Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 10:05:09 04/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2005 at 12:13:37, chandler yergin wrote: >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. I agree with most what you say but I must correct you on Thorsten specification. I'm Rolf and have little in common with Thorsten. Thorsten is the intuitive tester and I am a psychologist and have studied at universities to get that degree and hence do know what you can do with tests and intuition. I'm not a chess tester but a chessplayer myself. I played in tournaments and played thousands of games against chessprograms too. Thorsten is famous for his political views and his more or less private, ideosyncratic & ingenious theories on all kind of subjects in history, religion and science. On the opposite I know exactly what we can't know in science which makes us look poor in the light of amateurs like Thorsten. Hope this helps you to differentiate between me and him. I oppose Bob Hyatt because I am astonished what Bob blessed on the IBM side as he's a scientist...! > > 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.