Author: chandler yergin
Date: 09:01:26 04/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2005 at 11:36:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 26, 2005 at 11:01:11, chandler yergin wrote: > >>On April 25, 2005 at 20:46:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 25, 2005 at 19:05:57, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On April 25, 2005 at 15:31:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 25, 2005 at 14:39:40, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 22:56:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 18:59:35, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 15:42:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 13:13:22, Rolf Tueschen 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... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>The point is that you explained at the time that it would cost almost no energy >>>>>>>>>>to fake the output so that it looked koscher. So - what do you want to say with >>>>>>>>>>the above. In truth the later outputs mean nothing in a judicially relevant >>>>>>>>>>sense. The question is why they didn't discuss the thing with Kasparov in time >>>>>>>>>>before the following game so that the event could have been continued as >>>>>>>>>>planned. If they didn't have to hide something. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>OK, we go full circle. I could certainly produce a fake log to support any move >>>>>>>>>that anybody would want to see Crafty play. As I said back in 1997, it is >>>>>>>>>_impossible_ to prove they didn't cheat. But, the other side of the coin is >>>>>>>>>that it would be possible to prove that they did, all one needs is to know the >>>>>>>>>methodology or catch them in the act, or whatever. But this was never proven. >>>>>>>>>In fact, no methodology for cheating was ever mentioned. Normally when you >>>>>>>>>accuse someone of cheating, you state the violation clearly. "He spit on the >>>>>>>>>ball". "His raquette head is too big". "His golf club face is improperly sized >>>>>>>>>or weighted" and so forth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Exactly, and that does prove at least to me that Kasparov didn't exactly accuse >>>>>>>>them of chesting. How could or should he? All he did was making public his >>>>>>>>astonishment, his disbelief. Wouldn't it have been ok if they had cared for him? >>>>>>>>In what style or with what material they should have done this, that is a >>>>>>>>different question. But why a player like Kasparov shouldn't have been allowed >>>>>>>>to express his confusion? Exactly with your explanation from that time Kasparov >>>>>>>>could have been given back his peace and new motivation to continue the fight. >>>>>>>>Without any humiliations. And with the hope to get a valid result of the match. >>>>>>>>(Perhaps I'm missing a specific lingual undertone in your messages to me, so >>>>>>>>that I'm still missing your exact position in the debate, but I can't figure out >>>>>>>>why it should be so difficult to get the sense of what I'm saying. Couldn't you >>>>>>>>explain, why in your eyes my science argument isn't good in respect to the >>>>>>>>original question of the research, namely could a machine play better than the >>>>>>>>best human? Why do you throw it into the bin? Are you really believing that a >>>>>>>>win, also a win with certain unfair methods, could prove anything at all?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>As I have said before, it proved just one thing. That the human world champion >>>>>>>could be beaten by a computer in a standard time-control match on that >>>>>>>particular day. There are plenty of other questions that could be asked now. >>>>>>>But the question back then was asked, and answered... >>>>>> >>>>>>I disagree. That wasn't proven at all. If you psyche out a human chessplayer >>>>>>with denying talks then you can't claim that your chess was better and therefore >>>>>>you've beaten him. This is impossible to conclude at least in my books. Remember >>>>>>that we are talking about machine vs human chessplayer chess, we are NOT talking >>>>>>about normal chess. Of course there the psychology is part of the game. But NOT >>>>>>between machines and humans. Why? Because machines have no psychology and a team >>>>>>of human operators is making the psycho job. Which is fair enough in >>>>>>championships but NOT in science events... Simple, no?! >>>>> >>>>>Nope. When you play chess, you have to play no matter how you feel on the day >>>>>of the match. Personal problems? Deal with them. Illness? play or forfeit. >>>>>You simply have to play, period. And that is a part of chess. I've played >>>>>tired, because I had to drive a long distance prior to the start of round 1. >>>>>I've played tired because of staying up too late the night before the round. >>>>>I've played with a fever. That's just a part of chess. Not a part that the >>>>>computer has to deal with of course, but then computers lose due to remote power >>>>>failures, or communication failures, or outright program bugs, etc... >>>> >>>>Of course - I agree with you. This is chess and also computerchess of machines >>>>against human chessplayers if it's for a form of championship. Of course then a >>>>human player would never accept 6 games in 8 days. - >>>> >>>>But NY 1997 between IBM/Hsu and DBII and Kasparov, that was NOT about a >>>>championship. Therefore Kasparov didn't take it too seriously, simply because he >>>>KNEW for sure that this machine couldn't be stronger than him. >>> >>>I don't know if I'd take the "not too seriously" very seriously. There was >>>$1,000,000.00 at stake. Speaking only for myself, I'd take that _very_ >>>seriously... :) >>> >>> >>> >>>> It was a science >>>>experiment. Kasparov figured as the client from the human side, just to guaratee >>>>a high level of human chess skills. Suddenly Kasparov felt confused because in >>>>his opinion the machine played something strange. Kasparov demonstrated his >>>>disbelief. >>> >>>The problem here is that nothing "strange" happened. The moves were reproduced >>>by other programs, in 1997. >> >>You keep using this as an 'explanation'; as some type of justification, >>and it is not justified, nor defensible. >> >>The Programs that 'reproduced' the move did not do so under the same conditions >>or time control used in the match. > >You are really _way_ out of your "depth" in these discussions. You do realize >that in 1997 DB was searching 200M positions per second? And that for example >Crafty was searching 80K positions per second on a pentium pro 200, or 320K on a >quad pentium pro 200? So of course no program of 1997 could find those moves, >the hardware was too slow. Programs of _today_ can find those moves in a minute >or two, as we are nearly 10 years down the road in hardware evolution and speed, >and today on my dual xeon I'm hitting 2M+ nodes per second, on the quad opteron >I used last year, I hit 11M+ nodes per second, etc. > >You _do_ realize that this is all about speed? you _do_ realize that in 1997 no >program was within 2 orders of magnitude of the search speed of deep blue? > >I didn't think so... > > > >> >>The problem here, is that something "Strange" did happen; which completely >>and totaly refutes your position. >> >>No Top commercial program at the time ever played that move. >> Some Programs were specifically 'prohibited' from playing that move. > >What are you talking about? We are not talking about Nxe6, in game 6, which was >a pure _book_ move from deep blue. We are talking about the Be4 rather than a >move that appeared to win a pawn outright. And in 1997, Crafty found that move >after a search of more than 12 hours. Today it finds it far faster. Someone >even reported Shredder finds it in a minute or so, not on the fastest hardware >available. > >So I have no idea what "prohibited" means. Hmmm that should give us pause for thought. Beginning Programmers know. Ask one. > > > > >> >>All Kasparov had for his pregame analysis was use of these Programs. >> He gambled thet Deep Blue would retreat the Knight. >>It's as simple as that > > >So? In 1997, during the game, Crafty predicted Nxe6. It was in my book of the >time, as it is a known book move. What is your point? Or do you even have a >point? > > > >> >>Rolf is correct >> >> >> >>>I remember Crafty finding Be4 for example, although >>>it took an overnight search on hardware of 1997 to find it. >> >>Then why do you keep criticizing Kasparov for believing a 'move' was strange? >> >>No Computer before had ever made those moves. > > >So what? That was the point of the contest. There had never been a machine >built that could search that fast. Wonder if he would have said "they cheated" >when the Bell X-1 first broke the sound barrier? After all, no other aircraft >could reproduce that. Did they cheat? That's a totally stupid way to reason >this out... > > > > >> >> >> >>There simply was >>>not anything that looked wrong to knowledgable observers. In fact, more DB >>>moves were criticized during the match, although the moves were sometimes later >>>found to be the best. h5 (DB was black) was one such move where later Kasparov >>>said "that was the only viable try there..." >>> >>>I think he felt that this thing was not going to roll over like 1997 Fritz did >>>when he practiced, and a loss of touch with reality led to the "OK, it can't be >>>me, and the machine can't possibly be that good, after all Friedel said it was >>>no better than Fritz, so they must be cheating somehow." Of course they never >>>explained who could have possibly given the machine any advice, in real-time, >>>when they were already playing against the strongest human around. >> >>IM Joel Benjamin, that's who. > > >So Benjamin could beat Kasparov in a match, himself? :) > >Been watching too much twilight zone... > > > > >> He was in fact the one that kept 'tweaking' the >>Program, and expanding the Opening Book for Deep Blue, based on his knowledge of >>Kasparov's style. > >He didn't "tweak" the program at all. He did do some of the opening book >preparation (but not all, other GMs were involved as well). He didn't touch >"deep blue" itself as far as tweaking however. Don't know where you get that >from... > > >> That's why he was hired in the first place. > > >No, they hired him because he had a reasonable understanding of computer chess, >and because he was a grandmaster. > > > >> >>>That is >>>often overlooked. Would I want to suggest a move to DB when playing Kasparov? >>>Could I? Could it possibly be a move good enough to beat him? It's not even >>>worth thinking about.. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Now how the team of scientists reacted? - They saw that their human >>>>player was confused. "So be it!" "This is a good chance to kill the guy, the >>>>scientists said. Let's offend him even further and deny him any talks at all!" - >>> >>>That is assuming things that are (a) not proven; (b) unprovable even today; and >>>really nothing more than "dark-side speculation". Why do you assume IBM had >>>dark motives here? I know the people involved. I played such a match against >>>David Levy in 1984. David would tell you today that we were never "adversaries" >>>in that sense of the word. We wanted to win. He wanted to win. We both played >>>by the rules, and respected each other during the match. I don't believe the DB >>>team were the ones to "vary" from this. After all, Kasparov took off the gloves >>>first and accused them of cheating, in a public forum, leaving little chance to >>>smooth things over since the Genie was already out of the bottle... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Now that is exactly what is incredibly stupid in my eyes. Because, first, DBII >>>>wasn't stronger than Kasparov in 1997. >>>So why should the fathers of the machine> >>>attempt to beat Kasparov right now? >> >>Why? Why? Why? Are you Naive? You can boldly ask why? >> >>Because of the FREDKIN PRIZE! >> That's why! >> You didn't know about that? >>Of course you did, and you deliberatly leave that out as a motive for 'why' >>the Team was so intent on beating Kasparov? >> >>That's shameful. >> >>The Fredkin Prize was $100,000 for the first team to build or program >>a computer that would defeat the World Champion in a Match! >>Big motivation I'd say, plus the prestige, glory, & PR that goes with it. >>Why didn't you mention that? > >Why don't you grow up? Would IBM spend _millions_ to make $100K? What an >incredibly astute financial plan. :) > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>They would beat him in the nearer future. >> >>Neither you nor they knew that. >> >>They weren't taking any chances were they? >> >> >>> >>> >>>You can say that all you want. But all the evidence we have is 6 games played >>>in 1997. They suggest that DB was better, because DB won more games... >>> >>> >>> >>>>But no, they played dirty and suddenly the event changed from a science thing to >>>>a killing party. >>> >>> >>>Again, a wild stretch. How did "they play dirty" when they were accused of >>>cheating, a multi-billion dollar company with an impeccable reputation, and now >>>they stand on the stage and are accused of cheating in front of the entire >>>world? And "IBM played dirty"??? That I can't reconcile with events that >>>actually happened in 1997. >> >>We lots of other people can, and IBM certainly does not have an impeccable >>reputation now. > > >IBM _does_ have an impeccable reputation today. Kasparov does not. The >cheating claim against IBM. The cheating claim against him, caught on tape, >against Polgar. Temper tantrums multiple times. Battles with FIDE. Yes, he's >a great moral example... > > > > >>> >>> >>> >>>>You came and assisted them: "THat is totally conform with the >>>>rules of the "match"!" - Yes, fine, but what is with the science research thing? >>> >>> >>>There were two components to this match. >>> >>>1. Hsu and company (not IBM company but his associates such as Murray, Hoane, >>>etc) wanted to build a chess machine and beat Kasparov. That was their goal in >>>life. >>> >>>2. IBM watched interest in computer chess over the years, and saw an >>>opportunity for some publicity and public relations opportunities that would far >>>exceed the potential cost of underwriting the project. The company would prefer >>>to win, for the marketing advantage the free publicity would generate, but they >>>were happy to play in an event that everyone cast in a positive light, to >>>showcase their hardware and their interest in "tackling difficult problems with >>>innovative technologies." >>> >>>So Hsu wanted to win. IBM wanted publicity. That's all there was to it. Oh >>>yes, IBM wanted _positive_ publicity. When things turned sour, as I was talking >>>with Monty on the phone, we both said "this will be the end of these no matter >>>what happens." That was prophetic... >>> >>>There was no grand scientific experiment to beat the best human with a set of >>>rules you or others would like to see. For this experiment, the goal was to >>>throw massive amounts of hardware at Kasparov to see if it would beat him. Not >>>beat him after he had a chance to test against the thing for months. Not beat >>>him after he had a chance to study games played against other opponents. Not >>>beat him with any kind of boundaries on the contest. The goal was simply: >>> >>>"beat kasparov". >>> >>>Period. >>> >>>Later other questions might be asked, such as "could the thing play through the >>>candidate's cycle and work its way up to challenge the world champion for the >>>real WC title?" And so forth. But that simply wasn't the question, nor the >>>rules, nor the interest at the time. Until then, the WC had _never_ lost a >>>serious match against any computer. It was not expected even in 1997, although >>>many of us knew that the DB box was very strong and it wouldn't take much to >>>cause a human to cave in to it... But we didn't expect it to happen in 1997... >>> >>>Most of us had predicted this to happen somewhere after 2000... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Ok, let's make suicide with DBII, let's win ugly the match and then leave >>>>computerchess for good...! And Bob says (still in 2005), well, DBII was better >>>>than Kasparov, just during that w2eek, probably not overall, but for the period >>>>of these 6 games! >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>I stand by that. Because _all_ the evidence we have supports that conclusion. >>>Kasparov lost the match in 1997. Hence for that 2 week period, DB _proved_ it >>>was better OTB. Didn't prove it was better than Kasparov at his best, or >>>kasparov at his worst, or anything in between. Just proved itself to be better >>>over those 6 games... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Bob, you as a scientist, you can't do that. Please, don't do it. Come back to >>>>science. >>> >>>It is the only thing any _real_ scientist could conclude, sorry... >>> >>>6 games is not a lot, but if you look at what we have, the games certainly don't >>>prove Kasparov was better. That would be blatantly ignoring the actual data... >>>The games don't prove DB was better than Kasparov, although there is a >>>suggestion that is true. But the games _do_ prove that for that two week period >>>of time, DB was better than Kasparov, whether he was at his best or not is not >>>an issue... >> >>It's exactly the issue, and you know it! >> >>Kasparov gambled and lost. >>You know that. >>Hsu knows that. >> >> >>Deep Blue was not out of it's Opening Book until move 11. >>You know that too. > >So what? Kasparov made the mistakes in the game, not Deep Blue. Of course >Kasparov also resigned a drawn position, made other mistakes in his play in >other games. Etc...
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.