Author: chandler yergin
Date: 14:09:06 04/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2005 at 13:05:09, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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...! Thanks Rolf! I too am astonished.. > >> >> 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.