Author: chandler yergin
Date: 18:50:51 04/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 28, 2005 at 20:10:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 28, 2005 at 14:20:28, chandler yergin wrote: > >>On April 28, 2005 at 13:55:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 28, 2005 at 12:10:05, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On April 28, 2005 at 11:09:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 28, 2005 at 06:55:43, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 27, 2005 at 22:07:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 27, 2005 at 18:16:57, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On April 27, 2005 at 17:48:53, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On April 27, 2005 at 17:05:21, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On April 26, 2005 at 15:59:11, Steven Edwards wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I'm sure that issue was covered in the match contract. In computer chess events >>>>>>>>>>>for nearly three decades prior to the event, adjustments made between games were >>>>>>>>>>>permitted. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>And this is the cancer that destroys honest computer vs human chess. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Kasparov knew what he was doing, particularly in the second match >>>>>>>>>>>after his experience with the first. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Interesting to write what Kasparov knew. We should better deal with what the >>>>>>>>>>computerchess people knew. Apparently they didn't really know what they are >>>>>>>>>>doing. And that for decades already. Ok, humans never really cared that much >>>>>>>>>>because the overall chess emulation wasn't strong enough to be considered for >>>>>>>>>>serious. But if compuerchess is propagating the superiority over human chess >>>>>>>>>>things should be clarified a bit... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Kasparov is being a sore loser and is unhappy because he didn't get a third >>>>>>>>>>>match and the money that would have come with it. He's appears to be trying to >>>>>>>>>>>help draw attention to himself for his political asperations that have nothing >>>>>>>>>>>to do with chess, and he's making Valdimir Putin look good by comparison. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>For sure Kasparov isn't a sore loser when it was Hsu&IBM who deconstructed the >>>>>>>>>>machine so that no further tests could be made. Scientifically this is a crime >>>>>>>>>>(that is what Kasparov is saying in the quoted interview). Whith whom Kasparov >>>>>>>>>>should have made a third match? With people who betray their own science? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Unfair. It was not Hsu decision to "deconstruct" the machine. But you blame >>>>>>>>>him anyway. Why do you do this? It is completely unfair. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You use this to claim Hsu cheated science. But your claim is bogus because Hsu >>>>>>>>>had NO CONTROL over that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You make me laugh and shed tears. A scientist who has no control over his >>>>>>>>science is no scientist! A scientist who sold his moral to economy has lost his >>>>>>>>status of scientist. This is so trivial and sad to know that this could happen >>>>>>>>in our field of computerchess. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Then I guess _none_ of us are "scientists". After we won the 1983 and 1986 WCCC >>>>>>>events running on a cray, the machines were taken apart and shipped to >>>>>>>customers. I could not have used them again. Ditto for every year we ran on a >>>>>>>Cray. The CCT before last, where I used the 4-opteron box from AMD was the >>>>>>>same, the machine was gone a week after the event. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This is _very_ common, and is _not_ "unscientific" in the least... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>It's understandable but still it's false. You always confuse mere computerchess >>>>>>events with computerchess vs human chess! I see that you are not prepared for >>>>>>real competition between computers and Man. :) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I have played several computer vs human matches. Machine was shipped right >>>>>after we finished the Levy match. We played 2 games against Van den Sterren (I >>>>>am not sure that is spelled right and am not at office where paperwork would >>>>>give it correctly) and again the machine was torn down and shipped right after >>>>>the match ended. This is _normal_ when using big iron that is valuable.. >>>> >>>>I believe you. But the difference is that in your case there wasn't the science >>>>propaganda for the ultimate test Man or Machine... >>> >>>Sorry, but there was. If you remember the Levy Challenge that dated back to >>>1970, where he bet $10,000 that no computer would beat him in a match over the >>>next 10 years, and which he later extended for at least another 5 years, this is >>>the match I played against him in 1984. There was money at stake. >> >> >>Thank you for Posting this.. I didn't know that. >> >>Question: >>"The second for the first program to produce a 2600 performance rating over 25 >>consecutive games against grandmaster players in long (40 moves in 2 hours or >>slower) games. >> >>Very significant! >> >>Awarded to deep thought in the early 1990's. >> >>Who was the Challenger, the GM that was beaten? > >No "challenger". They played in various chess tournaments, all over the >country. The games are public record and several people here have collected >them I believe. You might ask and someone could send you all the PGN, which >would include the names and dates... > > >> >>Who was the Operator of deep thought? > >Murray. Hsu. I think Stuart Cracraft even operated once or twice... There may >have been others... The tournaments were all over, some outside the US if I >recall correctly. Thank you for your prompt response! I, as others, I'm sure would like to review all the games. Is there a Link or Web Site where all Deep thughts games can be downloaded in PGN? I think it was a remarkable acheivment for a Computer to have Won as it did. Especially in those days.. In the interest of 'fairness'; I think the Win/Loss record should be noted. Otherwise Rolf will be all over your Gluteous Maximus, wailing like a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. ;) Chan > > > > >> >>Thanks, >>Chan >> >> He defined >>>the match rules just as Kasparov did. Etc. It was publicized everywhere in >>>computer literature, just as each of his matches (Levy) were publicized... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Here Kasparov had questions >>>>and Hsu and his team didn't want to clarify things. Ok IBM made the decisions >>>>but it's Hsu who must live with the bad reputation now. >>> >>>To those that "count" (his peers) Hsu has _no_ "bad reputation." >>> >>> >>> >>>> No idea if Kasparov >>>>asked because he knew that Hsu no longer had the power over the ressources - but >>>>that is also Hsu's problem. - For Kasparov the show was finished after game two. >>>>He couldn't stop playing because that would have cost him all the fee. But he >>>>stopped playing his usual chess. And in game six he made that as clear as >>>>possible. In your case, Bob, that was just a match. Just a little event to see >>>>what would happen. At the end of the fun-era of computerchess. Without the >>>>public interest of 1997. - Bob let's make an honorable draw, because you can't >>>>win this debate. And I must admit that I can't convince the dickhead of yours >>>>either... :) >>> >>>Sorry, but the debate has already been won. :) Only a very small minority hold >>>your view that Kasparov was "cheated" in any form. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>(Again, I like the music and accent of your speech and would prefer to hear you >>>>explain thhings over the air...) >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Give it up, Rolf. You can't fool anybody with such poor logic built upon false >>>>>>>>>premises. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>That >>>>>>>>>>Kasparov is not a politician, this is a different question. I would agree! He's >>>>>>>>>>not.
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.