Deep Blue -- Part II

[Keith Ian Price]

Here is part two of the report on Deep Blue.

5. As to the fairness of the matches between Deep Blue and Kasparov,
many have brought up the point that IBM was quite secretive about
giving out any games to Kasparov. As part of the presentation, Hsu
addressed this by pointing out that the chess chips for DB for the
first match arrived in January for the February match. DB was
assembled for the first time just two weeks before the match, and so
they were not likely to give out games played in that period with the
match coming up, and the software not fully debugged. The new chess
chips for the rematch were made in 6 months and debugged in two
months, thus there was almost a half year of time before the second
match, which could have afforded them time to play some games and give
them to Kasparov. To explain why they did not, Hsu used the
"laughingstock" rule, which he said meant that in determining what
requests of Kasparov's to accept or reject, they decided that if he
requested anything that would make him a "laughingstock" if the
tournament were for the world championship, they would deny the
request. He stated that no player vying for the world championship
would release games in the six months before the championship. They
generally go into seclusion, he said, and study new openings, etc., to
try out in the match. Therefore, if Kasparov were playing "the number
two player in the world, Vishy Anand," and he demanded that Anand give
him games played in preparation, he would be a laughingstock. This,
then, is why they would not release any games. I must admit that I
found this to be the strangest argument he used in his presentation. I
told him afterward that I felt that not to have any games at all to
study put Kasparov at a distinct disadvantage, since the opening books
designed for Deep Blue's rematch were based on Kasparov's games that
they had available. He stated that there are many games available from
Deep Thought's matches that he could study, and I asked if he
seriously thought that studying the game DT lost to Fritz in '95 would
really help Kasparov. He was quite adamant, and stated that Anand
doesn't play the same way now that he did when he was younger, either.
I left it at this point, since I had futher questions, and didn't want
to push the point since he obviously felt that their team was being
quite fair. To be evenhanded, I must point out that there are
apparently not very many games against the full DB, anyway, since most
practice games were played by Joel Benjamin against DB, Jr. According
to Hsu, most of these training (for DB) games were also not actual
games (40/2 tournament style); rather Benjamin would play until he got
behind, and then take back moves until he returned to a relatively
neutral position, and try different tacks in this manner until he
found a weakness, and could get the machine into a lost position. He
would then explain the weakness to Hsu, and the others, and they would
tweak the evaluation until it wouldn't play the poor line anymore. So
most of those games were, in the end, losses, and might have revealed
a lot more than a string of regular games.

6. I asked him about whether DB had gone into "Panic mode" during move
35 of Game 2. He said that it apparently had, because it took so much
time to play the move, but that he didn't know what was causing it,
since he was not allowed to use the terminal during the match for
purposes of finding out what was causing it to take so long. He was
curious at the time, himself. I asked about Amir Ban's interpretation
of the printouts, and he stated that he did not think that Amir knew
how to read the outputs. He said that it was ridiculous to think that
axb5 had been pondered for less than a second. In the
parralel-processing method of Deep Blue that move had been being
processed right along with Qb6, but never made it to the top of the
list until Qb6 was rejected at the last minute. He said he did not
know why it was rejected at the last minute. I asked if there were
logs stored to disk as the game was played, and he said there were,
but they we somewhat basic, and there was no way to log what all the
chess processors were doing during that time. Therefore, he would not
be able to tell from the log. He seemed to say that the only way he
could have found out what was happening was to use the terminal while
the move was going on, and that this was not allowed.

7. I inquired as to when he might publish some papers on the advances
in computer chess achieved during his work on DT/DB, since they were
moving on to other things. He said he had written an article on DB's
chess processor, but perhaps it was published in the wrong place, a
chip design journal. He said he had no plans to write papers on such
specifics as Evaluation techniques, etc., as with 8000 separate
features, individually tunable, in the Eval section of the chess
processor, this would require a pretty massive book, and that there
were only a handful of people in the world who would be interested. I
guess that handful would be you guys. He said he is too busy writing a
book on the development of the project to publish anything, and when,
after he said he wouldn't know a good place to publish something like
that anyway, I suggested JICCA, he said that that would not be a good
place. So I wouldn't hold my breath on receiving any startling
revelations from that corner. He is more interested in the hardware
side of the problem, since that was his chosen field, at least this
was my impression.

Well, I'm going to upload this part now, before my ISP gets too busy,
and I have trouble logging on. I'll try to get the rest tonight, but
it may have to wait until tomorrow.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
kp

[Kevin Heider]

kpr...@spamfree.teleport.com (Keith Ian Price) wrote:
Keith,

Thanks for posting the articles.

-- Kevin Heider

[Rolf Tueschen]

This time you gave a wonderful report, Kipje. With you I see now even
clearer that Hsu is a *real* Fach-Idiot. Unable to think in greater
context.

kpr...@spamfree.teleport.com (Keith Ian Price) wrote:

>Here is part two of the report on Deep Blue.

>5. As to the fairness

[..]

>DB was
>assembled for the first time just two weeks before the match, and so
>they were not likely to give out games played in that period with the
>match coming up, and the software not fully debugged.

In context of the later/former confirmation that also he, Hsu,
himself, couldn't really tell what was going on during the second game
(due to the multiple processors' architecture ... and no access to the
terminal [Who the hell had access? A cleaning woman and Ken
Thompson??]) do you personally believe Hsu?

I don't.

For several reasons. Let me give right here a single one.

How could Hsu and Co. know anything *at all* about the output of the
multiple complex? Look, if it were true, and I have no insight to
oppose that "fact", that the output were only indirectly to decode
with the help of a little DB Jr. then how the hell could they be sure
to attain the wished goal at all? I mean while they were still
training and tweaking?

I see here a big artificial fog machine. After all my experience from
natural sciences, it's more likely that Husu & Co must have had sort
of conversion table to be able to foresee what a tweak on DB Jr. would
cause in the final *complex* setting.

Without, a) they wouldn't be able to make use of Benjamin's advices in
the prep time before and b) the short time from the final delivery of
the hardware until matchbegin would never have been sufficient.

This leads us to the assumption that the importance of the single
processor DB Jr. as the prime chessplayer cannot be estimated high
enough. It *is* DB. However all the other hardware is a good help to
implantate for example all the openings, the endgames, and believe me,
the reason why Ken Thompson of all people sat there behind the
terminal to "survey" is for me the indication that all the multiple
hustle was about new, completely secret endgame extensions probably up
to certain n piece (referring to number of n-pawns plus the legendary
5 piece tables of KT.)

Of course they also might have used a parallel processor setting. As
Bob has told us more than once.

But the image of such 7000 features, that Hsu had to tweak here and
there is a farce. And Hsu surely didn't mean chess related features. I
strongly doubt that Hsu knows more than 5 in chess, if at all ... :)

>The new chess
>chips for the rematch were made in 6 months and debugged in two
>months, thus there was almost a half year of time before the second
>match, which could have afforded them time to play some games and give
>them to Kasparov. To explain why they did not, Hsu used the
>"laughingstock" rule, which he said meant that in determining what
>requests of Kasparov's to accept or reject, they decided that if he
>requested anything that would make him a "laughingstock" if the
>tournament were for the world championship, they would deny the
>request.

Excuse me. ROFL. ROFL.

Here you have the best picture of all the hybris of the beancounting
Fach-Idiots.

We can witness the simple logical fallacy that "sitting at the same
table with a champ somehow makes a champ or almost-champ out of
ourself" ... ...

As we all know quite well. Let's make an experiment.

Look the next French Open (in tennis) on your color TV. I promisse
that you are in the Top 20 afterwards. I can tell this because I'm in
the meantime stronger than Pistol Pete. Simply because I can see all
the other top players while Pete has to waste too much time to
conserve his fitness. And then I can profit from the Women's event
too. So, I'm probably the real number one as far as psychology, "the
head", is important to make a real champ out of a mass of very good
players. And take this. I'm a champ in *many* other sports. Thanks to
my friend, the VCR.

[..]

> he would be a laughingstock. This,
>then, is why they would not release any games. I must admit that I
>found this to be the strangest argument he used in his presentation. I
>told him afterward that I felt that not to have any games at all to
>study put Kasparov at a distinct disadvantage, since the opening books
>designed for Deep Blue's rematch were based on Kasparov's games that
>they had available. He stated that there are many games available from
>Deep Thought's matches that he could study, and I asked if he
>seriously thought that studying the game DT lost to Fritz in '95 would
>really help Kasparov. He was quite adamant, and stated that Anand
>doesn't play the same way now that he did when he was younger, either.

I will not comment on this idiocy. But Frankenstein syndrome comes
into mind ...

That's the same lack of real class and understanding as I saw it in
Ingo Althoefer. Who did really believe that he as a <1900 Dreihirn
would be a real GM with the help of two micro displays. But neither
the micros nor he as <1900 knows how to play for the many thousand
patterns a real champ had on stand-by ... What he could do is simply
using the databases to survive certain pre-defined periods. Openings
and endings of some sorts.

But, and that is the ignorance of Hsu & Co, the human champs have
*all* these data stand-by if needed. Their memory is like a computer
through their photo-like eidetics.

[To repeat a short analysis of the c y b o r g problem. It
was said also by Bob Hyatt that a cyborg could profit from the
machines with some 300+ Elopoints. I say nope. All what Althoefer has
proven in the many years of his interesting hobby is that human
players usually need more informations about the opponents to be able
to dominate in the end. The shorter a match is, the smarter (in
general, not chess related terms) the human part of the cyborg is (and
nobody would say that the maths prof is not *very* smart) and also the
bigger the tendency of gambling style of the GM in funny skittles
-----, the better are the chances of the cyborg to win some games. But
that is NOT proving any superior Elo manifestation. Elo is between
humans on the base of hundreds of games. But cyborg Ingo A. had played
maximum of some 20 GM games in his whole life. And for the opposing
GMs it was rather fun and NOT tournament play in a championship. That
must be taken into consideration for Kasparov Enterprises too.]

>I left it at this point, since I had futher questions, and didn't want
>to push the point since he obviously felt that their team was being
>quite fair. To be evenhanded, I must point out that there are
>apparently not very many games against the full DB, anyway, since most
>practice games were played by Joel Benjamin against DB, Jr.

Also this, KIPJE, does prove my point. Look, if the game against DB
Jr. were so much different from the game against the complete DB, then
all this training with Benjamin wouldn't have made much sense ...

>According
>to Hsu, most of these training (for DB) games were also not actual
>games (40/2 tournament style); rather Benjamin would play until he got
>behind, and then take back moves until he returned to a relatively
>neutral position, and try different tacks in this manner until he
>found a weakness, and could get the machine into a lost position. He
>would then explain the weakness to Hsu, and the others, and they would
>tweak the evaluation until it wouldn't play the poor line anymore. So
>most of those games were, in the end, losses, and might have revealed
>a lot more than a string of regular games.

Hear, hear.

But still Benjamin tried to fool us with the statement that he lost
almost all the games ...

See, what a money contract could make out of a decent chessplayer.

>6. I asked him about whether DB had gone into "Panic mode" during move
>35 of Game 2. He said that it apparently had, because it took so much
>time to play the move, but that he didn't know what was causing it,
>since he was not allowed to use the terminal during the match for
>purposes of finding out what was causing it to take so long. He was
>curious at the time, himself. I asked about Amir Ban's interpretation
>of the printouts, and he stated that he did not think that Amir knew
>how to read the outputs. He said that it was ridiculous to think that

Ridiculous is only the way Hsu is thinking. Or presenting his foolish
"explanations".

I want to stress my former argument that the DB teamsters did cheat on
Kasparov. Here you have another proof.

K. asked for evidence. They *gave* him the evidence. And now they're
laughing (laughinstock!!) that even Amir were unable to read that
evidence. Sure. because the evidence IS NOT evidence at all.

I repeat my doping picture.

Would you as the public or as the medical expert accept that Michael
Johnson (the probably doped Olympic Winner) would give you some hot
air he caughed up instead of some bottles of urinate? I don't.

[..]

>He said he had no plans to write papers on such
>specifics as Evaluation techniques, etc., as with 8000 separate
>features, individually tunable, in the Eval section of the chess
>processor, this would require a pretty massive book, and that there
>were only a handful of people in the world who would be interested.

Bye, bye. Bob?

We understood. This is not about a scientific experiment, Garry. You
were a real fool to believe that. And we, the international community.
We were so dumb nuts, to believe in all the propaganda in the famous
news mags ...

Oh well. Let me ask you a question, Garry.

Did you _ever_ see David Schiffer Copperfield who explained one of his
magic tricks?????????????????????????????

ROTFL

>I
>guess that handful would be you guys. He said he is too busy writing a
>book on the development of the project to publish anything,

Folks. For all of you not being familiar with the obligations in the
sciento family, this is totally bullshit. If you had found something
new in your field, you had the damned obligation to publish the
settings/results. No damn time argument could save you from being
ripped in pieces if you didn't write something ...

But again, it was more a little show and not at all a scientific
challenge. Period.

>and when,
>after he said he wouldn't know a good place to publish something like
>that anyway, I suggested JICCA, he said that that would not be a good
>place.

ROTFL.

Hsu, here in rgcc, that would be the right place for your tricks. :)

>So I wouldn't hold my breath on receiving any startling
>revelations from that corner. He is more interested in the hardware
>side of the problem,

Kip, excuse me, I must give you a correction. What do you mean with
hardware? You mean real coins? I thought that it could also flow
through simple credit cards ... ... ...

>since that was his chosen field, at least this
>was my impression.

C-o-o-l. Har, de har har. (TM Beavis and Butthead.)

[Robert Hyatt]

Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote:
: This time you gave a wonderful report, Kipje. With you I see now even

: clearer that Hsu is a *real* Fach-Idiot. Unable to think in greater
: context.

: kpr...@spamfree.teleport.com (Keith Ian Price) wrote:

:>Here is part two of the report on Deep Blue.

:>5. As to the fairness

: [..]

:>DB was
:>assembled for the first time just two weeks before the match, and so
:>they were not likely to give out games played in that period with the
:>match coming up, and the software not fully debugged.

: In context of the later/former confirmation that also he, Hsu,
: himself, couldn't really tell what was going on during the second game
: (due to the multiple processors' architecture ... and no access to the
: terminal [Who the hell had access? A cleaning woman and Ken
: Thompson??]) do you personally believe Hsu?

: I don't.

: For several reasons. Let me give right here a single one.

You don't believe Hsu for only one reason: you are ignorant. Before
you prattle on, why don't you make a few inquiries from those that were
involved in the match, to find out *exactly* what the "rules" were.

You don't have a clue, yet you make statements like the above. Which
only goes to make your ignorance obvious to all.

A wise person doesn't talk without facts. A fool only talks without
them. It's obvious which you belong to...

: How could Hsu and Co. know anything *at all* about the output of the

: multiple complex? Look, if it were true, and I have no insight to
: oppose that "fact", that the output were only indirectly to decode
: with the help of a little DB Jr. then how the hell could they be sure
: to attain the wished goal at all? I mean while they were still
: training and tweaking?

Again, you ask questions about a subject that you know exactly *zero*
about. I've explained the problems of testing/debugging with parallel
processing, along with the problem of "reproducible and non-reproducible
results". But you don't listen. But you have to have your mouth closed
before you can have your ears open... so I suppose that explains the
problem here...

: I see here a big artificial fog machine. After all my experience from

: natural sciences, it's more likely that Husu & Co must have had sort
: of conversion table to be able to foresee what a tweak on DB Jr. would
: cause in the final *complex* setting.

: Without, a) they wouldn't be able to make use of Benjamin's advices in
: the prep time before and b) the short time from the final delivery of
: the hardware until matchbegin would never have been sufficient.

nonesese... utter nonsense...

: This leads us to the assumption that the importance of the single

: processor DB Jr. as the prime chessplayer cannot be estimated high
: enough. It *is* DB. However all the other hardware is a good help to
: implantate for example all the openings, the endgames, and believe me,
: the reason why Ken Thompson of all people sat there behind the
: terminal to "survey" is for me the indication that all the multiple
: hustle was about new, completely secret endgame extensions probably up
: to certain n piece (referring to number of n-pawns plus the legendary
: 5 piece tables of KT.)

Once again, Rolf, your ignorance is totally without bound. A single 5 piece
ending with a pawn takes 1.0 gigabytes of memory. If you want a single
6 piece ending file, you need *64* gigabytes. If you want a 7 piece ending
database, you need 4 *terrabytes* of disk space. So get off that stupid
topic of endgame databases. Do you even understand "terrabyte"? Did you
see the picture of the IBM SP? *where* do you suppose all those disk drives
were? since 23 gigs is a large disk, and since 4 terrabytes is 200 of those,
and since they *obviously* would not just make one 7 piece file, where are
those thousands of disk drives?

Please think before you write nonsense...

: Of course they also might have used a parallel processor setting. As

: Bob has told us more than once.

They "could have"??? *where* have you been. They *certainly did*. And
again, read before you write. DB "junior" is a parallel machine... One
SP processor, but multiple DB chess processors...

: But the image of such 7000 features, that Hsu had to tweak here and

: there is a farce. And Hsu surely didn't mean chess related features. I
: strongly doubt that Hsu knows more than 5 in chess, if at all ... :)

When all else fails, "insult your opponent"?? First, the number was 8,000,
not 7,000, but when dealing with someone of your IQ, I realize that you can
only count 1, ... 2,... 3,... and "big". So maybe your faux pas is
understandable...

:>The new chess

: Excuse me. ROFL. ROFL.

What are you talking about? Forget your prozac for the day? Because you
are muttering incoherently...

: [..]

:> he would be a laughingstock. This,
:>then, is why they would not release any games. I must admit that I
:>found this to be the strangest argument he used in his presentation. I
:>told him afterward that I felt that not to have any games at all to
:>study put Kasparov at a distinct disadvantage, since the opening books
:>designed for Deep Blue's rematch were based on Kasparov's games that
:>they had available. He stated that there are many games available from
:>Deep Thought's matches that he could study, and I asked if he
:>seriously thought that studying the game DT lost to Fritz in '95 would
:>really help Kasparov. He was quite adamant, and stated that Anand
:>doesn't play the same way now that he did when he was younger, either.

: I will not comment on this idiocy. But Frankenstein syndrome comes
: into mind ...

: That's the same lack of real class and understanding as I saw it in
: Ingo Althoefer. Who did really believe that he as a <1900 Dreihirn
: would be a real GM with the help of two micro displays. But neither
: the micros nor he as <1900 knows how to play for the many thousand
: patterns a real champ had on stand-by ... What he could do is simply
: using the databases to survive certain pre-defined periods. Openings
: and endings of some sorts.

Of course, the many wins Ingo had over GM players were just "luck",
correct? right... that's what I thought... Rolf says so, so it is
so. I choose to add *NOT* to the end...

: But, and that is the ignorance of Hsu & Co, the human champs have

: *all* these data stand-by if needed. Their memory is like a computer
: through their photo-like eidetics.

: [To repeat a short analysis of the c y b o r g problem. It
: was said also by Bob Hyatt that a cyborg could profit from the
: machines with some 300+ Elopoints. I say nope. All what Althoefer has
: proven in the many years of his interesting hobby is that human
: players usually need more informations about the opponents to be able
: to dominate in the end. The shorter a match is, the smarter (in
: general, not chess related terms) the human part of the cyborg is (and
: nobody would say that the maths prof is not *very* smart) and also the
: bigger the tendency of gambling style of the GM in funny skittles
: -----, the better are the chances of the cyborg to win some games. But
: that is NOT proving any superior Elo manifestation. Elo is between
: humans on the base of hundreds of games. But cyborg Ingo A. had played
: maximum of some 20 GM games in his whole life. And for the opposing
: GMs it was rather fun and NOT tournament play in a championship. That
: must be taken into consideration for Kasparov Enterprises too.]

However, Ingo was *successful* in what he did. Even 20 games gives a
clue of how he/machines played together. It was *quite strong*...

:>I left it at this point, since I had futher questions, and didn't want

:>to push the point since he obviously felt that their team was being
:>quite fair. To be evenhanded, I must point out that there are
:>apparently not very many games against the full DB, anyway, since most
:>practice games were played by Joel Benjamin against DB, Jr.

: Also this, KIPJE, does prove my point. Look, if the game against DB
: Jr. were so much different from the game against the complete DB, then
: all this training with Benjamin wouldn't have made much sense ...

You don't have a clue. Are you saying I can't develop search algorithms
and evaluations for Crafty using my 4 procssor pentium pro, but when I play
in an important event and use a multiprocessor alpha system, nothing will
work? That's interesting... because Cray Blitz was developed on a Vax 11/780,
yet won two world championships. Must have been my imagination... No, it must
be your complete ignorance...

As I have said, you are *way* out of your league here. *way* out...

:>According

:>to Hsu, most of these training (for DB) games were also not actual
:>games (40/2 tournament style); rather Benjamin would play until he got
:>behind, and then take back moves until he returned to a relatively
:>neutral position, and try different tacks in this manner until he
:>found a weakness, and could get the machine into a lost position. He
:>would then explain the weakness to Hsu, and the others, and they would
:>tweak the evaluation until it wouldn't play the poor line anymore. So
:>most of those games were, in the end, losses, and might have revealed
:>a lot more than a string of regular games.

: Hear, hear.

: But still Benjamin tried to fool us with the statement that he lost
: almost all the games ...

: See, what a money contract could make out of a decent chessplayer.

Note that he technically did lose... but rather than starting over, he
backed up and tried something else.. and lost again.. and backed up again.
This has been documented before, as Joel explained this at the match...

:>6. I asked him about whether DB had gone into "Panic mode" during move

:>35 of Game 2. He said that it apparently had, because it took so much
:>time to play the move, but that he didn't know what was causing it,
:>since he was not allowed to use the terminal during the match for
:>purposes of finding out what was causing it to take so long. He was
:>curious at the time, himself. I asked about Amir Ban's interpretation
:>of the printouts, and he stated that he did not think that Amir knew
:>how to read the outputs. He said that it was ridiculous to think that

: Ridiculous is only the way Hsu is thinking. Or presenting his foolish
: "explanations".

: I want to stress my former argument that the DB teamsters did cheat on
: Kasparov. Here you have another proof.

: K. asked for evidence. They *gave* him the evidence. And now they're
: laughing (laughinstock!!) that even Amir were unable to read that
: evidence. Sure. because the evidence IS NOT evidence at all.

: I repeat my doping picture.

I agree... "your picture is 'doping'" because you are a dope. DB played
the moves that were played. Simple. There is *no* proof to the contrary.
*no* evidence that even *suggests* otherwise. And other computer programs
have found those moves. So once again, you are in error... you *are* an
error...

: Would you as the public or as the medical expert accept that Michael

: [..]

: Bye, bye. Bob?

: ROTFL

Hmmm... You should talk to Intel, Cray Research, Phillips, Zenith,
Motorola, etc. They do *not* publish their new ideas. Where do you
live? In a complete vacuum? Or is this just ignorance caused by spouting
off about things you have no idea about? IE have you perused something like
the IEEE journals, or the ACM journals? Of course not... Otherwise you'd
know that not disclosing significant technology is quite the norm, *not*
the exception...

: But again, it was more a little show and not at all a scientific
: challenge. Period.

:>and when,
:>after he said he wouldn't know a good place to publish something like
:>that anyway, I suggested JICCA, he said that that would not be a good
:>place.

: ROTFL.

: Hsu, here in rgcc, that would be the right place for your tricks. :)

:>So I wouldn't hold my breath on receiving any startling
:>revelations from that corner. He is more interested in the hardware
:>side of the problem,

: Kip, excuse me, I must give you a correction. What do you mean with
: hardware? You mean real coins? I thought that it could also flow
: through simple credit cards ... ... ...

:>since that was his chosen field, at least this
:>was my impression.

: C-o-o-l. Har, de har har. (TM Beavis and Butthead.)

His dissertation was based on VLSI design. SO that's correct, hardware
is his primary interest. Had you read the original paper about "chiptest"
you'd understand. Or you can do as you have been doing, read *nothing*
and remain dumb as a rock...

--
Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170

[CWingfield]

Very interesting comments!

[Rolf Tueschen]

Bob, honestly I'm worried about you.
That's because you cause me real trouble.
Man, are you so blind to see that you are talking with a juvenile 23
y. old ingenious newbie of computerchess?

You are the grandfather of computerchess. So behave as a grandpa.

For you .. because I'm so much worried .. I discovered an old saying.
Read it in my weak re-translation:

--- To Robert Hyatt (USA) ---

The old shepherd:

I wished, there were no age between 10 and 23,

or the young one would sleep all the time,

since there's NOTHING in between,

as to fuck some whores to create children,

as to make angry the senile old people,

as to steal and tussle.

Bob, you must admit that I do much better, no? And you're not yet a
senile old man, no? And you're not an old shepherd, no?

Bob, in case your education didn't include the classics, ask me and I
will expalin all the details ...

====

Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:

>Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote:
>: This time you gave a wonderful report, Kipje.

[..]

>You don't believe Hsu for only one reason: you are ignorant.

Bob, think about the old shepherd and yourself. I'm a newbie of 23.
Don't forget that.

>Before
>you prattle on, why don't you make a few inquiries from those that were
>involved in the match, to find out *exactly* what the "rules" were.

Sorry Bob. Hsu and the team have the need to provide us with
evidential proof. We don't need to cling to their tails ...

And don't forget that some of us argue representing Garri Kasparov
here in RGCC. Because he doesn't have the time to be a member himself.
You know too good that also Amir the actual Wch of computerchess asked
the same questions. "Where's the complete output?"

>You don't have a clue, yet you make statements like the above.

Bob, fallacy number 122, you must not be a cook yourself to judge if
the soup contains too much salt.

And don't forget I'm still a newbie. But Amir, the actual Wch asked
the same questions.

And then this.

You are an acknowledged computerchess expert. But we have proven you a
complete Fach-Idiot outside the techniques of computerchess.

Here however, Bob, we have a question of general values as scientific
validity. And as long they don't give us the output, the whole event
is in danger to be judged as a mere magical mystery show ...

>Which
>only goes to make your ignorance obvious to all.

>A wise person doesn't talk without facts. A fool only talks without
>them. It's obvious which you belong to...

Funny because you seem to think that facts exist only in the little
field of technical computerchess. But my facts come out of the
science of science, logic and psychology. Three fields you are rather
unfamiliar in.

>: How could Hsu and Co. know anything *at all* about the output of the
>: multiple complex? Look, if it were true, and I have no insight to
>: oppose that "fact", that the output were only indirectly to decode
>: with the help of a little DB Jr. then how the hell could they be sure
>: to attain the wished goal at all? I mean while they were still
>: training and tweaking?

>Again, you ask questions about a subject that you know exactly *zero*
>about.

Bob, notice that you write here in public. Next year people will still
laugh about you.

Read again:

>Again, you ask questions about a subject that you know exactly *zero*
>about.

Bob, are you drinking again too much?
Aside, that you argue on false assumptions, did you say that one
shouldn't ask questions if one were innocent in a certain field? :)

>I've explained the problems of testing/debugging with parallel
>processing, along with the problem of "reproducible and non-reproducible
>results". But you don't listen. But you have to have your mouth closed
>before you can have your ears open... so I suppose that explains the
>problem here...

Yes, as far as your physiological knowledge is concerned you confused
my mouth with my fingers. Bob, think of this, I speak with my fingers.

But seriously. If you would explain for all the newbies how the
tweaking on a multiple paralled complex is going on?

Don't they use a hierarchy and the most important decisions are made
on a number one thing? And that is DB Jr. with all the chess related
knowledge? Bob, not so shy, here's the stage. Please teach me. I want
to learn. But stop boasting like a gorilla. We know that you are the
big one. You're number one, Bob. Definetely. On your little field.

>: I see here a big artificial fog machine. After all my experience from
>: natural sciences, it's more likely that Husu & Co must have had sort
>: of conversion table to be able to foresee what a tweak on DB Jr. would
>: cause in the final *complex* setting.

>: Without, a) they wouldn't be able to make use of Benjamin's advices in
>: the prep time before and b) the short time from the final delivery of
>: the hardware until matchbegin would never have been sufficient.

>nonesese... utter nonsense...

>: This leads us to the assumption that the importance of the single
>: processor DB Jr. as the prime chessplayer cannot be estimated high
>: enough. It *is* DB. However all the other hardware is a good help to
>: implantate for example all the openings, the endgames, and believe me,
>: the reason why Ken Thompson of all people sat there behind the
>: terminal to "survey" is for me the indication that all the multiple
>: hustle was about new, completely secret endgame extensions probably up
>: to certain n piece (referring to number of n-pawns plus the legendary
>: 5 piece tables of KT.)

>Once again, Rolf, your ignorance is totally without bound.

I repeat for all the hard of hearing in computerchess.

I'm a n-e-w-b-i-e. H---e----l----l----o!

>A single 5 piece
>ending with a pawn takes 1.0 gigabytes of memory. If you want a single
>6 piece ending file, you need *64* gigabytes. If you want a 7 piece ending
>database, you need 4 *terrabytes* of disk space. So get off that stupid
>topic of endgame databases. Do you even understand "terrabyte"? Did you
>see the picture of the IBM SP? *where* do you suppose all those disk drives
>were? since 23 gigs is a large disk, and since 4 terrabytes is 200 of those,
>and since they *obviously* would not just make one 7 piece file, where are
>those thousands of disk drives?

>Please think before you write nonsense...

Said the dumbest high school teacher I ever had ...

Bob, stop to run around in circles. Talk to the point.
How big the rooms should be for all the terrabytes??

Concrete data, not ad hominem defamations. +---(:===$=====

>: Of course they also might have used a parallel processor setting. As
>: Bob has told us more than once.

>They "could have"??? *where* have you been. They *certainly did*. And
>again, read before you write. DB "junior" is a parallel machine... One
>SP processor, but multiple DB chess processors...

You confuse me. Jr. is parallel. And DB is parallel-parallelo? Bob?
Please think of the many kids who read us here in RGCC.

>: But the image of such 7000 features, that Hsu had to tweak here and
>: there is a farce. And Hsu surely didn't mean chess related features. I
>: strongly doubt that Hsu knows more than 5 in chess, if at all ... :)

>When all else fails, "insult your opponent"?? First, the number was 8,000,
>not 7,000, but when dealing with someone of your IQ, I realize that you can
>only count 1, ... 2,... 3,... and "big". So maybe your faux pas is
>understandable...

Bob it was a typo. Know what I mean. "Faux pas", that's when a
professor talks about his wishes to gasoline people and bury them
alive in an ant-hill. Or smash them with baseball bats. Or kill them
by smooth DrDeath Kevorkian or directly by the local vet ...

Notice also that the number of the "numbers" between 1 and 2 is
already bigger than the number of the cells in your brain. Think of
that.

Stop being pretentious. It reminds me of the showers where little
school boys compare their noses ...

I know that I know nothing. And that's a real quantity. But you miss
the amount of your stupidity, believe me. :)

[..]

>: Let's make an experiment.

>: Look the next French Open (in tennis) on your color TV. I promisse
>: that you are in the Top 20 afterwards. I can tell this because I'm in
>: the meantime stronger than Pistol Pete. Simply because I can see all
>: the other top players while Pete has to waste too much time to
>: conserve his fitness. And then I can profit from the Women's event
>: too. So, I'm probably the real number one as far as psychology, "the
>: head", is important to make a real champ out of a mass of very good
>: players. And take this. I'm a champ in *many* other sports. Thanks to
>: my friend, the VCR.

>What are you talking about? Forget your prozac for the day? Because you
>are muttering incoherently...

Hehehehehehehehehe. C-o-o-l. Huhuhuhur.

>: [..]

>:> he would be a laughingstock. This,
>:>then, is why they would not release any games. I must admit that I
>:>found this to be the strangest argument he used in his presentation. I
>:>told him afterward that I felt that not to have any games at all to
>:>study put Kasparov at a distinct disadvantage, since the opening books
>:>designed for Deep Blue's rematch were based on Kasparov's games that
>:>they had available. He stated that there are many games available from
>:>Deep Thought's matches that he could study, and I asked if he
>:>seriously thought that studying the game DT lost to Fritz in '95 would
>:>really help Kasparov. He was quite adamant, and stated that Anand
>:>doesn't play the same way now that he did when he was younger, either.

>: I will not comment on this idiocy. But Frankenstein syndrome comes
>: into mind ...

>: That's the same lack of real class and understanding as I saw it in
>: Ingo Althoefer. Who did really believe that he as a <1900 Dreihirn
>: would be a real GM with the help of two micro displays. But neither
>: the micros nor he as <1900 knows how to play for the many thousand
>: patterns a real champ had on stand-by ... What he could do is simply
>: using the databases to survive certain pre-defined periods. Openings
>: and endings of some sorts.

>Of course, the many wins Ingo had over GM players were just "luck",
>correct? right... that's what I thought... Rolf says so, so it is
>so. I choose to add *NOT* to the end...

The many wins. How many exactly? Let's the big number. Was it 5 or 12?

And then "why did he win some games"?

I think I have given some reasons. First of all the safety Ingo had in
the openings and some endgames? And then the inexperience of the
opponents? And then the funny character of skittles ...?

You want some more?

Why do you argue against your own arguments? Of course some few games
can tell us a story. But some few games can't serve as a base for
deeper stats or magic Elo points. Period. Bob?

>: But, and that is the ignorance of Hsu & Co, the human champs have
>: *all* these data stand-by if needed. Their memory is like a computer
>: through their photo-like eidetics.

>: [To repeat a short analysis of the c y b o r g problem. It
>: was said also by Bob Hyatt that a cyborg could profit from the
>: machines with some 300+ Elopoints. I say nope. All what Althoefer has
>: proven in the many years of his interesting hobby is that human
>: players usually need more informations about the opponents to be able
>: to dominate in the end. The shorter a match is, the smarter (in
>: general, not chess related terms) the human part of the cyborg is (and
>: nobody would say that the maths prof is not *very* smart) and also the
>: bigger the tendency of gambling style of the GM in funny skittles
>: -----, the better are the chances of the cyborg to win some games. But
>: that is NOT proving any superior Elo manifestation. Elo is between
>: humans on the base of hundreds of games. But cyborg Ingo A. had played
>: maximum of some 20 GM games in his whole life. And for the opposing
>: GMs it was rather fun and NOT tournament play in a championship. That
>: must be taken into consideration for Kasparov Enterprises too.]

>However, Ingo was *successful* in what he did. Even 20 games gives a
>clue of how he/machines played together. It was *quite strong*...

Bob, you're right. I didn't oppose. In these first twenty or some he
was "strong". But for real GMs not strong enough concerning real
tournament chess. Didn't you explain the like for your 10 10 Crafty
experience just recently?

>:>I left it at this point, since I had futher questions, and didn't want
>:>to push the point since he obviously felt that their team was being
>:>quite fair. To be evenhanded, I must point out that there are
>:>apparently not very many games against the full DB, anyway, since most
>:>practice games were played by Joel Benjamin against DB, Jr.

>: Also this, KIPJE, does prove my point. Look, if the game against DB
>: Jr. were so much different from the game against the complete DB, then
>: all this training with Benjamin wouldn't have made much sense ...

>You don't have a clue. Are you saying I can't develop search algorithms
>and evaluations for Crafty using my 4 procssor pentium pro, but when I play
>in an important event and use a multiprocessor alpha system, nothing will
>work?

I never said that. Don't cheat on me. I'm quite sensitive.

But then explain please how you gain access / mastering the many other
components when you had trained your chess on the micro version?
Excuse me if I ask. I'm a newbie. No green card yet ...

>That's interesting... because Cray Blitz was developed on a Vax 11/780,
>yet won two world championships. Must have been my imagination... No, it must
>be your complete ignorance...

For all to know. It was Bob who won these championships on Cray. But
that's long ago. In case I forgot, I want to repeat my
congratulations, Bob. Please explain how you achieved such a
masterpiece of transferring your knowledge from the initial component
to the final monster?

A general question <newbie-mode!!!>. I read somewhere that all the
processors of DB were involved in chess calculations. What processor
decided the move. Or does the "best" value make it through for the
final output? please do explain without rotated bitboards and too much
techno.

>As I have said, you are *way* out of your league here. *way* out...

ROTFL.

The olf shepherd said:

The leagues we were once playing in,

are not the leagues for the 10 to 23 y. old bastards.

These young ones always make me angry. Duh. Duh.

>:>According
>:>to Hsu, most of these training (for DB) games were also not actual
>:>games (40/2 tournament style); rather Benjamin would play until he got
>:>behind, and then take back moves until he returned to a relatively
>:>neutral position, and try different tacks in this manner until he
>:>found a weakness, and could get the machine into a lost position. He
>:>would then explain the weakness to Hsu, and the others, and they would
>:>tweak the evaluation until it wouldn't play the poor line anymore. So
>:>most of those games were, in the end, losses, and might have revealed
>:>a lot more than a string of regular games.

>: Hear, hear.

>: But still Benjamin tried to fool us with the statement that he lost
>: almost all the games ...

>: See, what a money contract could make out of a decent chessplayer.

>Note that he technically did lose... but rather than starting over, he
>backed up and tried something else.. and lost again.. and backed up again.
>This has been documented before, as Joel explained this at the match...

In the stage bubbles? I must have missed it.

Where could I check that?

For me Benjamin is still a liar. He promissed the scores for directly
after the event. But Hsu made it all clear with his metapher of the
lovingstock. :))

<< Learn to read before you rite. >> <Hyatt shepherd mode>

>: I repeat my doping picture.

>I agree... "your picture is 'doping'" because you are a dope. DB played
>the moves that were played. Simple.

Prove!

I doubt it.

>There is *no* proof to the contrary.

But I still doubt it. And wíth me Kasparov, Ban.

>*no* evidence that even *suggests* otherwise. And other computer programs
>have found those moves. So once again, you are in error... you *are* an
>error...

Gasolining phantasies.

[..]

>: Folks. For all of you not being familiar with the obligations in the
>: sciento family, this is totally bullshit. If you had found something
>: new in your field, you had the damned obligation to publish the
>: settings/results. No damn time argument could save you from being
>: ripped in pieces if you didn't write something ...

>Hmmm... You should talk to Intel, Cray Research, Phillips, Zenith,
>Motorola, etc. They do *not* publish their new ideas. Where do you
>live? In a complete vacuum? Or is this just ignorance caused by spouting
>off about things you have no idea about? IE have you perused something like
>the IEEE journals, or the ACM journals? Of course not... Otherwise you'd
>know that not disclosing significant technology is quite the norm, *not*
>the exception...

With no fog in the world you will succeed to confuse us. They might
have their secrets.

But the output must be sober.

Look. Michael Johnson is not sober for me because the USA has a
ridiculous system of controls during training. All the world knows it.
So for me he's not a sober winner. And to hide he NEVER ran afterwards
in Europe. Because he feared the checks. Deep checks.

But only this.

We all saw him running. And I liked him as I liked Ben Johnson.
Basically it doesn't interest me at all. All the top athlets are
doped.

But think of this. He had not run in the Atlanta stadium but in Los
Angeles. And we could have seen only via TV and compared performance
times. And then they mixed the two pictures to prove hat he really won
the race.

Would you buy that? - Yes, moi non plus.

Where is the proof that the final decision in the second game was not
influenced by little helpers? Did you see the machine? Even Ken. Did
he see the machine? Who saw the machine? Or machines?

Your main argument that also -- even --- our micros had found the
moves doesn't hold the water. And you know that. Because the mere
existence on display of micros cannot prove that DB decided itself.

Kasparov tells another story from his chess understanding. But you
might know better. Don't shoot me. I'm the reporter.

[..]

>: Kip, excuse me, I must give you a correction. What do you mean with
>: hardware? You mean real coins? I thought that it could also flow
>: through simple credit cards ... ... ...

>:>since that was his chosen field, at least this
>:>was my impression.

>: C-o-o-l. Har, de har har. (TM Beavis and Butthead.)

>His dissertation was based on VLSI design. SO that's correct, hardware
>is his primary interest. Had you read the original paper about "chiptest"
>you'd understand. Or you can do as you have been doing, read *nothing*
>and remain dumb as a rock...

Of course. But as a newbie I had not the chance to read that. And I
doubt that I could understand it without further studies. But that's
not the point.

Without having read the papers I know that besides some secret
withholdings the "output" -- and surely in that event that was
partially a sports event too -- must be unambiguous. And it was not.

And to justify their fair (!!) play they explain now that the output
couldn't be read by no one. Also such experts like Amir.

To realize that something fishy is goin on it doesn't take a real
professor. As a newbie in techno computerchess I can smell it by far.

Thanks for your explanations and please answer my questions.

And as a final moral, Bob.

I'm not bothered for my own sake but I doubt that many more newbies
have the guts to write here some comments or questions if you show
your face and insult and defame the one who asked.

Let's follow decent rules beyond all wars here on usenet. Think about
it. Otherwise Ed Schroder had been right in his judgement that you put
terror on newbies. And I know for sure that it was NOT your intention.

Bob, not all kids in the world understand your somewhat violent
language from the American South as sort of macho puberal prentension
without too bad intentions. It's too difficult to keep in mind.

I know for sure that you could do better. I know you from 96. And then
you were like a typical academic without fecal and violent macho
impostordom.

[Robert Hyatt]

Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote:
: Bob, honestly I'm worried about you.

: That's because you cause me real trouble.
: Man, are you so blind to see that you are talking with a juvenile 23
: y. old ingenious newbie of computerchess?

You can quite writing that crap at any time. You are *not* 23 years
old. Your vital statistics were revealed here last year, including
where you live, where you work, etc. So knock it off... It was funny
for a while. It is not any longer..

: You are the grandfather of computerchess. So behave as a grandpa.

I do... It is a "grandpa's" responsibility to steer idiots to a better
way. I'm trying to steer one. *right now* in fact..

: For you .. because I'm so much worried .. I discovered an old saying.

: Read it in my weak re-translation:

: --- To Robert Hyatt (USA) ---

: The old shepherd:

: I wished, there were no age between 10 and 23,
:
: or the young one would sleep all the time,

: since there's NOTHING in between,

: as to fuck some whores to create children,

: as to make angry the senile old people,

: as to steal and tussle.

exactly the kind of language I'd expect from you and your "DooDoo"
friend.

: Bob, you must admit that I do much better, no? And you're not yet a

: senile old man, no? And you're not an old shepherd, no?

: Bob, in case your education didn't include the classics, ask me and I
: will expalin all the details ...

: ====

My education included plenty of classics, thank you. Including a year
of American lit and a year of British lit...

: Bob, think about the old shepherd and yourself. I'm a newbie of 23.
: Don't forget that.

you are a newbie, but not "23".. that's "baloney"..

:>Before

:>you prattle on, why don't you make a few inquiries from those that were
:>involved in the match, to find out *exactly* what the "rules" were.

: Sorry Bob. Hsu and the team have the need to provide us with
: evidential proof. We don't need to cling to their tails ...

Of course not. No need to get *facts*. Just "guess" how things
worked and then make your stupid assumptions based on those incorrect
guesses, and then throw in an imagination that needs medication, and
what do you get? Rolfs rantings.

Garry insisted that the machine be "isolated" during the match, and
that no one have access except the operator sitting at the table with
him. That's the way it was. That's why Hsu couldn't "see what was going
on". Hsu wasn't operating at that point in time, as is well known to
those that care to look...

: And don't forget that some of us argue representing Garri Kasparov

: here in RGCC. Because he doesn't have the time to be a member himself.
: You know too good that also Amir the actual Wch of computerchess asked
: the same questions. "Where's the complete output?"

And folks have asked Amir to explain things about the insides of what he
does with Junior as well. And he doesn't.. so your point would be?

:>You don't have a clue, yet you make statements like the above.

: Bob, fallacy number 122, you must not be a cook yourself to judge if
: the soup contains too much salt.

: And don't forget I'm still a newbie. But Amir, the actual Wch asked
: the same questions.

Perhaps he has other axes to grind. I can think of one that most everybody
seems to have, "envy"... I'd love to be as fast as DB too. I'm not. I won't
be for many years. So what???

: And then this.

: You are an acknowledged computerchess expert. But we have proven you a
: complete Fach-Idiot outside the techniques of computerchess.

You have proven *nothing* other than that you are a closet Nazi-admirer,
who loves to rattle on and on with no information of any kind, other than
that manufactured by yourself.

: Here however, Bob, we have a question of general values as scientific

: validity. And as long they don't give us the output, the whole event
: is in danger to be judged as a mere magical mystery show ...

Only by those that "don't count." IE there are still folks that claim
the US never landed on the moon.. that all that stuff was filmed in the
Arizona desert. You'd fit right in with that crowd, no doubt...

:>Which

:>only goes to make your ignorance obvious to all.

:>A wise person doesn't talk without facts. A fool only talks without
:>them. It's obvious which you belong to...

: Funny because you seem to think that facts exist only in the little
: field of technical computerchess. But my facts come out of the
: science of science, logic and psychology. Three fields you are rather
: unfamiliar in.

I am quite familiar with science and logic. If you know as much about
those as you do about psychology, you are dangerous in your chosen
practice.

:>: How could Hsu and Co. know anything *at all* about the output of the

:>: multiple complex? Look, if it were true, and I have no insight to
:>: oppose that "fact", that the output were only indirectly to decode
:>: with the help of a little DB Jr. then how the hell could they be sure
:>: to attain the wished goal at all? I mean while they were still
:>: training and tweaking?

:>Again, you ask questions about a subject that you know exactly *zero*
:>about.

: Bob, notice that you write here in public. Next year people will still
: laugh about you.

I doubt it very seriously.

: Read again:

:>Again, you ask questions about a subject that you know exactly *zero*
:>about.

: Bob, are you drinking again too much?
: Aside, that you argue on false assumptions, did you say that one
: shouldn't ask questions if one were innocent in a certain field? :)

You don't *make wild accusations" when you have no idea what you are
talking about, no.

:>I've explained the problems of testing/debugging with parallel

:>processing, along with the problem of "reproducible and non-reproducible
:>results". But you don't listen. But you have to have your mouth closed
:>before you can have your ears open... so I suppose that explains the
:>problem here...

: Yes, as far as your physiological knowledge is concerned you confused
: my mouth with my fingers. Bob, think of this, I speak with my fingers.

You should, on occastion, try speaking with your brain. That might help
a lot. "fingers" aren't capable of much intelligent thought by themselves,
as you repeatedly prove...

: But seriously. If you would explain for all the newbies how the

: tweaking on a multiple paralled complex is going on?

: Don't they use a hierarchy and the most important decisions are made
: on a number one thing? And that is DB Jr. with all the chess related
: knowledge? Bob, not so shy, here's the stage. Please teach me. I want
: to learn. But stop boasting like a gorilla. We know that you are the
: big one. You're number one, Bob. Definetely. On your little field.

Nope. all the processors search the tree together. nothing more, nothing
less. Many search it faster than one. But that is the only difference there
is. More processors = more speed. Same evaluation, same everything...
so your "explanation" leaves a little to be desired...

:>: I see here a big artificial fog machine. After all my experience from

:>: natural sciences, it's more likely that Husu & Co must have had sort
:>: of conversion table to be able to foresee what a tweak on DB Jr. would
:>: cause in the final *complex* setting.

:>: Without, a) they wouldn't be able to make use of Benjamin's advices in
:>: the prep time before and b) the short time from the final delivery of
:>: the hardware until matchbegin would never have been sufficient.

:>nonesese... utter nonsense...

:>: This leads us to the assumption that the importance of the single
:>: processor DB Jr. as the prime chessplayer cannot be estimated high
:>: enough. It *is* DB. However all the other hardware is a good help to
:>: implantate for example all the openings, the endgames, and believe me,
:>: the reason why Ken Thompson of all people sat there behind the
:>: terminal to "survey" is for me the indication that all the multiple
:>: hustle was about new, completely secret endgame extensions probably up
:>: to certain n piece (referring to number of n-pawns plus the legendary
:>: 5 piece tables of KT.)

:>Once again, Rolf, your ignorance is totally without bound.

: I repeat for all the hard of hearing in computerchess.

: I'm a n-e-w-b-i-e. H---e----l----l----o!

Then, as a "newbie", shut up, listen, and learn. Rather than spouting
theories that have nothing to do with reality...

:>A single 5 piece

:>ending with a pawn takes 1.0 gigabytes of memory. If you want a single
:>6 piece ending file, you need *64* gigabytes. If you want a 7 piece ending
:>database, you need 4 *terrabytes* of disk space. So get off that stupid
:>topic of endgame databases. Do you even understand "terrabyte"? Did you
:>see the picture of the IBM SP? *where* do you suppose all those disk drives
:>were? since 23 gigs is a large disk, and since 4 terrabytes is 200 of those,
:>and since they *obviously* would not just make one 7 piece file, where are
:>those thousands of disk drives?

:>Please think before you write nonsense...

: Said the dumbest high school teacher I ever had ...

: Bob, stop to run around in circles. Talk to the point.
: How big the rooms should be for all the terrabytes??

*big*...

: Concrete data, not ad hominem defamations. +---(:===$=====

I just gave you data. The SP was one large 6 foot tall rack. Absolutely
no way to put a single terrabyte in that machine, much less the hundreds of
terrabytes you postulate for 6-7 piece files... again, utter nonsense on
todays technology.

:>: Of course they also might have used a parallel processor setting. As

:>: Bob has told us more than once.

:>They "could have"??? *where* have you been. They *certainly did*. And
:>again, read before you write. DB "junior" is a parallel machine... One
:>SP processor, but multiple DB chess processors...

: You confuse me. Jr. is parallel. And DB is parallel-parallelo? Bob?
: Please think of the many kids who read us here in RGCC.

"see tom run" would confuse you. and this is not the place to explain
parallel search theory, it's complex, and you are not qualified to understand
it, so it would be nothing more than a wasted effort. The folks that want to
know, know how to get a copy of Hsu's PhD dissertation, my PhD dissertation,
and articles on parallel search written in the JICCA.

:>: But the image of such 7000 features, that Hsu had to tweak here and

:>: there is a farce. And Hsu surely didn't mean chess related features. I
:>: strongly doubt that Hsu knows more than 5 in chess, if at all ... :)

:>When all else fails, "insult your opponent"?? First, the number was 8,000,
:>not 7,000, but when dealing with someone of your IQ, I realize that you can
:>only count 1, ... 2,... 3,... and "big". So maybe your faux pas is
:>understandable...

: Bob it was a typo. Know what I mean. "Faux pas", that's when a
: professor talks about his wishes to gasoline people and bury them
: alive in an ant-hill. Or smash them with baseball bats. Or kill them
: by smooth DrDeath Kevorkian or directly by the local vet ...

Nope... "faux pas" does *not* mean anything to me... I didn't make a
single one in my posts about the death penalty...

: Notice also that the number of the "numbers" between 1 and 2 is

: already bigger than the number of the cells in your brain. Think of
: that.

And that they are bigger than the square of your IQ... and perhaps larger
than the number of actual parents you have?

: Stop being pretentious. It reminds me of the showers where little

: [..]

: Hehehehehehehehehe. C-o-o-l. Huhuhuhur.

:>: [..]

What "safety"? Again, hit the prozac and return..

: You want some more?

: Why do you argue against your own arguments? Of course some few games
: can tell us a story. But some few games can't serve as a base for
: deeper stats or magic Elo points. Period. Bob?

I don't know what you mean. a match with 5 wins and 5 losses would not
tell you very much. It would tell me a *lot*. That both players are
pretty close to each other, with a fair degree of confidence. And if I
knew one was a GM, I'd conclude the other must be too...

:>: But, and that is the ignorance of Hsu & Co, the human champs have

:>: *all* these data stand-by if needed. Their memory is like a computer
:>: through their photo-like eidetics.

:>: [To repeat a short analysis of the c y b o r g problem. It
:>: was said also by Bob Hyatt that a cyborg could profit from the
:>: machines with some 300+ Elopoints. I say nope. All what Althoefer has
:>: proven in the many years of his interesting hobby is that human
:>: players usually need more informations about the opponents to be able
:>: to dominate in the end. The shorter a match is, the smarter (in
:>: general, not chess related terms) the human part of the cyborg is (and
:>: nobody would say that the maths prof is not *very* smart) and also the
:>: bigger the tendency of gambling style of the GM in funny skittles
:>: -----, the better are the chances of the cyborg to win some games. But
:>: that is NOT proving any superior Elo manifestation. Elo is between
:>: humans on the base of hundreds of games. But cyborg Ingo A. had played
:>: maximum of some 20 GM games in his whole life. And for the opposing
:>: GMs it was rather fun and NOT tournament play in a championship. That
:>: must be taken into consideration for Kasparov Enterprises too.]

:>However, Ingo was *successful* in what he did. Even 20 games gives a
:>clue of how he/machines played together. It was *quite strong*...

: Bob, you're right. I didn't oppose. In these first twenty or some he
: was "strong". But for real GMs not strong enough concerning real
: tournament chess. Didn't you explain the like for your 10 10 Crafty
: experience just recently?

Except ingo played some *much* longer games than 10 10...

:>:>I left it at this point, since I had futher questions, and didn't want

:>:>to push the point since he obviously felt that their team was being
:>:>quite fair. To be evenhanded, I must point out that there are
:>:>apparently not very many games against the full DB, anyway, since most
:>:>practice games were played by Joel Benjamin against DB, Jr.

:>: Also this, KIPJE, does prove my point. Look, if the game against DB
:>: Jr. were so much different from the game against the complete DB, then
:>: all this training with Benjamin wouldn't have made much sense ...

:>You don't have a clue. Are you saying I can't develop search algorithms
:>and evaluations for Crafty using my 4 procssor pentium pro, but when I play
:>in an important event and use a multiprocessor alpha system, nothing will
:>work?

: I never said that. Don't cheat on me. I'm quite sensitive.

You did say exactly that, "that practice games played against DB Junior
didn't make much sense." That is nonsense...

: But then explain please how you gain access / mastering the many other

: components when you had trained your chess on the micro version?
: Excuse me if I ask. I'm a newbie. No green card yet ...

Because the programs are *identical*. Just that DB is far faster than
DB Junior. But no different otherwise. Anyone that knows what goes on
would know that from past discussions here...

:>That's interesting... because Cray Blitz was developed on a Vax 11/780,

:>yet won two world championships. Must have been my imagination... No, it must
:>be your complete ignorance...

: For all to know. It was Bob who won these championships on Cray. But
: that's long ago. In case I forgot, I want to repeat my
: congratulations, Bob. Please explain how you achieved such a
: masterpiece of transferring your knowledge from the initial component
: to the final monster?

Because both were the *same* except for speed.

: A general question <newbie-mode!!!>. I read somewhere that all the

: processors of DB were involved in chess calculations. What processor
: decided the move. Or does the "best" value make it through for the
: final output? please do explain without rotated bitboards and too much
: techno.

All work together, doing a traditional alpha/beta minimax search. The
scores get backed up just like they do in the current parallel crafty that
many are running. Source is available. You can see for yourself how it
works just as well on one processor as it does on 4, just that 4 gets the
reslts far faster..

:>As I have said, you are *way* out of your league here. *way* out...

: ROTFL.

: The olf shepherd said:

:>: Hear, hear.

: Prove!

: I doubt it.

Prove they didn't. "innocent until proven guilty" works in the US quite
well. I'll stick with it..

:>There is *no* proof to the contrary.

: But I still doubt it. And wíth me Kasparov, Ban.

Doubt what you want. Doubt the US landed astronauts on the moon. You
can believe what you want, and it would be nearly impossible to prove such
to someone that doesn't want to believe.

:>*no* evidence that even *suggests* otherwise. And other computer programs

:>have found those moves. So once again, you are in error... you *are* an
:>error...

: Gasolining phantasies.

: [..]

No. Baseball bat fantasies...

:>: Folks. For all of you not being familiar with the obligations in the

: But only this.

I'd depend on the folks with the smarts to tell me...

: Where is the proof that the final decision in the second game was not

: influenced by little helpers? Did you see the machine? Even Ken. Did
: he see the machine? Who saw the machine? Or machines?

: Your main argument that also -- even --- our micros had found the
: moves doesn't hold the water. And you know that. Because the mere
: existence on display of micros cannot prove that DB decided itself.

Nope... but it certainly proves that it *could* have, if a micro could
have...

: Kasparov tells another story from his chess understanding. But you

: might know better. Don't shoot me. I'm the reporter.

Kasparov is a jerk...

: [..]

:>: Kip, excuse me, I must give you a correction. What do you mean with
:>: hardware? You mean real coins? I thought that it could also flow
:>: through simple credit cards ... ... ...

:>:>since that was his chosen field, at least this
:>:>was my impression.

:>: C-o-o-l. Har, de har har. (TM Beavis and Butthead.)

:>His dissertation was based on VLSI design. SO that's correct, hardware
:>is his primary interest. Had you read the original paper about "chiptest"
:>you'd understand. Or you can do as you have been doing, read *nothing*
:>and remain dumb as a rock...

: Of course. But as a newbie I had not the chance to read that. And I
: doubt that I could understand it without further studies. But that's
: not the point.

Of course it is the point... would be *nice* if you would hold off popping
off on something until you had some letigimate data? vis a vis your "hard
eeharr" above. Hsu *is* a hardware person... Everyone that knows the group
knows that... everyone that's been to an ACM event knows that...

: Without having read the papers I know that besides some secret

: withholdings the "output" -- and surely in that event that was
: partially a sports event too -- must be unambiguous. And it was not.

: And to justify their fair (!!) play they explain now that the output
: couldn't be read by no one. Also such experts like Amir.

: To realize that something fishy is goin on it doesn't take a real
: professor. As a newbie in techno computerchess I can smell it by far.

You should try the shower. The "smell" is *not* coming from without.. it
is coming from *within*...

: Thanks for your explanations and please answer my questions.

: And as a final moral, Bob.

: I'm not bothered for my own sake but I doubt that many more newbies
: have the guts to write here some comments or questions if you show
: your face and insult and defame the one who asked.

I haven't seen a "newbie" that would make such stupid remarks and
offer then as "facts"... and "proofs"... fortunately...

: Let's follow decent rules beyond all wars here on usenet. Think about

: it. Otherwise Ed Schroder had been right in his judgement that you put
: terror on newbies. And I know for sure that it was NOT your intention.

: Bob, not all kids in the world understand your somewhat violent
: language from the American South as sort of macho puberal prentension
: without too bad intentions. It's too difficult to keep in mind.

: I know for sure that you could do better. I know you from 96. And then
: you were like a typical academic without fecal and violent macho
: impostordom.

If you shut up... I shut up... *not before*...

[Rolf Tueschen]

Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:

>: The old shepherd:

>: ====

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.

>: Bob, think about the old shepherd and yourself. I'm a newbie of 23.
>: Don't forget that.

>you are a newbie, but not "23".. that's "baloney"..

>:>Before
>:>you prattle on, why don't you make a few inquiries from those that were
>:>involved in the match, to find out *exactly* what the "rules" were.

>: Sorry Bob. Hsu and the team have the need to provide us with
>: evidential proof. We don't need to cling to their tails ...

>Of course not. No need to get *facts*.

Again, you don't understand. *We* want the facts. And Hsu &Co. must
supply us with. We can't invent or construct our own facts.

Please first try to think and then post here.

>Just "guess" how things
>worked and then make your stupid assumptions based on those incorrect
>guesses, and then throw in an imagination that needs medication, and
>what do you get? Rolfs rantings.

Again, you don't understand or you defame deliberately again.

As a Fascist Censoring Fach-Idiot, what should you do else?

I asked for the facts. But you try to defame me as if I had propagated
my own facts and wanted to correct the facts Hsu had given.

Fact is simply that Hsu had NOT given facts. Period.

>Garry insisted that the machine be "isolated" during the match, and
>that no one have access except the operator sitting at the table with
>him. That's the way it was. That's why Hsu couldn't "see what was going
>on". Hsu wasn't operating at that point in time, as is well known to
>those that care to look...

Are you saying that the operator *saw* something but above that there
are no recorded facts / output????

You want to imply that Garry had made such a grotesque rule for the
show?

>: And don't forget that some of us argue representing Garri Kasparov
>: here in RGCC. Because he doesn't have the time to be a member himself.
>: You know too good that also Amir the actual Wch of computerchess asked
>: the same questions. "Where's the complete output?"

>And folks have asked Amir to explain things about the insides of what he
>does with Junior as well. And he doesn't.. so your point would be?

I'm sure that Amir has his own points, but as he's staying mute
unfortunately I'll replace the guy. :)

Easy.

Nobody doubted that Amir's program played the moves it played in
Paris. The opponents sat there in front of each other. One cord to the
AC/DC and that was it.

But DB had a suite of *big*, *very* big rooms, as you explained here.

My question.

Who saw the machine and its single AC/DC connection???

What about the GMs nearby who had another terminal?

>:>You don't have a clue, yet you make statements like the above.

Stop you lies. I asked questions. But I agree, each question I put is
accompanied by deeper thought processes ...

>: Bob, fallacy number 122, you must not be a cook yourself to judge if
>: the soup contains too much salt.

>: And don't forget I'm still a newbie. But Amir, the actual Wch asked
>: the same questions.

>Perhaps he has other axes to grind. I can think of one that most everybody
>seems to have, "envy"... I'd love to be as fast as DB too. I'm not. I won't
>be for many years. So what???

What? You bought that book "Kitchen-Psychology for Beginners"?

>: And then this.

>: You are an acknowledged computerchess expert. But we have proven you a
>: complete Fach-Idiot outside the techniques of computerchess.

>You have proven *nothing* other than that you are a closet Nazi-admirer,
>who loves to rattle on and on with no information of any kind, other than
>that manufactured by yourself.

I already told you. For the gasolining, DrDeath Kevorkian, baseball
bat phantasies, and then this unbelievable slander you will be sory
very soon.

>: Here however, Bob, we have a question of general values as scientific
>: validity. And as long they don't give us the output, the whole event
>: is in danger to be judged as a mere magical mystery show ...

>Only by those that "don't count." IE there are still folks that claim
>the US never landed on the moon.. that all that stuff was filmed in the
>Arizona desert. You'd fit right in with that crowd, no doubt...

>:>Which
>:>only goes to make your ignorance obvious to all.

>:>A wise person doesn't talk without facts. A fool only talks without
>:>them. It's obvious which you belong to...

>: Funny because you seem to think that facts exist only in the little
>: field of technical computerchess. But my facts come out of the
>: science of science, logic and psychology. Three fields you are rather
>: unfamiliar in.

>I am quite familiar with science and logic. If you know as much about
>those as you do about psychology, you are dangerous in your chosen
>practice.

Read your famous lexicon ... And you will pay your price very soon.

>:>: How could Hsu and Co. know anything *at all* about the output of the
>:>: multiple complex? Look, if it were true, and I have no insight to
>:>: oppose that "fact", that the output were only indirectly to decode
>:>: with the help of a little DB Jr. then how the hell could they be sure
>:>: to attain the wished goal at all? I mean while they were still
>:>: training and tweaking?

>:>Again, you ask questions about a subject that you know exactly *zero*
>:>about.

>: Bob, notice that you write here in public. Next year people will still
>: laugh about you.

>I doubt it very seriously.

Read your lexicon. Laughing was only partly the correct notion.

>: Read again:

>:>Again, you ask questions about a subject that you know exactly *zero*
>:>about.

>: Bob, are you drinking again too much?
>: Aside, that you argue on false assumptions, did you say that one
>: shouldn't ask questions if one were innocent in a certain field? :)

>You don't *make wild accusations" when you have no idea what you are
>talking about, no.

Notice, that I don't have to be a cook myself to detect that the soup
contains too much salt ...

>:>I've explained the problems of testing/debugging with parallel
>:>processing, along with the problem of "reproducible and non-reproducible
>:>results". But you don't listen. But you have to have your mouth closed
>:>before you can have your ears open... so I suppose that explains the
>:>problem here...

>: Yes, as far as your physiological knowledge is concerned you confused
>: my mouth with my fingers. Bob, think of this, I speak with my fingers.

>You should, on occastion, try speaking with your brain. That might help
>a lot. "fingers" aren't capable of much intelligent thought by themselves,
>as you repeatedly prove...

Stupid. You really must feel the pain.

I already asked why it was so wet around you and those wet spots in
your trousers ...

I told you that your stories couldn't hold the water ...

Bob, I know that it's a terrible thing to lose those drops of water.
Try to write with your fingers like all smart people do.

>: But seriously. If you would explain for all the newbies how the
>: tweaking on a multiple paralled complex is going on?

>: Don't they use a hierarchy and the most important decisions are made
>: on a number one thing? And that is DB Jr. with all the chess related
>: knowledge? Bob, not so shy, here's the stage. Please teach me. I want
>: to learn. But stop boasting like a gorilla. We know that you are the
>: big one. You're number one, Bob. Definetely. On your little field.

>Nope. all the processors search the tree together. nothing more, nothing
>less. Many search it faster than one. But that is the only difference there
>is. More processors = more speed. Same evaluation, same everything...
>so your "explanation" leaves a little to be desired...

You can tell this your babies in Alabama. Your statement proves your
ignorance as far as chess is concerned. "Only speed effects."

The Magical Fog Machine again.

That's bean-counting. Here for purposes to cheat the rest of the
world. Period.

>:>: I see here a big artificial fog machine. After all my experience from
>:>: natural sciences, it's more likely that Husu & Co must have had sort
>:>: of conversion table to be able to foresee what a tweak on DB Jr. would
>:>: cause in the final *complex* setting.

>:>: Without, a) they wouldn't be able to make use of Benjamin's advices in
>:>: the prep time before and b) the short time from the final delivery of
>:>: the hardware until matchbegin would never have been sufficient.

>:>nonesese... utter nonsense...

>:>: This leads us to the assumption that the importance of the single
>:>: processor DB Jr. as the prime chessplayer cannot be estimated high
>:>: enough. It *is* DB. However all the other hardware is a good help to
>:>: implantate for example all the openings, the endgames, and believe me,
>:>: the reason why Ken Thompson of all people sat there behind the
>:>: terminal to "survey" is for me the indication that all the multiple
>:>: hustle was about new, completely secret endgame extensions probably up
>:>: to certain n piece (referring to number of n-pawns plus the legendary
>:>: 5 piece tables of KT.)

>:>Once again, Rolf, your ignorance is totally without bound.

>: I repeat for all the hard of hearing in computerchess.

>: I'm a n-e-w-b-i-e. H---e----l----l----o!

>Then, as a "newbie", shut up, listen, and learn. Rather than spouting
>theories that have nothing to do with reality...

Stupid. I feel great compassion for you.

A newbie should shut up ... I see. Fach-Idiot!

>:>A single 5 piece
>:>ending with a pawn takes 1.0 gigabytes of memory. If you want a single
>:>6 piece ending file, you need *64* gigabytes. If you want a 7 piece ending
>:>database, you need 4 *terrabytes* of disk space. So get off that stupid
>:>topic of endgame databases. Do you even understand "terrabyte"? Did you
>:>see the picture of the IBM SP? *where* do you suppose all those disk drives
>:>were? since 23 gigs is a large disk, and since 4 terrabytes is 200 of those,
>:>and since they *obviously* would not just make one 7 piece file, where are
>:>those thousands of disk drives?

>:>Please think before you write nonsense...

>: Said the dumbest high school teacher I ever had ...

>: Bob, stop to run around in circles. Talk to the point.
>: How big the rooms should be for all the terrabytes??

>*big*...

How *big*?

How many cleaning women?

>: Concrete data, not ad hominem defamations. +---(:===$=====

>I just gave you data. The SP was one large 6 foot tall rack. Absolutely
>no way to put a single terrabyte in that machine, much less the hundreds of
>terrabytes you postulate for 6-7 piece files... again, utter nonsense on
>todays technology.

Excuse me. You want to pretend that cable connections are very rare in
the region?? You use drums?

>:>: Of course they also might have used a parallel processor setting. As
>:>: Bob has told us more than once.

>:>They "could have"??? *where* have you been. They *certainly did*. And
>:>again, read before you write. DB "junior" is a parallel machine... One
>:>SP processor, but multiple DB chess processors...

>: You confuse me. Jr. is parallel. And DB is parallel-parallelo? Bob?
>: Please think of the many kids who read us here in RGCC.

>"see tom run" would confuse you. and this is not the place to explain
>parallel search theory, it's complex, and you are not qualified to understand
>it, so it would be nothing more than a wasted effort. The folks that want to
>know, know how to get a copy of Hsu's PhD dissertation, my PhD dissertation,
>and articles on parallel search written in the JICCA.

Wait, until I'm 30, I will be a computer chess expert myself.

>:>: But the image of such 7000 features, that Hsu had to tweak here and
>:>: there is a farce. And Hsu surely didn't mean chess related features. I
>:>: strongly doubt that Hsu knows more than 5 in chess, if at all ... :)

>:>When all else fails, "insult your opponent"?? First, the number was 8,000,
>:>not 7,000, but when dealing with someone of your IQ, I realize that you can
>:>only count 1, ... 2,... 3,... and "big". So maybe your faux pas is
>:>understandable...

>: Bob it was a typo. Know what I mean. "Faux pas", that's when a
>: professor talks about his wishes to gasoline people and bury them
>: alive in an ant-hill. Or smash them with baseball bats. Or kill them
>: by smooth DrDeath Kevorkian or directly by the local vet ...

>Nope... "faux pas" does *not* mean anything to me... I didn't make a
>single one in my posts about the death penalty...

Again. Read your own lexicon ...

>: [..]

>: Hehehehehehehehehe. C-o-o-l. Huhuhuhur.

>:>: [..]

The Fach-Idiot again ...

Safety to survive the openings concerning his weaknesses.

But you as below 1500 must have no weaknesses. Because you don't know
about what we're talking.

>: You want some more?

>: Why do you argue against your own arguments? Of course some few games
>: can tell us a story. But some few games can't serve as a base for
>: deeper stats or magic Elo points. Period. Bob?

>I don't know what you mean. a match with 5 wins and 5 losses would not
>tell you very much. It would tell me a *lot*. That both players are
>pretty close to each other, with a fair degree of confidence. And if I
>knew one was a GM, I'd conclude the other must be too...

Fach-Idiot again.

Able to keep an eye on more than two parameters?

Fach-Idiot in logic again.

You explained that the 10 10 was an advantage for your baby, right?
And a disadvantage for the GMs, right?

Now, with longer times can't you see the contradiction in your claims?

Your machines become less strong against GMs, right?

So, keep the fun aspect in mind. But don't talk, because you'll be
losing too much water again ...

>:>:>I left it at this point, since I had futher questions, and didn't want
>:>:>to push the point since he obviously felt that their team was being
>:>:>quite fair. To be evenhanded, I must point out that there are
>:>:>apparently not very many games against the full DB, anyway, since most
>:>:>practice games were played by Joel Benjamin against DB, Jr.

>:>: Also this, KIPJE, does prove my point. Look, if the game against DB
>:>: Jr. were so much different from the game against the complete DB, then
>:>: all this training with Benjamin wouldn't have made much sense ...

>:>You don't have a clue. Are you saying I can't develop search algorithms
>:>and evaluations for Crafty using my 4 procssor pentium pro, but when I play
>:>in an important event and use a multiprocessor alpha system, nothing will
>:>work?

>: I never said that. Don't cheat on me. I'm quite sensitive.

>You did say exactly that, "that practice games played against DB Junior
>didn't make much sense." That is nonsense...

But I didn't say that, stupid Fach-Idiot. I did not say that.

Tell you what.

I was told that I should not drink water after bitter apples ...

Did they tell me that I shouldn't drink water ...??

That's the style of the cheating gasoliner ...

>: But then explain please how you gain access / mastering the many other
>: components when you had trained your chess on the micro version?
>: Excuse me if I ask. I'm a newbie. No green card yet ...

>Because the programs are *identical*. Just that DB is far faster than
>DB Junior. But no different otherwise. Anyone that knows what goes on
>would know that from past discussions here...

I told you already. I don't believe a single word. That's for sure,
bean-counter!

>:>That's interesting... because Cray Blitz was developed on a Vax 11/780,
>:>yet won two world championships. Must have been my imagination... No, it must
>:>be your complete ignorance...

>: For all to know. It was Bob who won these championships on Cray. But
>: that's long ago. In case I forgot, I want to repeat my
>: congratulations, Bob. Please explain how you achieved such a
>: masterpiece of transferring your knowledge from the initial component
>: to the final monster?

>Because both were the *same* except for speed.

Try harder ...

>: A general question <newbie-mode!!!>. I read somewhere that all the
>: processors of DB were involved in chess calculations. What processor
>: decided the move. Or does the "best" value make it through for the
>: final output? please do explain without rotated bitboards and too much
>: techno.

>All work together, doing a traditional alpha/beta minimax search. The
>scores get backed up just like they do in the current parallel crafty that
>many are running. Source is available. You can see for yourself how it
>works just as well on one processor as it does on 4, just that 4 gets the
>reslts far faster..

The *same* results but *faster*? ROTFL.

What about the spare time??

>: ROTFL.

>: The olf shepherd said:

>:>: Hear, hear.

>: Prove!

>: I doubt it.

Read Kasparov. He "saw" those GMs nearby ...

>:>There is *no* proof to the contrary.

>: But I still doubt it. And wíth me Kasparov, Ban.

>Doubt what you want. Doubt the US landed astronauts on the moon. You
>can believe what you want, and it would be nearly impossible to prove such
>to someone that doesn't want to believe.

Of course you can argue like this.

But in the world of science you will be seen as a -----
please I try to find access to the teminology of *your* society -----
son of the bitch (NB not *my* language, I was told by Hyatt that this
is a totally normal expression in Alabama Universities) from now on!

>:>*no* evidence that even *suggests* otherwise. And other computer programs
>:>have found those moves. So once again, you are in error... you *are* an
>:>error...

>: Gasolining phantasies.

>: [..]

>No. Baseball bat fantasies...

Ok, we add it to your lexicon ...

>: But only this.

Smarts --- that's a liquid??

>: Where is the proof that the final decision in the second game was not
>: influenced by little helpers? Did you see the machine? Even Ken. Did
>: he see the machine? Who saw the machine? Or machines?

>: Your main argument that also -- even --- our micros had found the
>: moves doesn't hold the water. And you know that. Because the mere
>: existence on display of micros cannot prove that DB decided itself.

>Nope... but it certainly proves that it *could* have, if a micro could
>have...

Probably the only half witty comment in your post ...

>: Kasparov tells another story from his chess understanding. But you
>: might know better. Don't shoot me. I'm the reporter.

>Kasparov is a jerk...

Ok, added to your lexicon ...

>: [..]

>:>: Kip, excuse me, I must give you a correction. What do you mean with
>:>: hardware? You mean real coins? I thought that it could also flow
>:>: through simple credit cards ... ... ...

>:>:>since that was his chosen field, at least this
>:>:>was my impression.

>:>: C-o-o-l. Har, de har har. (TM Beavis and Butthead.)

>:>His dissertation was based on VLSI design. SO that's correct, hardware
>:>is his primary interest. Had you read the original paper about "chiptest"
>:>you'd understand. Or you can do as you have been doing, read *nothing*
>:>and remain dumb as a rock...

>: Of course. But as a newbie I had not the chance to read that. And I
>: doubt that I could understand it without further studies. But that's
>: not the point.

>Of course it is the point... would be *nice* if you would hold off popping
>off on something until you had some letigimate data? vis a vis your "hard
>eeharr" above. Hsu *is* a hardware person... Everyone that knows the group
>knows that... everyone that's been to an ACM event knows that...

NB this. The teamsters as a whole are responsible for the cheat. Now
Hsu the hardman travels to get some bucks, but we tend to observe the
scenerey for a while longer ...

>: Without having read the papers I know that besides some secret
>: withholdings the "output" -- and surely in that event that was
>: partially a sports event too -- must be unambiguous. And it was not.

>: And to justify their fair (!!) play they explain now that the output
>: couldn't be read by no one. Also such experts like Amir.

>: To realize that something fishy is goin on it doesn't take a real
>: professor. As a newbie in techno computerchess I can smell it by far.

>You should try the shower. The "smell" is *not* coming from without.. it
>is coming from *within*...

Fach-Idiot, do you really think that metaphers have a realistic smell?
Tell us more.

>: Thanks for your explanations and please answer my questions.

>: And as a final moral, Bob.

>: I'm not bothered for my own sake but I doubt that many more newbies
>: have the guts to write here some comments or questions if you show
>: your face and insult and defame the one who asked.

>I haven't seen a "newbie" that would make such stupid remarks and
>offer then as "facts"... and "proofs"... fortunately...

Try harder to defame me with my questions ...

>: Let's follow decent rules beyond all wars here on usenet. Think about
>: it. Otherwise Ed Schroder had been right in his judgement that you put
>: terror on newbies. And I know for sure that it was NOT your intention.

>: Bob, not all kids in the world understand your somewhat violent
>: language from the American South as sort of macho puberal prentension
>: without too bad intentions. It's too difficult to keep in mind.

>: I know for sure that you could do better. I know you from 96. And then
>: you were like a typical academic without fecal and violent macho
>: impostordom.

>If you shut up... I shut up... *not before*...

*Only* if the questions will be answered ...

[Robert Hyatt]

Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote:

: Again, you don't understand. *We* want the facts. And Hsu &Co. must

: supply us with. We can't invent or construct our own facts.

Then please explain how *you* conclude there was "cheating" in the
match. You have posted that claim here several times. I have pointed
out that none of the moves in question were that strange, and that more
than one program has found those moves, given enough time...

: Please first try to think and then post here.

I do, every time I write...

:>Just "guess" how things

:>worked and then make your stupid assumptions based on those incorrect
:>guesses, and then throw in an imagination that needs medication, and
:>what do you get? Rolfs rantings.

: Again, you don't understand or you defame deliberately again.

: As a Fascist Censoring Fach-Idiot, what should you do else?

: I asked for the facts. But you try to defame me as if I had propagated
: my own facts and wanted to correct the facts Hsu had given.

: Fact is simply that Hsu had NOT given facts. Period.

I have given *several* facts. Dealing with multiprocessors, dealing with
the way DB's hardware "behaves", and so forth. I even ran a couple of the
really hotly contested moves on crafty, and published the analysis here as
well, to show that at least *one* other program could produce a couple of
those moves...

:>Garry insisted that the machine be "isolated" during the match, and

:>that no one have access except the operator sitting at the table with
:>him. That's the way it was. That's why Hsu couldn't "see what was going
:>on". Hsu wasn't operating at that point in time, as is well known to
:>those that care to look...

: Are you saying that the operator *saw* something but above that there
: are no recorded facts / output????

: You want to imply that Garry had made such a grotesque rule for the
: show?

I'm saying that what Hsu said sounds perfectly plausible. He was *not*
the operator at that point in the game.. I believe Joe was operating but
am not sure. Hsu said he "wondered" why it took so long. I see this
on ICC regularly as a bunch of us watch Crafty play... and we discuss
"wonder why it's taking so long? did it fail low? Has it found something
"clever"? All quite common...

And yes, there were rules about the machine, with no operator access during
the match except for the operator that was sitting across from Kasparov, to
keep *any* suspicions at all out of the picture...

:>: And don't forget that some of us argue representing Garri Kasparov

:>: here in RGCC. Because he doesn't have the time to be a member himself.
:>: You know too good that also Amir the actual Wch of computerchess asked
:>: the same questions. "Where's the complete output?"

:>And folks have asked Amir to explain things about the insides of what he
:>does with Junior as well. And he doesn't.. so your point would be?

: I'm sure that Amir has his own points, but as he's staying mute
: unfortunately I'll replace the guy. :)

: Easy.

: Nobody doubted that Amir's program played the moves it played in
: Paris. The opponents sat there in front of each other. One cord to the
: AC/DC and that was it.

Just *exactly* like the Kasparov match, it seems? IE two players across
the table from each other? *no* extra operator? The machine *must* be
present at the event? Sure does sound similar...

: But DB had a suite of *big*, *very* big rooms, as you explained here.

no it didn't. That is something *you* made up. I saw the picture of the
DB machine. It was *not* a "room-filling" machine. It was a tall cabinet
about the size of a refrigerator... So that "fact" of yours is *wrong*.
I believe the picture even made the newspapers during the event, so you could
find out *exactly* what it looks like and why your "endgame database" theory
is rediculous...

: My question.

: Who saw the machine and its single AC/DC connection???

Everyone that was there including Kasparov...

: What about the GMs nearby who had another terminal?

There were *none*...

:>:>You don't have a clue, yet you make statements like the above.

: Stop you lies. I asked questions. But I agree, each question I put is
: accompanied by deeper thought processes ...

Nope.. look at the two questions. ONe is a direct implication of something
that did not happen. *no* one had access to the machine during the match,
except for the operator across the table from Garry...

:>: Bob, fallacy number 122, you must not be a cook yourself to judge if

:>: the soup contains too much salt.

:>: And don't forget I'm still a newbie. But Amir, the actual Wch asked
:>: the same questions.

:>Perhaps he has other axes to grind. I can think of one that most everybody
:>seems to have, "envy"... I'd love to be as fast as DB too. I'm not. I won't
:>be for many years. So what???

: What? You bought that book "Kitchen-Psychology for Beginners"?

:>: And then this.

:>: You are an acknowledged computerchess expert. But we have proven you a
:>: complete Fach-Idiot outside the techniques of computerchess.

:>You have proven *nothing* other than that you are a closet Nazi-admirer,
:>who loves to rattle on and on with no information of any kind, other than
:>that manufactured by yourself.

: I already told you. For the gasolining, DrDeath Kevorkian, baseball
: bat phantasies, and then this unbelievable slander you will be sory
: very soon.

No slander here at all... You post a lie... I will dutifully point out
that lie. *every time* you do it... I await your "very soon" with full
interest...

: Read your famous lexicon ... And you will pay your price very soon.

Go for it... I'm willing to go to court at any time you feel like it,
and I have far more ammunition against you than you do against me. So
do what you want... consider this a "challenge"...

:>You don't *make wild accusations" when you have no idea what you are
:>talking about, no.

: Notice, that I don't have to be a cook myself to detect that the soup
: contains too much salt ...

Nope, but you have to have a sense of taste (intelligence) and something
to compare the soup to... and in this case, you have *neither*..

: Stupid. You really must feel the pain.

: I already asked why it was so wet around you and those wet spots in
: your trousers ...

: I told you that your stories couldn't hold the water ...

: Bob, I know that it's a terrible thing to lose those drops of water.
: Try to write with your fingers like all smart people do.

No idea what you are talking about... no "droplets" around *me*... perhaps
yourself?

:>Nope. all the processors search the tree together. nothing more, nothing

:>less. Many search it faster than one. But that is the only difference there
:>is. More processors = more speed. Same evaluation, same everything...
:>so your "explanation" leaves a little to be desired...

: You can tell this your babies in Alabama. Your statement proves your
: ignorance as far as chess is concerned. "Only speed effects."

: The Magical Fog Machine again.

: That's bean-counting. Here for purposes to cheat the rest of the
: world. Period.

Nope... it is *exactly* the truth... for those intelligent enough to
understand the truth... Exactly like vax/blitz compared to Cray/blitz.
*exact* same program, *exact* same search, *exact* same evaluation, but
*far* different speed. That was *all* the cray gave us... lots and lots
of speed. Hsu just took it a couple of levels higher... regardless of
what you "think you know..."

:>Then, as a "newbie", shut up, listen, and learn. Rather than spouting

:>theories that have nothing to do with reality...

: Stupid. I feel great compassion for you.

: A newbie should shut up ... I see. Fach-Idiot!

Yep.. *if* he is in over his head, he should shut up until he has
*something* to base opinion and discussion on. You obviously have
*nothing*...

: How *big*?

: How many cleaning women?

So big no machine has been built to date that could store those 6-7 piece
files. That clear enough? Unix has a quite well-known limit. They run
using a unix box... end of story...

: Excuse me. You want to pretend that cable connections are very rare in

: the region?? You use drums?

nope... but you can *open your eyes* and see that there are no cables
leading off into a "back room"... check out the photo... there is *one*
cable leading to the operator on the stage...

: Wait, until I'm 30, I will be a computer chess expert myself.

Right... :)

: The Fach-Idiot again ...

: Safety to survive the openings concerning his weaknesses.

And somehow the "computer" gave this to him? Check his posts again...
he was quite apprehensive about the opening, in fact, and was quite happy
to "leave the opening book" and have an evaluation near zero. As I said,
you rant, and you rave, but you know *nothing*..

: But you as below 1500 must have no weaknesses. Because you don't know

: about what we're talking.

Care to log in to ICC? we can decide whether I am below 1500 or not
with a few games...

: Fach-Idiot again.

: Able to keep an eye on more than two parameters?

That's enough. in this case...

: Fach-Idiot in logic again.

: You explained that the 10 10 was an advantage for your baby, right?
: And a disadvantage for the GMs, right?

Yep, 10 10 was a machine advantage. *everyone* pretty well agrees, that
the faster the time control, the bigger the machine's advantage becomes...
An

: Now, with longer times can't you see the contradiction in your claims?

Not at all, because there is a *human* in the loop to guide the computer.

: Your machines become less strong against GMs, right?

I believe this has been established...

: So, keep the fun aspect in mind. But don't talk, because you'll be

: losing too much water again ...

:>You did say exactly that, "that practice games played against DB Junior

:>didn't make much sense." That is nonsense...

: But I didn't say that, stupid Fach-Idiot. I did not say that.

It is write there, in your own words... so keep denying, but I included
your words...

: Tell you what.

: I was told that I should not drink water after bitter apples ...

: Did they tell me that I shouldn't drink water ...??

Sounds like a good idea to me...

: That's the style of the cheating gasoliner ...

:>: But then explain please how you gain access / mastering the many other
:>: components when you had trained your chess on the micro version?
:>: Excuse me if I ask. I'm a newbie. No green card yet ...

:>Because the programs are *identical*. Just that DB is far faster than
:>DB Junior. But no different otherwise. Anyone that knows what goes on
:>would know that from past discussions here...

: I told you already. I don't believe a single word. That's for sure,
: bean-counter!

tough then... because that's *exactly* how it works. If you don't like
it, or if you don't believe it, so what? Your technical qualifications don't
exactly lend any credibility to your silly statement... DB Jr and DB are
the same software. That is the whole *point* of DB Jr... To anyone with
any technical skills...

: Try harder ...

No need. Point, set and match on that issue. Ask Don Daily about how they
develop cilkchess, and then what they have to do to run it on the *real*
machine they play chess on. Ask Feldman the same thing. Ask me or Harry
Nelson or Bert Gower about where Cray Blitz was developed and what we had
to do to use the cray...

: The *same* results but *faster*? ROTFL.

: What about the spare time??

There is no "spare time"... what in the world are you talking about
now???

: Read Kasparov. He "saw" those GMs nearby ...

He "saw" lots of things...

: Of course you can argue like this.

: But in the world of science you will be seen as a -----
: please I try to find access to the teminology of *your* society -----
: son of the bitch (NB not *my* language, I was told by Hyatt that this
: is a totally normal expression in Alabama Universities) from now on!

That is an insult to "my mother", *not* to "me". Nice way to earn another
point? Doesn't wash... I wouldn't insult your mother, I'm sure she is
already embarassed enough as it is...

: Smarts --- that's a liquid??

That's what I thought. "smarts" == "intelligence"... guess in your case
I should have chosen a different metaphor, one you could understand??

: Probably the only half witty comment in your post ...

OK... that puts me *one* ahead of you..

: Ok, added to your lexicon ...

Suits me... I've made my opinion about Kasparov quite public. I stand
by it..

: Fach-Idiot, do you really think that metaphers have a realistic smell?
: Tell us more.

Ok.. "you stink"... clear enough now??

: *Only* if the questions will be answered ...

Fine. Keep posting. I'll keep responding... and taking your lies apart
one by one, point by point. I have plenty of time...

[ami...@m-sys.com]

In article <6ijb1f$9c5$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>#1/3,
Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>

>
> I'm saying that what Hsu said sounds perfectly plausible. He was *not*
> the operator at that point in the game.. I believe Joe was operating but
> am not sure. Hsu said he "wondered" why it took so long. I see this
> on ICC regularly as a bunch of us watch Crafty play... and we discuss
> "wonder why it's taking so long? did it fail low? Has it found something
> "clever"? All quite common...
>

Hsu did not contribute anything new. Maybe he's the wrong person to ask. He
does not know the details, and KIP understandably could not bring him up to
date in conversation. Some things he said are obviously not true: The
printouts given are, in fact, hardcopies of the terminal output, so they
could be inspected by Hsu after the fact. Qb6 was not rejected at the last
minute. Its eval last showed up at 5:35 min. The search stopped at 6:56 min,
and nothing happened in the interval. axb5 showed later, in the
"reconstruction".

If axb5 had shown up at the last second, that would be plausible, and in fact
would be a resonable explanation why the search stopped (a "good enough" move
was found). For the best move to show up AFTER the search stopped is not
plausible, and requires an explanation, and then there is also the question
of why the search stopped. If Hsu understands this and has an explanation, I
will listen. If he's saying that this is ridiculous, let him go and see what
his machine printed.

> And yes, there were rules about the machine, with no operator access during
> the match except for the operator that was sitting across from Kasparov, to
> keep *any* suspicions at all out of the picture...
>

Deep-Blue was operated from a closed room, not by the person sitting in front
of Kasparov. The only person I know who was in the closed room is Ken
Thompson. Thompson's only comment (according to Kasaprov) on this move is
that Qb6 was never considered (!!!), which is not helpful.

Amir

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[Robert Hyatt]

ami...@m-sys.com wrote:
: In article <6ijb1f$9c5$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>#1/3,
: Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
:>

:>
:> I'm saying that what Hsu said sounds perfectly plausible. He was *not*

:> the operator at that point in the game.. I believe Joe was operating but
:> am not sure. Hsu said he "wondered" why it took so long. I see this
:> on ICC regularly as a bunch of us watch Crafty play... and we discuss
:> "wonder why it's taking so long? did it fail low? Has it found something
:> "clever"? All quite common...

:>

: Hsu did not contribute anything new. Maybe he's the wrong person to ask. He

: does not know the details, and KIP understandably could not bring him up to
: date in conversation. Some things he said are obviously not true: The
: printouts given are, in fact, hardcopies of the terminal output, so they

: could be inspected by Hsu after the fact. Qb6 was not rejected at the last
: minute. Its eval last showed up at 5:35 min. The search stopped at 6:56 min,

: and nothing happened in the interval. axb5 showed later, in the
: "reconstruction".

: If axb5 had shown up at the last second, that would be plausible, and in fact
: would be a resonable explanation why the search stopped (a "good enough" move
: was found). For the best move to show up AFTER the search stopped is not
: plausible, and requires an explanation, and then there is also the question
: of why the search stopped. If Hsu understands this and has an explanation, I
: will listen. If he's saying that this is ridiculous, let him go and see what
: his machine printed.

:> And yes, there were rules about the machine, with no operator access during

:> the match except for the operator that was sitting across from Kasparov, to
:> keep *any* suspicions at all out of the picture...
:>

: Deep-Blue was operated from a closed room, not by the person sitting in front

: of Kasparov. The only person I know who was in the closed room is Ken
: Thompson. Thompson's only comment (according to Kasaprov) on this move is
: that Qb6 was never considered (!!!), which is not helpful.

: Amir

If you have ever seen their program run, you probably noticed that they don't,
for reasons unknown to me, display PV changes as they occur. Or at least the
last time I saw them running they didin't... they display the PV at the end
of an iteration. I personally couldn't stand this. I did such until around
1980 or so, when I got tired of not knowing what was going on on the last
iteration... had we changed to something better or not? They may well do it
due to hardware considerations. As I mentioned, I know that their hardware
can not return a PV, although the software part of the search could do something
about part of the PV.. However, getting to the PV in their machine is definitely
something of an undertaking... And this may well explain everything about
their cryptic output. I have watched their program many times, and I didn't
think much of the output format when I watched. I had just assumed that they
weren't worried about the "presentation". That, instead, they were more
concerned with the "result"...

[Rolf Tueschen]

Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:

>If you have ever seen their program run, you probably noticed that they don't,
>for reasons unknown to me, display PV changes as they occur. Or at least the
>last time I saw them running they didin't...

of course *you* don't know ... because you are the Fach-Idiot ...
but *I* know the answer ... two possibilities ---

a) cheating?

Answer: Nuuuuuuuh. I know the guys --- not for a *million* dollars.

So it must be this!

b) shortage in their memory architecture!!!

<ROFL mode on>

>they display the PV at the end
>of an iteration. I personally couldn't stand this.

I for one can understand you and feel compassion. You were on the
little ones with the same shortage. But *you* at least had the guts
(b-a-l-l-s) to do it with the micros. So *you* at least don't suffer
from that terrible shortage. ;;;-)

>I did such until around
>1980 or so, when I got tired of not knowing what was going on on the last
>iteration... had we changed to something better or not?

My words.

>They may well do it
>due to hardware considerations.

*My* words, Bob.

> As I mentioned, I know that their hardware
>can not return a PV,

Bob, just this one second. You mean, errh, a dongle could never
succeed to play high class chess ...? ;;-)

>although the software part of the search could do something
>about part of the PV..

I understand you. But *only* a little part ...! So far I have
understood, Bob.

>However, getting to the PV in their machine is definitely
>something of an undertaking...

You must say it, Bob. <biggest chuckle mode on>

>And this may well explain everything about
>their cryptic output.

Bob, a final second, just for me. It's urgent.

You mean, if we had seen Michael Jordan at the start. Then after 30
meters he had stopped, turned around and sought someone with whom he
could have done hitchhiking back to the toilets --- well, we had seen
him there --- all live of course ---, he then quickly returned and
............ MOMENT OF DISTURBED TV PICTURE ...............
and nevertheless he was first at the end of the race .....??????

And I would ask David Schiffer Copperfield, I say, David, I say, how
in the hell could he do that, this rascal Michael?????????

And David say, oh well, young one of 23, you will also understand that
one if you have become older, ... man. This is easy, believe me, man.
And then he took me by my ear and whispered: This may well explain
everything about their cryptic output in the TV broadcasts ... And he
continued with the following ...

>I have watched their program many times, and I didn't
>think much of the output format when I watched.

David, ehem, Bob, I told you.

>I had just assumed that they weren't worried about the "presentation".

I told you.

>That, instead, they were more concerned with the "result"...

Excuse me, David, pardon me, Bob, I just made pipi in my pants while
ROFL ROFL ROFL....... Bob, please help me .... I can't stop it ....
Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehheheheeeee.

<MAYDAY! mode and again seriously concerned mode.>

Bob, sorry, and you think that this is all ok? Kasparov asked for the
output. They gave him. The rest will be in 32 years, you defended the
cheaters. Then there were more questions. And also Hsu explained. And
then you made it quite clear. The output cannot be read by laymen as
Amir.

Now you even said that the output was not the output at all. Because
there's not such a thing as the output. Because they never showed the
output. But then you said, oh well, I looked for several times to that
output. But you didn't think much about the format ... ROTFL.
Of course, because a 1500 player could not understand the out put of a
GM like player. But no, today you made clear, that the output were NOT
the real output at all. But still you had watched at it as if it were
the output ..........................................................

I *see*, Bob. It's possibly the ghoast of M. Botvinnik in the machine.

Please tell us more fairy tales in the next posts. Thanks.

[Robert Hyatt]

Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote:
: Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:

:>If you have ever seen their program run, you probably noticed that they don't,
:>for reasons unknown to me, display PV changes as they occur. Or at least the
:>last time I saw them running they didin't...

: of course *you* don't know ... because you are the Fach-Idiot ...
: but *I* know the answer ... two possibilities ---

You *know* the answer? Pardon me while a take a brief hysterical
laugh. You *know* something? another laugh. You *know* *anything*?

har de har har...

: a) cheating?

always your answer. Every time. Ignorance finds a plot behind every
curtain.

: Answer: Nuuuuuuuh. I know the guys --- not for a *million* dollars.

: So it must be this!

: b) shortage in their memory architecture!!!

: <ROFL mode on>

:>they display the PV at the end
:>of an iteration. I personally couldn't stand this.

: I for one can understand you and feel compassion. You were on the
: little ones with the same shortage. But *you* at least had the guts
: (b-a-l-l-s) to do it with the micros. So *you* at least don't suffer
: from that terrible shortage. ;;;-)

I have no idea what in the world you are talking about. They have no
"shortage"...

:>I did such until around

:>1980 or so, when I got tired of not knowing what was going on on the last
:>iteration... had we changed to something better or not?

: My words.

:>They may well do it
:>due to hardware considerations.

: *My* words, Bob.

*my* words. Your "words" always includes "cheating". That is incorrect.

:> As I mentioned, I know that their hardware

:>can not return a PV,

: Bob, just this one second. You mean, errh, a dongle could never
: succeed to play high class chess ...? ;;-)

I don't know what *your* dongle can do, nor do I care...

:>although the software part of the search could do something

:>about part of the PV..

: I understand you. But *only* a little part ...! So far I have
: understood, Bob.

:>However, getting to the PV in their machine is definitely
:>something of an undertaking...

: You must say it, Bob. <biggest chuckle mode on>

:>And this may well explain everything about
:>their cryptic output.

: Bob, a final second, just for me. It's urgent.

: You mean, if we had seen Michael Jordan at the start. Then after 30
: meters he had stopped, turned around and sought someone with whom he
: could have done hitchhiking back to the toilets --- well, we had seen
: him there --- all live of course ---, he then quickly returned and
: ............ MOMENT OF DISTURBED TV PICTURE ...............
: and nevertheless he was first at the end of the race .....??????

: And I would ask David Schiffer Copperfield, I say, David, I say, how
: in the hell could he do that, this rascal Michael?????????

: And David say, oh well, young one of 23, you will also understand that

: one if you have become older, ... man. This is easy, believe me, man.
: And then he took me by my ear and whispered: This may well explain
: everything about their cryptic output in the TV broadcasts ... And he
: continued with the following ...

:>I have watched their program many times, and I didn't
:>think much of the output format when I watched.

: David, ehem, Bob, I told you.

:>I had just assumed that they weren't worried about the "presentation".

: I told you.

:>That, instead, they were more concerned with the "result"...

: Excuse me, David, pardon me, Bob, I just made pipi in my pants while
: ROFL ROFL ROFL....... Bob, please help me .... I can't stop it ....
: Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehheheheeeee.

: <MAYDAY! mode and again seriously concerned mode.>

: Bob, sorry, and you think that this is all ok? Kasparov asked for the
: output. They gave him. The rest will be in 32 years, you defended the
: cheaters. Then there were more questions. And also Hsu explained. And
: then you made it quite clear. The output cannot be read by laymen as
: Amir.

As I have said *many* times. *no* evidence of cheating of *any kind*
except for a couple of very sick minds, yours included. You have no
evidence, so you mentally manufacture evidence. But it is all just smoke
and mirrors...

: Now you even said that the output was not the output at all. Because

: there's not such a thing as the output. Because they never showed the
: output. But then you said, oh well, I looked for several times to that
: output. But you didn't think much about the format ... ROTFL.

: Of course, because a 1500 player could not understand the out put of a

: GM like player. But no, today you made clear, that the output were NOT
: the real output at all. But still you had watched at it as if it were
: the output ..........................................................

I didn't say any thing of the kind. I explained why the pawn capture would
not show up in their analysis, *since they had not finished the iteration
yet*. Of course, you with no technical expertise at all would not be able
to follow that simple explanation...

: I *see*, Bob. It's possibly the ghoast of M. Botvinnik in the machine.

: Please tell us more fairy tales in the next posts. Thanks.

Rolf rode off into the sunset, finally realizing that he had absolutely
no purpose on this poor old planet, other than to consume oxygen and leave
his daily droppings in r.g.c.c

what a nice *fairy tale* that would be, with the best ending I have ever
heard..

[Eric Hallsworth]

In article <ihDRG0dUkHpV-p...@pdx09-pm2-20.teleport.com>,
Keith Ian Price <kpr...@spamfree.teleport.com> writes

>Here is part two of the report on Deep Blue.
>
>5. As to the fairness of the matches between Deep Blue and Kasparov,

Main m/s deleted to save space.

Keith, I'm trying to e-mail you... but your spamfree wont work, of
course.

Only this *part 2 of the report* has come through to me here. Can I ask
if you could possibly e-mail me or re-post parts 1 (and 3?). Thanks if
you can!
--
Best wishes,
Eric Hallsworth
The Red House, 46 High Street, Wilburton, Cambs CB6 3RA.
Publisher of Britain's bi-monthly Computer Chess magazine since 1985.
http://www.elhchess.demon.co.uk/

[Rolf Tueschen]

Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:

>Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote:
>: Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:

>:>If you have ever seen their program run, you probably noticed that they don't,
>:>for reasons unknown to me, display PV changes as they occur. Or at least the
>:>last time I saw them running they didin't...

>: of course *you* don't know ... because you are the Fach-Idiot ...
>: but *I* know the answer ... two possibilities ---

>You *know* the answer? Pardon me while a take a brief hysterical
>laugh. You *know* something? another laugh. You *know* *anything*?

>har de har har...

>: a) cheating?

>always your answer. Every time. Ignorance finds a plot behind every
>curtain.

Funny stupidity of a Fach-Idiot ...

It was exactly NOT my answer. Next time you try to read and understand
before you answer out of context.

>: Answer: Nuuuuuuuh. I know the guys --- not for a *million* dollars.

>: So it must be this!

>: b) shortage in their memory architecture!!!

>: <ROFL mode on>

Here you should have given your special explanation why they can't
provide us with exact output. And especially for the match between man
and the machine ...

But I fear you are not alt all interested in a solution. Your job is
the one of the foggy man.

>:>they display the PV at the end
>:>of an iteration. I personally couldn't stand this.

>: I for one can understand you and feel compassion. You were on the
>: little ones with the same shortage. But *you* at least had the guts
>: (b-a-l-l-s) to do it with the micros. So *you* at least don't suffer
>: from that terrible shortage. ;;;-)

>I have no idea what in the world you are talking about. They have no
>"shortage"...

>:>I did such until around
>:>1980 or so, when I got tired of not knowing what was going on on the last
>:>iteration... had we changed to something better or not?

>: My words.

>:>They may well do it
>:>due to hardware considerations.

>: *My* words, Bob.

>*my* words. Your "words" always includes "cheating". That is incorrect.

Bad liar. I explained that it must have been a shortage in their
memory ...

>:> As I mentioned, I know that their hardware
>:>can not return a PV,

Only for public attention:

But you sat next to that display for *hours*. Tell this your kids in
Alabama. It's too foggy.

>: Bob, just this one second. You mean, errh, a dongle could never
>: succeed to play high class chess ...? ;;-)

>I don't know what *your* dongle can do, nor do I care...

No sir, I was not referring to my dongle. I was commenting on your
most stupid sentence that *the* hardware couldn't return PVs.

Although you are specialist as a gasoliner. You must know how to turn
human bodies into gasoline, no? So why the hardware of a computer
can't supply a PV?

>:>although the software part of the search could do something
>:>about part of the PV..

>: I understand you. But *only* a little part ...! So far I have
>: understood, Bob.

Rolf, but it's Bob Hyatt's job as a foggy man. He's the proxy for DB
teamsters here on the net...

Thanks, Rolf, Rolf has understood ... :))

But Rolf, you're now talking in the *third* person??? Rolf, you need
help. --- Thanks, but that's completely new for me. I feel good ...

>:>However, getting to the PV in their machine is definitely
>:>something of an undertaking...

How many years will it take to debug a single gamescore, Bob?

>: You must say it, Bob. <biggest chuckle mode on>

>:>And this may well explain everything about
>:>their cryptic output.

Bob, I have a little question. If the DB teamsters had nothing to
hide, why in the hell of Alabama they don't made their output a little
bit less cryptic? --- Because of .... cheating addiction?

>: I told you.

But did you ever decoded their cryptic output??

>You have no evidence, so you mentally manufacture evidence. But it is all just smoke
>and mirrors...

No, listen. It's in that cryptic output. And the existence of such a
spooky output is part of the evidence ... Period.

I will occasionally present the quotes of Hyatt & teamsters about the
late Botvinnik. Interesting stuff in comparison with the tries to
defend the hamact of Hsu and Co.

>: Now you even said that the output was not the output at all. Because
>: there's not such a thing as the output. Because they never showed the
>: output. But then you said, oh well, I looked for several times to that
>: output. But you didn't think much about the format ... ROTFL.
>: Of course, because a 1500 player could not understand the out put of a
>: GM like player. But no, today you made clear, that the output were NOT
>: the real output at all. But still you had watched at it as if it were
>: the output ..........................................................

>I didn't say any thing of the kind.

Pardon me??

Did you sit behind the display although it gave only uninteresting
output? So why did you sit there??

Answer these questions instead of running away like a child who rang
the bells to annoy some neighbours.

>I explained why the pawn capture would
>not show up in their analysis,

Did you explain that before the question was published?

Anyway, how could you be so sure that the real output did not show up
the pawn so and so?? Your logic is very weak again, Bob.

>*since they had not finished the iteration
>yet*. Of course, you with no technical expertise at all would not be able
>to follow that simple explanation...

That's right. But I fear that the judgement about a possible cheat of
the DB/IBM teamsters is not at all depending of the details of the
output because the output is cryptic by your definition. So it should
be more a logical problem to judge. And we all know too good that you
are the best in evaluating an existing output, but cryptic output
would mate you too. And outside the techno field your're a Fach-Idiot.
You cannot reason with logic. In other words you react irrationally.
And in this case I might find better solutions although being unable
to give techno expertises. <She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah ...>

>: I *see*, Bob. It's possibly the ghoast of M. Botvinnik in the machine.

>: Please tell us more fairy tales in the next posts. Thanks.

>Rolf rode off into the sunset, finally realizing that he had absolutely
>no purpose

Bob, not the old nazi paroles again. You had decided to appear here as
a true democrat ... ;-)

>on this poor old planet, other than to consume oxygen

Like these chemical entities you wanted to turn into gasoline ...

>and leave his daily droppings in r.g.c.c

>what a nice *fairy tale* that would be, with the best ending I have ever
>heard..

But this is not a fairy tale. It's a creation of a daydreaming fascist
gasoliner.

[Robert Hyatt]

Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote:

: No sir, I was not referring to my dongle. I was commenting on your

: most stupid sentence that *the* hardware couldn't return PVs.

: Although you are specialist as a gasoliner. You must know how to turn
: human bodies into gasoline, no? So why the hardware of a computer
: can't supply a PV?

Because, your moronship, as I have explained before, their chess hardware
was designed in such a way that you set up a position, and give the hardware
a depth limit to search, the alpha/beta bounds, and then the order "search".
The hardware returns the best score it found, and the move leading to that
score. Having it back up the PV is most difficult for reasons you have no
hope of understanding, just leave it at "impossible." *exactly* like the
old Belle machine of Ken Thompson's, which was the "father" of chiptest/
etc.

If you don't understand why, obtain a copy of Hsu's thesis and *read*.
you will discover the answer to your question. *if* it isn't over your
head (which it probably is).

:>:>although the software part of the search could do something

:>:>about part of the PV..

:>: I understand you. But *only* a little part ...! So far I have
:>: understood, Bob.

: Rolf, but it's Bob Hyatt's job as a foggy man. He's the proxy for DB
: teamsters here on the net...

: Thanks, Rolf, Rolf has understood ... :))

: But Rolf, you're now talking in the *third* person??? Rolf, you need
: help. --- Thanks, but that's completely new for me. I feel good ...

Definitely need help. *serious* help...

:>:>However, getting to the PV in their machine is definitely
:>:>something of an undertaking...

: How many years will it take to debug a single gamescore, Bob?

I don't know what you mean. I don't "debug gamescores" so I have no
idea what that means, nor how to do it... It took me perhaps 7 years to
get all the hiccups out of Cray Blitz's parallel search, for one reference
point.

:>: You must say it, Bob. <biggest chuckle mode on>

:>:>And this may well explain everything about
:>:>their cryptic output.

: Bob, I have a little question. If the DB teamsters had nothing to
: hide, why in the hell of Alabama they don't made their output a little
: bit less cryptic? --- Because of .... cheating addiction?

No idea. But *not* anything based on "cheating." They hold the high
moral ground here... you are somewhere below a snake's belly-button...

:>: Bob, a final second, just for me. It's urgent.

:>: I told you.

Yes I did... just as I saw *nothing* funny with the output for the
Kasparov game. So the answer is *yes*...

:>You have no evidence, so you mentally manufacture evidence. But it is all just smoke
:>and mirrors...

: No, listen. It's in that cryptic output. And the existence of such a
: spooky output is part of the evidence ... Period.

: I will occasionally present the quotes of Hyatt & teamsters about the
: late Botvinnik. Interesting stuff in comparison with the tries to
: defend the hamact of Hsu and Co.

Feel free to post any comment I made about Botvinnik...

:>: Now you even said that the output was not the output at all. Because

:>: there's not such a thing as the output. Because they never showed the
:>: output. But then you said, oh well, I looked for several times to that
:>: output. But you didn't think much about the format ... ROTFL.
:>: Of course, because a 1500 player could not understand the out put of a
:>: GM like player. But no, today you made clear, that the output were NOT
:>: the real output at all. But still you had watched at it as if it were
:>: the output ..........................................................

:>I didn't say any thing of the kind.

: Pardon me??

: Did you sit behind the display although it gave only uninteresting
: output? So why did you sit there??

Because *all* of the output was *interesting* to me. The depth they
were hitting, the length of the PV's returned by the software, moves
flagged as "singular", etc...

: Answer these questions instead of running away like a child who rang

: the bells to annoy some neighbours.

I don't run away. I've answered them many times. However, nothing
can be interpreted by a "rock".

:>I explained why the pawn capture would

:>not show up in their analysis,

: Did you explain that before the question was published?

: Anyway, how could you be so sure that the real output did not show up
: the pawn so and so?? Your logic is very weak again, Bob.

I explained this when I first saw the output and the question by Amir and
others. And there is no way to be sure of anything, since anything *could*
be modified. It's a matter of trust. They have earned mine many times. I
doubt they care what *you* think, since no one else cares either...

:>*since they had not finished the iteration

:>yet*. Of course, you with no technical expertise at all would not be able
:>to follow that simple explanation...

: That's right. But I fear that the judgement about a possible cheat of
: the DB/IBM teamsters is not at all depending of the details of the
: output because the output is cryptic by your definition. So it should
: be more a logical problem to judge. And we all know too good that you
: are the best in evaluating an existing output, but cryptic output
: would mate you too. And outside the techno field your're a Fach-Idiot.
: You cannot reason with logic. In other words you react irrationally.
: And in this case I might find better solutions although being unable
: to give techno expertises. <She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah ...>

I'm a fash-idiot, you are a moron, so???

:>: I *see*, Bob. It's possibly the ghoast of M. Botvinnik in the machine.

:>: Please tell us more fairy tales in the next posts. Thanks.

:>Rolf rode off into the sunset, finally realizing that he had absolutely
:>no purpose

: Bob, not the old nazi paroles again. You had decided to appear here as
: a true democrat ... ;-)

:>on this poor old planet, other than to consume oxygen

: Like these chemical entities you wanted to turn into gasoline ...

Not at all. I just wish you would go far away. I hope that the info
being passed on to your service provider assists you on this journey...

:>and leave his daily droppings in r.g.c.c

:>what a nice *fairy tale* that would be, with the best ending I have ever
:>heard..

: But this is not a fairy tale. It's a creation of a daydreaming fascist
: gasoliner.

Daydreaming about the long-overdue departure of a moron...

I'll bet you I am here long after you are "out"... care to take that
bet??

[Rolf Tueschen]

Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:

>Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote:

>: No sir, I was not referring to my dongle. I was commenting on your
>: most stupid sentence that *the* hardware couldn't return PVs.

>: Although you are specialist as a gasoliner. You must know how to turn
>: human bodies into gasoline, no? So why the hardware of a computer
>: can't supply a PV?

>Because, your moronship, as I have explained before, their chess hardware
>was designed in such a way that you set up a position, and give the hardware
>a depth limit to search, the alpha/beta bounds, and then the order "search".
>The hardware returns the best score it found, and the move leading to that
>score. Having it back up the PV is most difficult for reasons you have no
>hope of understanding, just leave it at "impossible." *exactly* like the
>old Belle machine of Ken Thompson's, which was the "father" of chiptest/
>etc.

But they give the PV at the end, no?

So why not at each iteration or at the deeper iterations?

C'mon. Let's go deep for a change.

>If you don't understand why, obtain a copy of Hsu's thesis and *read*.
>you will discover the answer to your question. *if* it isn't over your
>head (which it probably is).

All I can see over my head is the holy shrine that protects the
thought process of Thy Pope.

>:>:>although the software part of the search could do something
>:>:>about part of the PV..

>:>: I understand you. But *only* a little part ...! So far I have
>:>: understood, Bob.

>: Rolf, but it's Bob Hyatt's job as a foggy man. He's the proxy for DB
>: teamsters here on the net...

>: Thanks, Rolf, Rolf has understood ... :))

>: But Rolf, you're now talking in the *third* person??? Rolf, you need
>: help. --- Thanks, but that's completely new for me. I feel good ...

>Definitely need help. *serious* help...

You're confused again? It's called Flic-flac Rumpelstielzchen mode.

>:>:>However, getting to the PV in their machine is definitely
>:>:>something of an undertaking...

>: How many years will it take to debug a single gamescore, Bob?

>I don't know what you mean. I don't "debug gamescores" so I have no
>idea what that means, nor how to do it... It took me perhaps 7 years to
>get all the hiccups out of Cray Blitz's parallel search, for one reference
>point.

Of course you don't understand as a complete Fach-Idiot in chess ...

Take this:

I find it impossible to believe that they could build The Blue without
a continual output of the PV each iteration and as it changed. If they
could get a PV at the end of the search -- on the search timeout --
then they could get each PV as it is generated.

Otherwise they had worked totally blind with no idea about why the
machine did anything.

How could the GM's have assisted in that case?? -- Duh!

How did they know if a move was suggested, then overruled, and why?
How could they adjust any eval parameters???????????

PV is the first thing to generate when you're building an engine --
some good reference whispered in my ears ...

It the machine communicates to you, then you can see what it
"thinks", and then make adjustments.

Only a total hardware only, speed only, in short as complete
Fach-Idiot in chess could build a device which gets as sole output the
final result. And he would only do it because he had no chess
knowledge with which to interpret the PV, and no access to
chess knowledge in the form of friendly GM's.

But that wasn't the case as we know ...

A chess expert is in need of the following at each each iteration:

Does it choose this move for positional (evaluation) reasons, or
because it has found some tactics? A trivial aspect, no, to be able to
tune the 8000 parameters. Duh duh duh. Set and match, Thy Pope.

Another one? Your serve, Fach-Idiot ...!

>:>: You must say it, Bob. <biggest chuckle mode on>

>:>:>And this may well explain everything about
>:>:>their cryptic output.

>: Bob, I have a little question. If the DB teamsters had nothing to
>: hide, why in the hell of Alabama they don't made their output a little
>: bit less cryptic? --- Because of .... cheating addiction?

>No idea. But *not* anything based on "cheating." They hold the high
>moral ground here... you are somewhere below a snake's belly-button...

This is another fallacy, my dear.

A snake is honestly behaving as a snake. But Hsu and the IBM is
cheating on their moral education as humans. That's what I call
cheating. If you're betraying your own possible standards. So if you
like, I'd prefer each snake to Hsu and teamsters ... ;-)

>:>: I told you.

I see some contradictions in your presentation. Come back to that one
*soon*.

>:>You have no evidence, so you mentally manufacture evidence. But it is all just smoke
>:>and mirrors...

>: No, listen. It's in that cryptic output. And the existence of such a
>: spooky output is part of the evidence ... Period.

>: I will occasionally present the quotes of Hyatt & teamsters about the
>: late Botvinnik. Interesting stuff in comparison with the tries to
>: defend the hamact of Hsu and Co.

>Feel free to post any comment I made about Botvinnik...

You probably refer to the fact that you were at least more careful
than others. But anyway, you also defamed him.

Friedel too. And I think Kasparov was also on that train a little bit.
So, it's a historical tragedy / or comedy that Kasparov was now
himself a victim of such a hidance ...

But that's another topic. Here we have to deal with the ham-act of
IBM/DB and Bob Hyatt's proxy services ...

>:>: Now you even said that the output was not the output at all. Because
>:>: there's not such a thing as the output. Because they never showed the
>:>: output. But then you said, oh well, I looked for several times to that
>:>: output. But you didn't think much about the format ... ROTFL.
>:>: Of course, because a 1500 player could not understand the out put of a
>:>: GM like player. But no, today you made clear, that the output were NOT
>:>: the real output at all. But still you had watched at it as if it were
>:>: the output ..........................................................

>:>I didn't say any thing of the kind.

>: Pardon me??

>: Did you sit behind the display although it gave only uninteresting
>: output? So why did you sit there??

>Because *all* of the output was *interesting* to me. The depth they
>were hitting, the length of the PV's returned by the software, moves
>flagged as "singular", etc...

Thanks finally for any details you're giving us. Why not staying to
this scienctific style without gasolining phantasies and name-calling?

>: Answer these questions instead of running away like a child who rang
>: the bells to annoy some neighbours.

>I don't run away. I've answered them many times. However, nothing
>can be interpreted by a "rock".

You're right so far, I'm "solid like a rock". :)

>:>I explained why the pawn capture would
>:>not show up in their analysis,

>: Did you explain that before the question was published?

>: Anyway, how could you be so sure that the real output did not show up
>: the pawn so and so?? Your logic is very weak again, Bob.

>I explained this when I first saw the output and the question by Amir and
>others. And there is no way to be sure of anything, since anything *could*
>be modified. It's a matter of trust. They have earned

"Earned" is a problematic expression from a proxy ...

>mine many times. I doubt they care what *you* think,
>since no one else cares either...

You have those time-outs in your brain? We were talking about
questions from Amir e.g.

And we've seen how Hsu disqualified the questions of the actual Wch !

But that must be an American problem of decency?

>:>*since they had not finished the iteration
>:>yet*. Of course, you with no technical expertise at all would not be able
>:>to follow that simple explanation...

>: That's right. But I fear that the judgement about a possible cheat of
>: the DB/IBM teamsters is not at all depending of the details of the
>: output because the output is cryptic by your definition. So it should
>: be more a logical problem to judge. And we all know too good that you
>: are the best in evaluating an existing output, but cryptic output
>: would mate you too. And outside the techno field your're a Fach-Idiot.
>: You cannot reason with logic. In other words you react irrationally.
>: And in this case I might find better solutions although being unable
>: to give techno expertises. <She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah ...>

>I'm a fash-idiot, you are a moron, so???

No, please, try to get rif of your dyslexia ...

You're a fascist censor and a F-a-c-h -Idiot. Not fash or hash.
Please try to improve your vocabulary outside the inner circle of mere
bean-counting.

>:>: I *see*, Bob. It's possibly the ghoast of M. Botvinnik in the machine.

>:>: Please tell us more fairy tales in the next posts. Thanks.

>:>Rolf rode off into the sunset, finally realizing that he had absolutely
>:>no purpose

>: Bob, not the old nazi paroles again. You had decided to appear here as
>: a true democrat ... ;-)

>:>on this poor old planet, other than to consume oxygen

>: Like these chemical entities you wanted to turn into gasoline ...

>Not at all. I just wish you would go far away. I hope that the info
>being passed on to your service provider assists you on this journey...

What info? You mean my critique of gasolining human beings?

>:>and leave his daily droppings in r.g.c.c

>:>what a nice *fairy tale* that would be, with the best ending I have ever
>:>heard..

>: But this is not a fairy tale. It's a creation of a daydreaming fascist
>: gasoliner.

>Daydreaming about the long-overdue departure of a moron...

>I'll bet you I am here long after you are "out"... care to take that
>bet??

How will you manage? I'm 23 and you 69? A bit unrealistic and
illogical? But I don't take it wrong. Let's enjoy each day we can
continue to communicate ...

The Pope of Communication

[Robert Hyatt]

Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote:
: Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:

:>Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote:

:>: No sir, I was not referring to my dongle. I was commenting on your
:>: most stupid sentence that *the* hardware couldn't return PVs.

:>: Although you are specialist as a gasoliner. You must know how to turn
:>: human bodies into gasoline, no? So why the hardware of a computer
:>: can't supply a PV?

:>Because, your moronship, as I have explained before, their chess hardware
:>was designed in such a way that you set up a position, and give the hardware
:>a depth limit to search, the alpha/beta bounds, and then the order "search".
:>The hardware returns the best score it found, and the move leading to that
:>score. Having it back up the PV is most difficult for reasons you have no
:>hope of understanding, just leave it at "impossible." *exactly* like the
:>old Belle machine of Ken Thompson's, which was the "father" of chiptest/
:>etc.

: But they give the PV at the end, no?

They give a *partial* PV at the end. It takes *time* to go to each of those
256 chess processors, and probe around in the hash to see if you can retrieve
a move. Time that is better spent searching.

: So why not at each iteration or at the deeper iterations?

Should be clear now???

: C'mon. Let's go deep for a change.

I just did. As I said, read the thesis on the design. That will answer
your questions...

: All I can see over my head is the holy shrine that protects the

: thought process of Thy Pope.

That's cobwebs...

: You're confused again? It's called Flic-flac Rumpelstielzchen mode.

Not me, *you*, as usual...

:>I don't know what you mean. I don't "debug gamescores" so I have no

:>idea what that means, nor how to do it... It took me perhaps 7 years to
:>get all the hiccups out of Cray Blitz's parallel search, for one reference
:>point.

: Of course you don't understand as a complete Fach-Idiot in chess ...

: Take this:

: I find it impossible to believe that they could build The Blue without
: a continual output of the PV each iteration and as it changed. If they
: could get a PV at the end of the search -- on the search timeout --
: then they could get each PV as it is generated.

: Otherwise they had worked totally blind with no idea about why the
: machine did anything.

: How could the GM's have assisted in that case?? -- Duh!

Incredibly stupid. And what you find impossible to believe hardly
matters. The easiest point was that I once asked Ken Thompson how
many nodes belle searched during a move. He responded "I have no
idea." I asked "why don't you count the nodes like everyone else."
He responded "because it takes just as much time to count a node as
it does to search a node in his hardware." In the case of DB, the
same issue applies to obtaining (or trying to obtain) the PV by
probing the hash tables that are distributed among all the chess
processors. It takes *time*. Time when you are probing *one*
processor, when you could be searching on *all* processors. I
assume they decided it wasn't worth losing the time.

And it doesn't matter whether it printed PV's as they changed or not.
For debugging, I suspect they could turn that on... I could in my
older programs when debugging them, but I turn all that stuff off
in a tournament to go as fast as possible. You *assume* you won't
be debugging *during* a real game, of course.

: How did they know if a move was suggested, then overruled, and why?

: How could they adjust any eval parameters???????????

Exactly as I explained. I have a "chatty" and a "fast" mode in
Crafty. In chatty mode it gives all sorts of info. But when I play
in a serious game, I recompile it and turn all that stuff off, so that
it runs a few percent faster...

: PV is the first thing to generate when you're building an engine --

: some good reference whispered in my ears ...

: It the machine communicates to you, then you can see what it
: "thinks", and then make adjustments.

and what says they don't do this???

: Only a total hardware only, speed only, in short as complete

: Fach-Idiot in chess could build a device which gets as sole output the
: final result. And he would only do it because he had no chess
: knowledge with which to interpret the PV, and no access to
: chess knowledge in the form of friendly GM's.

Yes... only someone that was trying to search positions *faster* than
most computers can add 2+2 or return a PV move. You don't understand
hardware design. You aren't capable of understanding hardware design.
So why would you even join this conversation? Do you understand ideas
like gate delays, multiple port registers, settling time, and such?
Any ideas why DB processors are designed as they are? Of course you
don't... but you can sit back and throw stones, hiding behind your
mountain of ignorance... day after day...

: But that wasn't the case as we know ...

: A chess expert is in need of the following at each each iteration:

Exactly how would you know this, not being "a chess expert"???

: Does it choose this move for positional (evaluation) reasons, or

: because it has found some tactics? A trivial aspect, no, to be able to
: tune the 8000 parameters. Duh duh duh. Set and match, Thy Pope.

: Another one? Your serve, Fach-Idiot ...!

Sorry, game, set and *match* are already over. *you lost*.

:>Yes I did... just as I saw *nothing* funny with the output for the

:>Kasparov game. So the answer is *yes*...

: I see some contradictions in your presentation. Come back to that one
: *soon*.

No need... I can't teach calculus to an idiot. I'm not going to be
able to teach hardware design to an idiot either. You will have to
find someone else to educate you...

: You probably refer to the fact that you were at least more careful

: than others. But anyway, you also defamed him.

I made two statements about Botvinnik: (1) he faked his data; (2) Hans
should have been much more "gentle" in his rebuke of Botvinnik's results.
But fake they were...

: Friedel too. And I think Kasparov was also on that train a little bit.

: So, it's a historical tragedy / or comedy that Kasparov was now
: himself a victim of such a hidance ...

: But that's another topic. Here we have to deal with the ham-act of
: IBM/DB and Bob Hyatt's proxy services ...

No proxy services. I've just known all of them long enough to respect
them. And point out obviously idiotic remarks when you make them about
DB, when you *obviously* know less than nothing about it...

: Thanks finally for any details you're giving us. Why not staying to

: this scienctific style without gasolining phantasies and name-calling?

You will notice that *I* haven't mentioned "gasoline" in months, except
when *you* bring it up. So it is not *me* with the "phantasies" (whatever
a "phantasy" is, I assume that you are simply too stupid to spell correctly
and hit "fantasy").

: You're right so far, I'm "solid like a rock". :)

Espeically between the ears...

: "Earned" is a problematic expression from a proxy ...

It's not "problematic" at all. IE I would *never* turn my back on
you, I have *so much* trust for you...

: You have those time-outs in your brain? We were talking about
: questions from Amir e.g.

: And we've seen how Hsu disqualified the questions of the actual Wch !

: But that must be an American problem of decency?

Decency is a different concept that doesn't apply here. Decency more
applies to your reference to your favorite body part repeatedly.

: What info? You mean my critique of gasolining human beings?

Nope. I mean your frequent references to calling folks "nazis" or
discussing your most-handled body part, and other things. Maybe they
will help us here, who knows?

: How will you manage? I'm 23 and you 69? A bit unrealistic and

: illogical? But I don't take it wrong. Let's enjoy each day we can
: continue to communicate ...

Keep believing this. But your ISP might have more to say about that
that even you can deal with...

[Keith Ian Price]

On Tue, 5 May 1998 14:48:02, ami...@m-sys.com wrote:

> In article <6ijb1f$9c5$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>#1/3,
> Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:

> > I'm saying that what Hsu said sounds perfectly plausible. He was *not*
> > the operator at that point in the game.. I believe Joe was operating but
> > am not sure. Hsu said he "wondered" why it took so long. I see this
> > on ICC regularly as a bunch of us watch Crafty play... and we discuss
> > "wonder why it's taking so long? did it fail low? Has it found something
> > "clever"? All quite common...

> Hsu did not contribute anything new. Maybe he's the wrong person to ask. He
> does not know the details, and KIP understandably could not bring him up to
> date in conversation. Some things he said are obviously not true: The
> printouts given are, in fact, hardcopies of the terminal output, so they

> could be inspected by Hsu after the fact. Qb6 was not rejected at the last

> minute. Its eval last showed up at 5:35 min. The search stopped at 6:56 min,
> and nothing happened in the interval. axb5 showed later, in the
> "reconstruction".

Hsu did not state any moves directly. He said that "Amir does not know
how to read the outputs, if he thinks that that last move showed up
with only a few seconds processing. All the other moves that were
considered were rejected first, and then this was chosen. It does not
mean that the move was only considered for a short time, with parallel
processing it was being considered all along, but was not selected
until the end." I added the moves that were represented by his more
vague statements to help understand the situation, but probably made
it less clear to you. I wish I had had a tape recorder while
interviewing him, but it was somewhat unexpected, and so even though
their are quotes around the statement above, it is from memory, and
so is also a paraphrase. So, I think you are right, in that it was not
fresh in his mind, and perhaps he was not the right person to ask.

> If axb5 had shown up at the last second, that would be plausible, and in fact
> would be a resonable explanation why the search stopped (a "good enough" move
> was found). For the best move to show up AFTER the search stopped is not
> plausible, and requires an explanation, and then there is also the question
> of why the search stopped. If Hsu understands this and has an explanation, I
> will listen. If he's saying that this is ridiculous, let him go and see what
> his machine printed.

I wish I had been able to ask him this, but perhaps he doesn't know,
as the software for the SP2 is written by another member of the team.
I must say that from talking to him, I would not believe that he was
involved in any strange interventions. He was much too proud of his
accomplishment, which I think he should be, to be hiding anything
nefarious. Whether or not DB would win with Kasparov having a chance
to prepare with games it has played, and with sufficient time to rest
between games (which I think it would not), it did win this match, and
this is not an insignificant accomplishment, and I think he has a
right to be proud of it.

> > And yes, there were rules about the machine, with no operator access during
> > the match except for the operator that was sitting across from Kasparov, to
> > keep *any* suspicions at all out of the picture...

Kind of too bad that it didn't work. I really don't think that the
pressure was that great on IBM's part to win the match as they
achieved 1 billion "impressions" worldwide from the first match, which
was worth $200 million in advertising to them. An "impression" is a
person noticing some news or report or mention of the DB-Kasparov
match, even if that person has had one before.In the second match the
figure was more like 4 billion. Their web site at the time held the
record for most hits ever up to that date, beating even the Superbowl
site. It was later surpassed by the 1996 Olympics site, but still
stands as number 2. Therefore, had they lost, they would have just
made plans for another try. Now that they've won, they will not want
to jeopardize the impression in the general public's mind that DB is
world champion. The reporter for the OGI campus newsletter even asked
a question in this manner, "Now that Deep Blue is World Champion, do
you have any plans to....". To his credit, Hsu immediately explained
that Deep Blue is not World Champion, but only won a match against
Kasparov.

> Deep-Blue was operated from a closed room, not by the person sitting in front
> of Kasparov. The only person I know who was in the closed room is Ken
> Thompson. Thompson's only comment (according to Kasaprov) on this move is
> that Qb6 was never considered (!!!), which is not helpful.

I'm not sure what you mean by "operated" here. What was Ken Thompson
doing? Or do you mean that Deep Blue was running in a closed room, and
only Ken Thompson was in the room, but not necessarily doing anything?

> Amir

Sorry that it has taken so long to post this reply, but I've been
working some 14-hour days, including last weekend, so I haven't had
the time. I will try to post part III this weekend. I am not scheduled
to work.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
kp

[mclane]

nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:

>On 7 May 1998 01:47:51 GMT Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>>Not at all. I just wish you would go far away. I hope that the info
>>being passed on to your service provider assists you on this journey...

>TheDoDo says:

>What would possess you to do a thing like that? Have you lost your marbles?
>Why in the hell are you sending Rolf's posts to his ISP?

>Absurd.

Not absurd. Other people should SHARE and SEE how gentle and peaceful
and friendly and modest this guy is. How much he cares on human-rights
and is looking for netiquette.
I am sure his output is so drastically good that it will make him very
famous, not only here but also to internet-providers... :-)))

best wishes

mclane

[Robert Hyatt]

hyperreal-anon-remailer <nob...@sind.hyperreal.art.pl> wrote:

: TheDoDo says:

: Only a chickenshit would send Rolf's messages to his ISP.

You have that backward.

Only a chickenshit would hide behind an anonymous remailer. Folks tired
of misbehavior tend to take action to solve the problem. "chickenshits"
just do what they always do... stink...