Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:27:19 04/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2005 at 07:17:47, chandler yergin wrote: >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. > > Not with those games. The game against zarkov is the one that would ruin it, because zarkov was _not_ a grandmaster. The fredkin prize stage II required a 2600 (actually I believe it required 2550) rating over 24 _consecutive_ games against Grandmaster opponents only. games against non-GM players were simply not counted, and games against GM players could not be excluded. They could play 100 games against GM players, and if any 24 consecutive games produced a TRP > 2550, they qualified. This is well-documented. I'll try to find the JICCA issue monday that had the report on this, as it gave the results (I don't believe they published the games in the JICCA due to space however).
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.