Author: chandler yergin
Date: 14:12:46 04/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2005 at 17:09:06, chandler yergin wrote: >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.. Sorry Rolf.. I didn't read the Header Post clearly.. You & Thorsten both however, have clear views about Ethics, Morality, & Fair Play. I welcome your thoughts and inputs... Thank you both! Chan > > >> >>> >>> 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 0.01 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.