Author: Sally Weltrop
Date: 10:22:01 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. > > >"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 well put Rolf
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.