Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: A Blast from the past - Some perspective..

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.