Author: chandler yergin
Date: 04:17:47 04/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 28, 2005 at 21:50:51, chandler yergin wrote:
>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.
I did find this:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=13728
Deep Thought (Computer)
Number of games in database: 24
Years covered: 1988 to 1994
Overall record: +10 -11 =3 (47.9%)*
* Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games
Based on games in the database; may be incomplete.
It doesn't appear that the Fredkin Rules for the Prize was met.
>>>
>>>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.