Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:53:35 04/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2005 at 12:36:16, chandler yergin wrote: >On April 26, 2005 at 11:53:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 26, 2005 at 11:16:21, chandler yergin wrote: >> >>>On April 25, 2005 at 20:49:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On April 25, 2005 at 16:46:15, chandler yergin wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 25, 2005 at 12:13:36, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 25, 2005 at 10:36:07, chandler yergin 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... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>No, it shows that Kasparov 'gambled' the the Computer would retreat the Knight >>>>>on the 6th move! That's all! >>>>> He certainly wasn't outplayed at that point. >>>>> >>>>>As soon as he realized he had underestimated the Program, >>>>>he knew he was lost. He had played the line himself. >>>>> >>>>>>No >>>>>>Kasparov lost because he did not play well later. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>He played for the audience... >>>>> >>>>>If you were at a Boxing match, and the contender knocked out the Champion >>>>>in the first 10 seconds of the 1st round... and you paid $200 for your ticket, >>>>>how would you feel? >>>>>Cheated? >>>>>Of course... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>That is pure unadulterated crap. How many 10 move "GM draws" have we seen over >>>>the years? Do you _really_ think a GM will play on just because the audience >>>>wants it? >>> Of course! You are Naive not to think so! >>> >>>How many GM Games have you seen where one was 'busted' but played on so as not >>>to go in the record books as one who lost a "miniature" game. >> >> >>Easy question to answer. "Not Any". GMs resign when they are lost, except for >>rare circumstances. >> >> >>> >>>A loss in less than 10 or 15 moves is very embarrassing. >> >> >>How stupid do you think GM players are? If they are lost at move 10, they will >>play on for 15 moves just to get past the 20 move mark so that it isn't a >>miniature? That is so far beyond real-world GM play it isn't funny... >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>Humans have pride, players have reputations, a Computer does not. >>> >>>Playing on in a lost position can still provide knowledge and add to Theory. >> >>What? :) >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>you _really_ need to come back to reality. >>> >>>If you don't understand what I write, and/or refuse to grasp the obvious >>> you are the one lost in fantasy, self deception and denial. >>> >>>It does you no credit to keep protesting. >> >> >>It certainly does you no credit to keep up on this ranting pathway with zero >>supporting evidence.. >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>The Public wants a contest... >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>He also knew the Public would be infuriated if he resigned at that point, so he >>>>>>>gave it his best shot. To his credit! >>>>>> >>>>>>No >>>>> >>>>>YES! >>>>>> >>>>>>There is certainly no reason to lose the game so fast like Kasparov did. >>>>> >>>>>What don't you understand about this Uri? >>>>>"Kasparov 'gambled' the the Computer would retreat the Knight >>>>>on the 6th move! That's all! >>>>> He certainly wasn't outplayed at that point." >>>>> >>>>>As soon as he realized he had underestimated the Program, >>>>>he knew he was lost. He had played the line himself. >>>>> >>>>>Get real! >>>>>You know hindsight is great... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Here is the game >>>>>> >>>>>>[Event "New York man vs machine"] >>>>>>[Site "New York"] >>>>>>[Date "1997.05.??"] >>>>>>[Round "6"] >>>>>>[White "Comp Deep Blue"] >>>>>>[Black "Kasparov, Garry"] >>>>>>[Result "1-0"] >>>>>>[PlyCount "37"] >>>>>>[EventDate "1997.??.??"] >>>>>> >>>>>>1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Ng5 Ngf6 6. Bd3 e6 7. N1f3 h6 8. >>>>>>Nxe6 Qe7 9. O-O fxe6 10. Bg6+ Kd8 11. Bf4 b5 12. a4 Bb7 13. Re1 Nd5 14. Bg3 Kc8 >>>>>>15. axb5 cxb5 16. Qd3 Bc6 17. Bf5 exf5 18. Rxe7 Bxe7 19. c4 1-0 >>>>>> >>>>>>I think that there was no reason to play 16...Bc6 and 16...Nc7 is better. >>>>>> >>>>>>White has a better position at that point but there is no reason that white will >>>>>>win so fast. >>>>>> >>>>>>Kasparov did a lot of mistakes in the game >>>>>>8...Qe7 is not considered to be the best move by theory. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Seems like you have a bias against Kasparov too. >>>>>How sad.. >>>>> >>>>>He's the greatest, and will be rememered.. >>>>> >>>>>Deep Blue will not. >>>> >>>>Deep Blue already is in every AI book published. >>> >>>Why? There was no intelligence in the Program. >>>It was an utter failure as far as Science was concerned. >> >>Yes, it was a total failure. It dominated computer chess events winning all >>that it competed in except for one (1992). It beat human GMs in exhibition >>matches all over the world. It beat the world champion in a 6 game match in >>1997. Yes, it was a complete and total failure... >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> It probably always will be. >>> >>>History will be rewritten, and the truth will be known. >>> >>>Rolf is correct! >> >>"History will be re-written" >> >>Doesn't that make it not "history" but "fiction" instead? History is what >>actually happened. Not what you wish had happened... But like all other points >>in this discussion, you won't get that one either no doubt... > >No contemporary writer can give an accurate view of anything. > >Only long after purported events as information is accumulated, and >the Historians assimilate the totality of the evidence, can a more accurate >picture of what really happpened be provided. > >This is true for War.. Politics, Stock Market, Religious thought, >and 'Cultural' events. > >I'm surprised at your position on this. I'm not surprised at yours. History is about what actually happened. What you are talking about is mostly opinion. What someone "thinks" happened... We _know_ the events of 1997, _precisely_. That is history.
This page took 0.03 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.