Author: chandler yergin
Date: 09:13:37 04/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2005 at 12:00:23, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>On April 24, 2005 at 11:40:50, chandler yergin wrote:
>
>>On April 24, 2005 at 10:19:26, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On April 24, 2005 at 04:29:52, chandler yergin wrote:
>>>
>>>>On April 23, 2005 at 23:52:36, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On April 23, 2005 at 20:41:53, chandler yergin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On April 23, 2005 at 12:07:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On April 22, 2005 at 19:18:55, chandler yergin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rule Number 13 is quite revealing..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I never heard about the rule 13 - indeed it's an incredible thing to digest. The
>>>>>>>team of IBM could interfere, when it was their move, to the hardware, i.e. the
>>>>>>>hash-relevant parts of the machine IF they saw - with the help of friendly GM
>>>>>>>contact, that DBII was trying to play a nonsense move where Kasparov could have
>>>>>>>had certain advantages! My interpretation of that rule is that IBM was allowed
>>>>>>>to break DBII's thoughtprocess and then continue with a fresh attempt and
>>>>>>>because of time management reasons they could have forced the machine to play
>>>>>>>something, the machine normally would never have played. To me now the positions
>>>>>>>Kasparov had in mind are completely explanable. If there was a human influence
>>>>>>>on the machine, it was even allowed by the rules, here rule 13! Unbelievable.
>>>>>>>Now I don't understand why Kasparov complained at all! Because what he suspected
>>>>>>>was absolutely within the rules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes.. the 'time management' software divides up the thinking time for the
>>>>>>Computer. If the Time control is 40 moves in 2 hours 120 minutes divided
>>>>>>by 40 averages 3 minutes a move.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In Game 2 Deep Blue used 6.5 minutes for it's critical move; which is why
>>>>>>Kasparov suspected possible human intervention, and wanted a copy of the
>>>>>>Log. Logical and justifiable in my opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Would you agree?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, because no computer uses 3 minutes per move.
>>>>
>>>>I said 'average'. You weren't playing the game, Kasparov was.
>>>>He thought it pondered too long, and rightfully needed an explanation.
>>>>
>>>
>>>There is no "rightfully needed an explanation" in chess. Last time I looked at
>>>the official rules of chess, there was no limit on the time for a single move,
>>>nor was there any requirement to explain myself should I take longer on one move
>>>than on another. Human players do this _all_ the time.
>>
>>When playing against humans yes.
>>
>>When a Computer deviates from the norm by a significant amount, it's reasonable
>>and logical to ask "why".
>
>
>You made the possible point against the fishy behavior of the IBM team against
>Kasparov. Bob is the most famous defender of tha IBM team and he's wrong. There
>is no question of RULES because this wasn't a match for any kind of
>championship. This was more a challenge between machine and human side. But all
>part of a long experiment in AI. Suddenly the IBM team around Hsu went into ugly
>mode and destroyed their friendship with the human player. And Kasparov simply
>cracked. Because he simply couldn't foresee such a violence of all known decency
>in chess. That was an assault similar as if the team suddenly had started to set
>in gear a troup of 100 whistling juveniles in the tournament hall and then
>claiming that this wasn't specifically forbidden by the "rules"... I mean the
>dirty aspect of the affair is crystal clear.
In Perspective..
http://www.southerncrossreview.org/2/chess.htm
Quoting:
"In Scientific American, May 1996, there is an interview with the designers of
DB, a parallel system with 16 nodes. "In three minutes, the time allocated for
each move in a formal match, the machine can evaluate a total of about 20
billion moves; that is enough to consider every single possible move and
countermove 12 sequences ahead and select lines of attack as much as 30 moves
beyond that. 'The fact that this ability is still not enough to beat a mere
human is amazing', Campbell [one of the six IBM prophets behind DB] says. The
lesson, Hoane [another one] adds, is that masters such as Kasparov 'are doing
some mysterious computation that we can't figure out.'"
This fantastic learning and wonderful show of humility notwithstanding, they
said that Kasparov was doing some "mysterious calculation." To me it is obvious
that Kasparov won precisely because he had an extremely limited capacity for
calculating. (How many combinations of moves was he able to think of in advance,
maybe a couple of dozens?) What he had was intuition, that anti-scientific
ability to "figure out from nothing." As happens with other grandmaster chess
players, he is not able to describe this intuition process, which suggests a
correct move without him having to stupidly test billions of combinations,
simply because intuition is not logical, and - my fundamental hypothesis on
thinking - it is not physical. So I will conjecture that it will never be
introduced into a machine.
In 1997 there was another tournament between Kasparov and Deep Blue, now
incremented to 128 parallel nodes, if I recall correctly, which tests 200
million moves a second, that is, 36 billion movements in the allotted time of 3
minutes for each move. Kasparov lost 2 to 3. Many materialists were
enthusiastic: a machine had overcome the imperfect human machine. But they did
not reflect on the fact that he won one game and had two ties in a handicapped
setting, because DB had many games played by him in its memory, as well as
strategies based upon his games, and he had no prior knowledge of the machine's
strategies. How is it possible for a human being to beat a mathematical machine
in a handicapped mathematical game, in which the machine can test an
astronomical number of moves ahead? The logical conclusion is that the human
being is not a machine, and has capacities that the latter will never posses and
which cannot be mathematically described.
I agree Thorsten.. the machine did not beat Kasparov.
He lost to a machine.. big difference.
Humans get tired and can err; a Computer can't.
I don't think Garry even got a day off.
>
>
>>>
>>>It was crap.
>>
>>Your obvious Bias is showing again.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>you do
>>>> They vary significantly
>>>>>because of pondering, failing low as happened in that game, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you make poor assumptions, you reach poor conclusions...
>>>>
>>>>You do that a lot.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually I was referring to you. You are going on about something you don't
>>>have a clue about.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Several of us have looked at the logs for the games, and game 2 looked perfectly
>>>>>normal and the program even reported a fail low and "panic time" where it
>>>>>searched longer than normal because of the fail low.
>>>>
>>>>Yes.. way after the fact you looked at the Logs; why were they not given to
>>>>Garry when he requested them?
>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry but several of us looked at the logs within a week of the question being
>>>raised. You can find a post by Amir Ban with his interpretation... You can
>>>find my response which even included a near-identical entry from a Crafty log
>>>from ICC play.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>You understand the 'panic' time, he didn't.
>>>
>>>So? Where in the rules does it say that one player must explain his "thinking"
>>>to another player, including why he took more time, etc. If you can show me
>>>that in any rule used for the match, or in any rule in "The official FIDE rules
>>>of chess" then you have a point. Otherwise, no. BTW he had advisors that
>>>understood this. He had played Fritz many practice games. Fritz certainly does
>>it.
>
>
>That argument is none because Friedel is a journaliste but a poor chessplayer.
>He doesn't know by far all the computerchess details. He's one of the best
>journalistes to propagate something he DOES understand. The point with Kasparov
>is that he believed in knowing all, but that was wrong and Friedel didn't
>realise in time what Kasparov didn't understand. - But anyway. All that shows
>that the result after the unfriendly behavior of the IBM team meant nothing in
>chess. In the chess of the machine neither. And THIS is why i speak of a fatal
>violation of the team's own science. They were NOT alowed to do that. But Bob
>should continue to dream of his rules... which didn't forbid that mistreatment
>of the client. Scientists know that this is false.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>He was under a Hell of a lot of pressure, you were not.
>>>
>>>And that has what to do with anything?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>This is a red herring and crap.
>>>>
>>>>No, you have to understand the time, place & circumstance; but your
>>>>overwhelming dislike and bias against Kasparov blinds you to the truth.
>>>
>>>Sorry but I was a Kasparov fan for _years_. And am still a fan of his chess,
>>>but after 1997 "Kasparov the man" is a pretty poor example of humanity.
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.