Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:45:29 04/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
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. THere ARE no long-term matches between machine and humans on ICC, my friend. >If you >can't, then your position is unscientific. Funny if simply there are no such "long" game matches. > >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. You shouldn't misuse your native language against a foreigner. Period. > >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. > >Now we see that yours is a position of no scientist but of a religionist >instead. The question is what you have to say in the debate here. Please go into your religious debates in CTF. Thank you. > > > >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>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.