Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 10:29:53 04/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2005 at 11:00:28, chandler yergin wrote: >On April 24, 2005 at 23:36:41, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On April 24, 2005 at 19:52:16, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On April 24, 2005 at 19:43:45, Matthew Hull wrote: >>> >>>>On April 24, 2005 at 11:42:17, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 11:26:32, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 10:13:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 05:14:48, Peter Berger wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On April 23, 2005 at 23:52:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>This is a red herring and crap. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>When was the first time someone independent had a look at these logfiles? Have >>>>>>>>you and the several others had a chance to look at the logfiles right after the >>>>>>>>games took place, say May 1997? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The logfiles IBM published eventually mean nothing at all. This was more than a >>>>>>>>year after the games, wasn't it? Even I could produce most impressive logfiles >>>>>>>>given that much time .. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes. Several looked at the log right after the event. I believe that Ken sent >>>>>>>me the section from the game although I don't remember whether it was the Qxb6 >>>>>>>(not played) or the Be4 position. I believe that Amir posted something about >>>>>>>the position early, but his comments were based on either not understanding what >>>>>>>DB's log output meant, or something else. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This was about the "fail low (panic time)" that caused DB to search much longer >>>>>>>than normal and may have been on the Be4 move although I simply don't remember >>>>>>>much about it since it was not a particularly significant event in my mind >>>>>>>because at the time I posted an excerpt from a Crafty log that looked >>>>>>>_identical_ in concept. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Nothing ever looked strange about the log stuff to me... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Kasparov never saw them did he? >>>>>> >>>>>> He was the one that requested them. >>>>>> >>>>>>He was the one under pressure. >>>>>> >>>>>>Review by third parties 'after the fact', >>>>>> >>>>>>way after the fact, do not excuse what happened. >>>>>> >>>>>>I doubt if any Grandmaster, then or now, would go into a Match >>>>>> >>>>>>against 'any' Opponent blind, or accept the Match conditions Kasparov did. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Kasparov was seriously believing that this was a science clarification but when >>>>>the scientists behaved like known crooks in sports he was completely losing his >>>>>motivation to play decent chess. That is the crucial point. The position of Bob >>>>>Hyatt is absolutely ok if you forget about the usually good relationship the >>>>>team around Hsu had towards Kasparov. But if you dont forget that then you begin >>>>>to realise what a fishy job they had played vs Kasparov who formerly was their >>>>>buddy. Psychologically that is trivial. At first you woo somebody and when you >>>>>won him, then you can play dirty and the guy is completely lost, most of all >>>>>because of his perception that he could be so blind and to be so naive. >>>> >>>> >>>>GK was beaten in a match by DeepBlue II. It was a portent. Now, on ICC, you >>>>can watch GMs getting smashed, thrashed, pumelled, flogged and slaughtered, all >>>>day and night long. They win a few games here and there and get evicerated the >>>>rest of the time. >>>> >>>>All whining defenders of human chess superiority need to grow up. Humans aren't >>>>as consistently good as computers anymore. Humans are toast in chess, now. >>> >>> >>>In Blitz and Rapid, yes. >> >> >> >>Post where a GM prevails in a match of any length at long time controls. If you >>can't, then your position is unscientific. >> >>You blather all day about DB logs and "cheating science", yet you can't produce >>the score or log of any match showing GM domination of current chess software. >>You would "cheat science" with your unfounded assertions. >> >>In reality, we see GMs taking their beatings on chess servers, tournaments games >>with long time controls, and in matches as old as two years ago. Your position >>has no data points. My position has many. > > >That just shows you don't understand how a Computer works. > >It also shows your bias against humans... how sad. > >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.'" Idiots also do mysterious mental computations that no one can figure out. > > Keep trying Matt. > >> >>Now we see that yours is a position of no scientist but of a religionist >>instead. >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Grandmasters prepare a dossier against their opponents and study them for >>>>>> >>>>>>months before a match. The Deep Blue team would not let Garry have access to >>>>>> >>>>>>even a glimpse of the Prematch training games of Deep Blue. >>>>>> >>>>>>With good reason of course; they knew that the Computer could not beat him fair >>>>>> >>>>>> and square.
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.