Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:28:20 04/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 28, 2005 at 15:40:05, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On April 28, 2005 at 14:12:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 28, 2005 at 13:19:07, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>>Because there is none. >>> >>>Look, the science question is "what is the chess strength of the machine". If >>>you ask that can you then measure the confusion of Kasparov? I would say no! And >>>this is already part of science we are in. >> >> >>No. That is something _you_ are injecting. The question was never "what is the >>chess strength of Deep Blue?" The question was "can the machine beat the best >>player on the planet at standard time controls, using the normal rules of >>chess?" The answer was "yes". > >The answer is a clear No. DBII didn't win a single game in match 2. Surprised? > I'm not surprised of anything that happens in your world. :) However, in the real world, DB won more than Kasparov in that match, and won the match as a result, as recorded by history... > > >> >> >> >>> >>>We don't have real chess matches between machines and humans. All what we have >>>is exhibitional humbug. >>> >>> >> >> >>I don't know where you get that from. I've played GM matches that were >>broadcast live on TV and on the radio. I've sat across the table from these >>players and from my observations, they are treating the games as "real matches" >>and not an afternoon "lark". > >Chessmasters of human chess are very shy and proud people. In front of cameras >they can be confused. They lose concentration. > > Utter malarkey. GM players _relish_ sitting at board one, on the stage, in front of a large audience. > >> >> >> >>> >>>>No, I'm not "unaware of them". They simply do not exist... >>> >>> >>>Of course David Copperfield does also use science to prepare his spooky >>>delusions. Science isn't religion and you are not free to either believe it or >>>not. If you say that science doesn't exist in computerchess vs human chess, then >>>you are not a scientist... <gg> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>Science exists in computer chess. But not in the matches that are played. >>Humans are too inconsistent and the standard deviation / variance is way too >>high to think in terms of "reproducible experiments". It just won't work that >>way so long as humans are involved. Even computers vary a bit due to minor >>timing changes, even if you try to play the same exact game over and over there >>is no guarantee that you can do that with a computer. > >I see no humans in chess who could be researched in computerchess but I see >machines. And human chessplayers can tell us how strong machines play chess. >Viewed from the human chess standpoint. From an "imperfect standpoint" yes. > > > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>Bob, we are NOT in politics here. I say that it doesn't matter who fired the >>>first shot - IBM/Hsu STILL were responsible for a sober science in the >>>experiment... Bad luck for you (as a scientist). Times are gone that you as >>>scientists make your weekends of fun in computerchess. You must create sensible >>>rules for matches between the two spheres. Computerchess and Human chess. >>> >>> >> >> >>How can one create more sensible rules for a match, than to tell your opponent >>"you think about this match, you explicitly define each and every rule you want >>used during the match, and we will go along with your rules exactly." >> >>That is what happened twice in NYC. The only difference in the two matches was >>the outcome the second time around, which seems to be unacceptable to some. >> > >Your insinuation is wrong that Kasparov could have proposed all the rules he >could imagine. Kasparov was not the one who wanted to lose his face by inventing >rules as if he feared the machine. He was certain that the team around Hsu would >respect all decent rules of science. He couldn't know that Hsu was planning to >lose his face... > I'll say it again. Kasparov made the rules. A failure on his part to properly stipulate rules for the match does _not_ constitute fraud on the part of IBM for not thinking of the rules Kasparov should have asked for but didn't... This is going round and round in circles... > > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>You know that this is basically the death of serious computerchess as far as >>>competition with human chess is involved. Then make this clear in your field. >>>Or. Or find solutions to the problem. There is no "Doesn't work", "Never worked" >>>or "Won't work". This is solvable. If not forget about future competition with >>>human chess! >>> >>> >> >> >>Baloney. Because we also can not prevent the _humans_ from cheating either. Do >>I need to enumerate spectacular examples of such? Is human chess going to >>disappear because humans can find a way to cheat? Is human chess going to >>disappear because we can't find a way to prevent all forms of cheating until >>after they are exposed. Once we find a cheating methodology, it is possible to >>design countermeasures to prevent this. But even Las Vegas, with its years of >>experience in gambling, still can not prevent all forms of cheating, because >>nobody knows what "all forms of cheating includes" until they are discovered and >>then analyzed... > >Kasparov couldn't know that Hsu and team would suddenly apply undecent behaviour >after they had worked so hard on DBII over decades. A sane scientist wouldn't >risk his reputation. What "indecent behavior"? He accused them of cheating. He demanded to see logs. They gave them to Ken Thompson to examine. But not to Kasparov. Exactly according to the rules. Following the rules is "indecent"? Then Kasparov has no one but himself to blame since he stipulated those "indecent rules." Why is this so hard to grasp. Kasparov screwed up, yet IBM is getting the blame for not noticing he had screwed up and suggesting other rules be added??? > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>You mean you or the machine? Of course that is ok. But by all means I say: let >>>the machine decide things. Otherwise it's a hoax and impostering. And make exact >>>protocols to research things if wanted. >> >>Both. I prepared openings against specific humans when _I_ was playing. I did >>the same when my program was playing... >> >>Computers are _not_ human. Trying to make them such is not worth talking about >>today. > >You must respect the rules of FIDE. Machines have no extra rights... Of course they don't, and DB plays perfectly according to the rules of FIDE... and the USCF. My program is and has been for 25+ years a member of USCF and has played in many rated USCF events, including the U.S. Open. > > > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>That is ok, but don't dream of the final matches after you gave birth to a new >>>baby... Go through the fire of improvement and success. >>> >>> >> >>DB was 11+ years old when it played Kasparov. It had grown, and been modified >>many times. Of course humans go through that same process as they age as >>well... Deep Blue 0 (deep thought) had played dozens of matches against GM >>players and won almost all of them. It was worthy of playing the world champion >>based on those games. Deep Blue 1 played Kasparov and lost, but it had its >>moments. And Deep Blue 2 beat him. It wasn't a "new star from out of nowhere" >>it was a process of evolution based on 11+ years of development. > >Fine by me, but not fine enough for players like Kasparov or any top human >player. You can't motivate them to create anti-computer chess for just a million >dollars... It's way better for them to continue with the draws so that companies >don't lose interest... Can't answer that. That is a business/playing decision the GM has to make. But if it blows up in his face, is it IBM's fault? Apparently you believe so. There was a lot of money riding on the winner's side of this match. So turning that down for a _possible_ third match would probably be bad, since after Kasparov won the first match a second match was set up before he left... I don't believe that his winning a second match would have seen things dry up from IBM... Any more than it dried up after the first match. > > > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>Of course Bob. But here you confuse ordinary time controls with Blitz or Rapids >>>- no? >>> >>> >> >> >>No. Cray Blitz / Crafty have played in matches of all three types. > > >Yes, but you spoke of a regular basis on the Internet and there the short time >control is reigning. Also for Crafty. Depends. I've played slow tournaments on the internet as well, against GM players... > > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>Correction! I did never expect that machines followed a moral. But I expect that >>>you as operators of machines followed a moral! If NOT - then bye bye to >>>computerchess vs human chess... >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>You can't have it both ways. We can't modify the program during a match, we >>can't prepare a special opening book for the opponents we expect to play, but we >>have to handle the moral issues for the computer? > > >Bob you confuse all the topics. Who said you are not allowed to prepare? But in >a science match forget about confusing the human player because you want to find >out the strength of the machine in chess; not the cleverness of the operators in >Las Vegas gambling...
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.