Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: A Blast from the present.

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 11:31:29 04/25/05

Go up one level in this thread


On April 25, 2005 at 13:29:53, Matthew Hull wrote:

>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.
>

And of course some do no mental computations of any kind.

:)




>
>>
>>    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.