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.