Author: Amir Ban
Date: 17:15:19 11/27/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 1998 at 18:04:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 27, 1998 at 16:38:23, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On November 26, 1998 at 21:51:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 26, 1998 at 18:47:38, Amir Ban wrote: >>> >>>>On November 26, 1998 at 18:21:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>what did you see that I'm overlooking?? >>>> >>>>The order of the events is reversed. >>>> >>>>Amir >>> >>> >>>I don't understand... we are on the position where it liked Qb6 until >>>it changed at the last minute to axb5? or are we on the position with >>>Qb6 vs Be4? If the former, then what is reversed, since Crafty liked one >>>move for the entire (albiet only 16 second) search but it changed its mind >>>and produced a new best move when the search terminated. So I don't follow >>>"the order of events is reversed..." >> >>Then go up the thread and read how I described it. > >I did. It isn't the "reverse" of what I said. That's why I am confused. > > >> >>I'm not buying your "I don't follow". This must be the third or fourth time we >>have debated this in just over a year. You understand my point perfectly. I've >>been through several times where you obfuscate with some crafty irrelevency, > >Yes, it is irrelevant when I give you some output from Crafty that shows that >the output from deep blue is not unusual at all. Every time you want to make >that kind of statement, you can look in your rear-view mirror because I'm going >to challenge you on it. > > > >>and >>claim that I'm talking about that, and I explain that no, etc., which is >useless >>because next time you will again pretend not to have heard it before and to >>understand what I say. > >Or perhaps, in contrast, it is you that keeps dodging the real issue here, >that your statements about deep blue are simply *wrong*. The output doesn't >suggest cheating. Doesn't suggest anything other than a normal chess program >running along and changing its mind at the last second. Just like mine. >Just like *yours* if you are honest about it. > > > >> >>Rather than continuing to play this futile game, why don't you do to DejaNews >>and read ? I've nothing new to say here, and neither do you. > > > >How about this from Deja: > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >There are intermediate PV reports in what I see, with a >timestamp attached, and there is no "end-of-iteration" PV. The form and >timing of PV reports looks like any other program's (except for that >axb5, which comes out of nowhere, after the search stopped). I do wish >you would refrain from making value judgements or speculating on my >motives before getting the facts straight. If you then decide not to >believe me, that's a different matter. >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > This comes from me. Why you think this strengthens your point I've no idea. It just says what I've said here. Something else: this short passage also reminds me that mud throwing has always been one of your favorite tactics in this debate. >Now correct me if I am wrong, but you saw Qb6 several times, then, the >search stopped and it announced it was playing axb6. That is what you >said above. And that is *exactly* what I gave you as output from Crafty. >So again, I say baloney. You want to twist and squirm and say you didn't >say this you didn't say that, that I have it reversed, and so forth. Your >turn again to show where my output was "reversed". I liked one move for >the entire search, went way over the normal target time, and popped out a >brand new move and instantly made it... Looks *exactly* like what I saw >in the DB output except for the moves... > >of course, I'm sure you'll show me how I am still "reversed"?? (BTW the >stuff in the ------ lines came from a dejanews search on author=Amir Ban, >Subject = Deep Blue, and was the third hit. > Good lord, it does seem that you really don't understand the difference between BEFORE and AFTER, so I will try to explain the difference slowly, but you'll have to really concentrate now. Bob gives an example: >I don't understand the "unexplained circumstances". Here's some output from >a game crafty played today: > > 9 1.34 -1.32 28. ... a6 29. h4 Be6 30. h5 Kd6 31. > h6 gxh6 32. f5 Ne5+ 33. Kg3 Bxa2 34. > Bxh6 > 9 16.30 -1.28 28. ... Bc8 29. b4 Ba6 30. a4 Bc4 31. > b5 <HT> > time=16.30 cpu=394% mat=-3 n=5055833 fh=88% nps=310173 > Now here we have a simple example of BEFORE, yes ? The line starting Bc8 comes BEFORE the line announcing the end of the search. Actually the search end right after it. We can easily explain what happened: A line for Bc8 was found sometimes DURING the search (that's what the search is for, children). The search stopped AFTER the line was found, and in this case, probably BECAUSE the line was found. Now in this nice printout from this nice big company, we see an example of AFTER. The order of the events is REVERSED, and in fact we see three messages in this order: First there is a message saying it's now time to stop the search. Second there's a message saying we are now going to "reconstruct the main line". Third, we have a message showing a line with axb5 (which was never seen before this). Now, assuming we understood the distinction between BEFORE and AFTER, we do not really know to explain what happened, because the cause-and-effect element is gone. First, we don't know why the search stopped. No event preceded it, and it was not time to stop it according to the timer. Second, and more important, we don't know where the line axb5 came from. It was not found during the search (we know that, children, because Deep Blue like Crafty neatly announces every new line when it is found), but it was found AFTER the search, when the machine had stopped searching. >> >>I just want to tell this newsgroup about one interesting item from past debates >>about this: We have Bob Hyatt's opinion that the printouts PROVE cheating. How >>so ? >> > >that's baloney. And you know it's baloney... *you* have been the one saying >"this looks funny and needs an explanation" or "this doesn't discount the >possibility of cheating" or whater... I assume you "typo'd" and meant "don't >prove cheating." That I agree with because their output seems no different >from mine in that regard. > > >>Bob made it known on r.g.c.c. that if in fact cheating took place, it would be >>evident from the printout, and there would be "zero doubt about that" (his >>word). I asked, what he would expect to find if foul play indeed happened, and >>he went on to describe EXACTLY what the printout indeed shows for move 36 (move >>changed after search stopped). > > >I don't believe I said any such thing. because I am too smart to trust a simple >printed log that could easily have been "doctored" before it was released. IE >when we were accused of cheating in 1986, Harry was asked at the ACM event that >followed the WCCC to re-run the "critical position" to see if it would actually >play that move again with output that matched the log. Cray Research verified >that they restored a full backup of the Cray Blitz directory from the dump >made later that night... So I don't know where you get such >an idea unless this is another of your "misunderstandings" and an attempt to >paraphrase what I said. I've never said "printouts would prove there was or >was not any cheating. and after saying that, if you look carefully, you find >a couple of examples from Cray Blitz... I'll refresh your memory to game 4 of >the 1984 ACM event in Los Angeles, vs Nuchess, move=Nb8, if you remember that >discussion. > >It would be nearly impossible to prove they didn't cheat. It would be just as >difficult to prove they did. > Rationalizations, rationalizations. What I told happened exactly as I told it. Go and find it. Amir
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.