't talk about "science", he talks about chess, which is more properly classed as a "sport", "game", or even "art". You will not find a college science course in chess, in any reputable school. >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' Just because you don't have anything smart to say, you don't have to introduce the "psycho-babble", here, please! >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. Showing a microscopically small level of common sense. DB is dead and buried, years ago. GK is NOW promoting, or commenting about his latest match with DJ. Even if the computers were an equal match, the current situation is always our vantage point to perception, ie., the rock that comes crashing through your bedroom window TODAY will be perceived as more threatening than a similar rock that came crashing through your bedroom window 10 years ago. Because your POP, or Point Of View is the present time-frame, not 10 years ago. > >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. And since GK can NOT touch the sphere of the infinite when he makes his calculations, he sees the possible combinatorial possibilities as infinite. It does make sense. You see an ocean, rolling on over the horizon. You know the ocean is not infinite, but it's a hell of a long swim to the mailbox on Galapagos Island! > 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 > Another reason may be just that Kasparov doesn't play his best tournament chess against computers. Yes, he plays OK, but certainly not nearly his best against silicon opponents. Not against DB, and not now against DJ. I would like to thank Amir and all the programmers offering insights into their games or matches with talented human or computer opponents. Unless you're going to include Amir on your payroll, Rolf, I don't think you have any right to complain. None. They have answered many questions, and I'm sure will answer more questions in the future, all for free. No, they may not answer when and what you want answered. Generally, looking a gift horse in the mouth is not a great idea. :) Dave >>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 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.