Berliner vs. Botvinnik Some interesting points
Rolf W. Tueschen
Berliner vs. Botvinnik ------ Some interesting points
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "If I were Botwinnik I would be ashamed of myself. I hope that when
>> > > I get to his age, I will have enough good sense to know what I am
>> > > capable of and what I am not, and leave the latter alone. To try and
>> > > convince others that you are what you are not, is unbecoming of
>> > > a World Class person. .........
What someone is capable of. If not. Leave it.
This is Berliners extracted syntax.
It seems trivial.
And among scientists you would never offense someone by doing
otherwise. You simply become ridiculous. That's all.
But Berliner completely seems to forget another also very trivial
point. Everyone knew that Botvinnik didn't have the machines/material
which could powerfully show his ideas/theories. So in science this is
a very easy *winner* by Berliner. And it's simply not hurting
Botvinnik. It falls back on Berliner on the contrary. A gentleman
never boasts with trivialities. It's simply not sophisticated.
No, This has nothing to do with protecting *scientific* community.
Because this would be a contradiction in itself.
But leaving one very important parameter aside (the soviet lack in
resources compared to the americans)--- this shows clearly that
Berliner moves outside any scientific seriousness.
>> >
>> > This is of course harsh, but this is Hans. He is not easy to deal with
>> > but if you deal with him you know that, and if you publish anything you
>> > have to deal with criticism, so it is perfectly fair.
>> >
>> > > Botvinnik is not a meaningful
>> > > person in the field of computer chess, and if he wishes to comment on
>> > > this field, he should make it clear that it is the comments of a chess
>> > > player not a computer person.
>> >
>> > "A meaningful person in the field of computer chess" is by a reasonable
>> > definition someone who designed and/or wrote a reasonably strong program
>> > or parts thereof that can be improved by the remainder of the community.
>> >
>> > Can we agree on that ?
>> >
>> > Botvinnik never achieved this. It it a question of self-esteem if you
>> > criticize people in a very harsh form who achieved something in their
>> > field while you achieved nothing.
Wait a moment. We agree on the following just these days now:
It would be helpful/important to have a real master in the field of
programming computer chess, right?
Botvinnik surely was one of the greatest chess masters of the century
AND an anylizer of chess.
Are writers of lines from above really capable to judge if Botvinnik
achieved NOTHING? I don't think so. Even if ALL theories were only in
Botvinnik's head and nowhere implemented I would always had invited
him to each and every congress at least as guest of honour. Why does
*Haenschen* (german calling a younger Hans) want to oppose this?
>> > Botvinnik damages the reputation of a scientific field by publishing
>> > "manicured" results. If something like this happens in any scientific
>> > field *and* is honoured by the community [by publication in a reviewed
>> > journal and by being invited as "guest of honour" at conferences etc.]
>> > then the whole field looses creditability and scientists working in this
>> > field have to suffer for this [lack of funding, "no field in which
>> > scientific standards are enforced" etc].
Sorry so much. Who (and where) proved this *manicure*? Proof with 100%
or at least 99%.
>> > I don't think that Berliner intended to attack the ideas of Botvinnik
>> > but the *presentation* of the ideas in such a form that a casual
>> > observer can nothing but conclude that Botvinnik's group is light years
>> > ahead of the remainder of the field. The complete lack of proof of that
>> > claim is a slap into the face of every scientist working in this field.
As I stated earlier you cannot slap a scientist into his face. You
could only loose your own reputation. Period. No one has to protect
*helpless* scientists who probably won't see the point. This again is
a contradiction in itself. Very stupid.
Article Unavailable
Peter W. Gillgasch
Rolf W. Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote:
[
big snip with hopefully no information loss since the poster is
repeating itself a couple of times, sorry.
]
> >> > "A meaningful person in the field of computer chess" is by a reasonable
> >> > definition someone who designed and/or wrote a reasonably strong program
> >> > or parts thereof that can be improved by the remainder of the community.
> >> >
> >> > Can we agree on that ?
> >> >
> >> > Botvinnik never achieved this. It it a question of self-esteem if you
> >> > criticize people in a very harsh form who achieved something in their
> >> > field while you achieved nothing.
>
> Wait a moment. We agree on the following just these days now:
> It would be helpful/important to have a real master in the field of
> programming computer chess, right?
Kind of. Teaching what is important in chess is important. Someone
else could do the programming.
> Botvinnik surely was one of the greatest chess masters of the century
> AND an anylizer of chess.
Well, ok, I can agree on that.
> Are writers of lines from above really capable to judge if Botvinnik
> achieved NOTHING?
First you have to learn to read carefully. He never had a working
program. In the computer chess sense he has achieved __nothing__,
yet he claimed and claimed and claimed...
>I don't think so. Even if ALL theories were only in
> Botvinnik's head and nowhere implemented I would always had invited
> him to each and every congress at least as guest of honour.
So show me his theory. There is none. The exhibitions of his "theory"
[since the late 70ties] went something like this:
You are wrong, it has to be done different, I know how do to it since I
am Botvinnik the great and you are a pile of idiots and if I'll tell you
how Pioneer does this you would not appreciate it anyway, so why bother.
---
I promise to demolish your kitchen if you invite me to your house and
give me food, drink and cash and pay my travel expenses. I assume that
you would like that and you will invite me again, right ?
> Why does *Haenschen* (german calling a younger Hans) want to oppose
> this?
A tone like this contributes nothing to the discussion.
> >> > Botvinnik damages the reputation of a scientific field by publishing
> >> > "manicured" results. If something like this happens in any scientific
> >> > field *and* is honoured by the community [by publication in a reviewed
> >> > journal and by being invited as "guest of honour" at conferences etc.]
> >> > then the whole field looses creditability and scientists working in this
> >> > field have to suffer for this [lack of funding, "no field in which
> >> > scientific standards are enforced" etc].
>
> Sorry so much. Who (and where) proved this *manicure*? Proof with 100%
> or at least 99%.
You didn't read the "Three positions" article and the criticism it
raised otherwise you wouldn't ask. BTW GM Bronstein was laughing his
head off as well, so don't point the gun to some scientist.
For your 99% or 100% proofs, write an evaluation function that maps a
proof into the [0..100] % range. BTW your inclusion of the ]0..100[ %
range just proofs that you don't know what a proof is.
> >> > I don't think that Berliner intended to attack the ideas of Botvinnik
> >> > but the *presentation* of the ideas in such a form that a casual
> >> > observer can nothing but conclude that Botvinnik's group is light years
> >> > ahead of the remainder of the field. The complete lack of proof of that
> >> > claim is a slap into the face of every scientist working in this field.
>
> As I stated earlier you cannot slap a scientist into his face. You
> could only loose your own reputation. Period. No one has to protect
> *helpless* scientists who probably won't see the point.
Article Unavailable
Simon Read
Rolfschen wrote:
> But Berliner completely seems to forget another also very trivial
> point. Everyone knew that Botvinnik didn't have the machines/material
> which could powerfully show his ideas/theories.
You obviously haven't been reading everything on this thread, in
particular the posting by Jonathan Schaeffer:
"He said that all he needed was a 68030, so we offered to pay his
expenses, give him a programmer for a couple of weeks and give him
a 68030. He refused and asked if we were trying to embarrass him."
So don't try to pull the old "he didn't have enough computer power" joke.
Simon
mcl...@prima.ruhr.de
In article <199611051810113815270@[194.121.104.136]>, gil...@ilk.de (Peter W.
Gillgasch) writes:
Maybe we should forget the Pionier and Chess Sapiens discussion,
because we cannot proof good enough until
Igor Botvinnik answers us here on the net.
He or somebody else in his name, posted that he wants
to continue this program if he finds sponsors.
I have not heard about this posting again.
Why don't we take MEPHISTO 3 from Thomas Nitsche and Elmar Henne
instead for an intelligent effort that PLAYED chess.
It run on a 1806 CPU and had 32 Kilobyte program size and
8 Kilobyte RAM. I have the machine in the 8-Bit version,
in the 68000 version, tuned on 24 MHZ instead of 16.
So instead of 1-3 positions per second it computes
6-15 positions.
Could you write a chess program that evaluates these less
amount positions per second and BEATS
Mephisto III ?
Your program should use the same slow oand old machine.
And Nitsche/Henne did this failing effort 1983- ...
So you have progress of many years.
There was no hashing, no null-move known.
And it played nice chess, not very strong, but really
planning.
And there is a main bug in the code,
so that whenever it has the possibility to
decide between 2 moves that were evaluated the same
evaluation, it decides to select the move that
has the deeper plot. By this bug it creates nice
horizont effects and falls in easy short-range-traps
because of wrong expectations in the tree.
Also Nitsche and Henne are not dead, we can ask them if we
had problems or whatever.
Would this be more constructive than talking about Pionier?
>I don't think so. Even if ALL theories were only in
>> Botvinnik's head and nowhere implemented I would always had invited
>> him to each and every congress at least as guest of honour.
>
>So show me his theory. There is none. The exhibitions of his "theory"
>[since the late 70ties] went something like this:
>
>You are wrong, it has to be done different, I know how do to it since I
>am Botvinnik the great and you are a pile of idiots and if I'll tell you
>how Pioneer does this you would not appreciate it anyway, so why bother.
>
>---
>
>I promise to demolish your kitchen if you invite me to your house and
>give me food, drink and cash and pay my travel expenses. I assume that
>you would like that and you will invite me again, right ?
>
Now you are telling us that Botvinnik has demolished someones kitchen?
Has this any effect on the playing strength of Chess Sapiens?
>> Why does *Haenschen* (german calling a younger Hans) want to oppose
>> this?
>
>A tone like this contributes nothing to the discussion.
>
>> >> > Botvinnik damages the reputation of a scientific field by publishing
>> >> > "manicured" results. If something like this happens in any scientific
>> >> > field *and* is honoured by the community [by publication in a reviewed
>> >> > journal and by being invited as "guest of honour" at conferences etc.]
>> >> > then the whole field looses creditability and scientists working in
this
>> >> > field have to suffer for this [lack of funding, "no field in which
>> >> > scientific standards are enforced" etc].
>>
>> Sorry so much. Who (and where) proved this *manicure*? Proof with 100%
>> or at least 99%.
>
>You didn't read the "Three positions" article and the criticism it
>raised otherwise you wouldn't ask. BTW GM Bronstein was laughing his
>head off as well, so don't point the gun to some scientist.
>
I have an interview of Bronstein and Berliner from Aegon on video-
tape where Bronstein says that computers don't know which is important.
And he plays with them by giving them material that is not important.
For me, Bronsteins opinion was 100 % fitting my own ideas and I can
not imagine that bronstein would like stupid programs or laugh
about other people going different ways.
>For your 99% or 100% proofs, write an evaluation function that maps a
>proof into the [0..100] % range. BTW your inclusion of the ]0..100[ %
>range just proofs that you don't know what a proof is.
>
>> >> > I don't think that Berliner intended to attack the ideas of Botvinnik
>> >> > but the *presentation* of the ideas in such a form that a casual
>> >> > observer can nothing but conclude that Botvinnik's group is light years
>> >> > ahead of the remainder of the field. The complete lack of proof of that
>> >> > claim is a slap into the face of every scientist working in this field.
>>
>> As I stated earlier you cannot slap a scientist into his face. You
>> could only loose your own reputation. Period. No one has to protect
>> *helpless* scientists who probably won't see the point.
>
>I was *not* talking about a specific scientist, I was talking about
>the set of researchers working on an arbitrary field of science. If you
>can't see that publishing manicured results does hurt the field it is
>dealing with and - as a consequence - hurts all the researchers in this
>field, well. Example: One football player goes into a bar and beats some
>folks up, just for the fun of it. What do you think do the other
>football players think about that ? What do you think the sponsors think
>about that ? Can you imagine that the sponsors think "well, tennis
>players don't do that, so..." You get the idea this time, I hope.
>
>> This again is a contradiction in itself. Very stupid.
>
>Your level continues to fall rapidly approaching -273 degrees celsius.
>
BTW: it will not reach an absolute temperature of -273 or whatever.
There is no absolute point of no return in temperature.
>[ snip ]
>
>> Wait again. ThiArticle Unavailable
Robert Hyatt
mcl...@prima.ruhr.de wrote:
: Maybe we should forget the Pionier and Chess Sapiens discussion,
Hashing was used in Mac Hack, in the 60's... it was used in every
version of my program dating back to 1972. Null Move was used in
1983, because I used it in the program that won the world computer
chess championship that year. They aren't particularly new ideas
at all, particularly hashing...
Bradley C. Kuszmaul
In article <55q2cu$2...@juniper.cis.uab.edu> hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) writes:
From: hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Date: 6 Nov 1996 13:04:30 GMT
...
Hashing was used in Mac Hack, in the 60's... it was used in every
version of my program dating back to 1972. Null Move was used in
1983, because I used it in the program that won the world computer
chess championship that year. They aren't particularly new ideas
at all, particularly hashing...
My earliest reference to transposition table hashing is Zobrist's 1970
technical report. I would be interested in an earlier reference that
describes Mac Hack using hashing in the 1960's.
-Bradley
@TechReport(Zobrist70
,Author = {A. L. Zobrist}
,Title = {A Hashing Method with Applications for Game Playing}
,Institution = {Computer Science Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison}
,Year = 1970
,Type = {Technical Report}
,Number = 88
,Month = apr
,abstract = {A general method of has coding is described with an
application for games which play board games such as
checkers, chess, and GO\@. An Auxiliary method which
detects retrieval errors is proposed. The error rate
can be precisely controlled depending upon how much
space in the hash table is devoted to the auxiliary
method.}
,annote = {This is the method of using a piece-square table of
random numbers, and xoring all the random numbers that
correspond to a board position, to produce a hash key.
The `auxiliary' method is to store a longer hash key
in the hash table itself to detect false hits. Both
of these methods are standard in today's chess programs.
}
)
Robert Hyatt
I can't give you the exact citation, but the greenblatt chess program
was written up in a collection of papers published by Digital Equipment
Corporation. In this paper, greenblatt describes quite specifically
his usage of the transposition table to avoid researching parts of the
tree that have a common ancestor position.
I don't remember exactly when Mack Hack played, but it was definitely
in the 60's. This paper I saw was simply a glossy-covered collection
of things sent to me by Digital in 1971 when we were trying to make up
our mind about buying a DEC KL10 or a Xerox Sigma 9. MackHack was on
the demo machine we were running on. The paper described the forward
pruning (you could set the "width" at each ply) and so forth, and gave
a couple of games it had played in some tournament.
I'd suspect that an electronic search on Mack Hack (or Mac Hack) would
turn this up... Tony or Monty or someone might have more info. I used
to have a copy of the article, but over the years, it seems to have
shifted into an alternate universe and has not yet returned... :)
Also, the Zobrist paper is more a description of how to form the hash
keys using the now common method of random values exclusive-or'ed
together as I recall. I don't know (or else don't remember) if Greenblatt
revealed his hashing function. I tried lots of things before I discovered
the "Zobrist" algorithm on my own... Later someone pointed out that many
had "re-discovered" this because the paper was not well-known...
Bob
Bradley C. Kuszmaul (bra...@arch.cs.yale.edu) wrote:
Chris Whittington
Yup, Bronstein also had a contribution published in the same copy
of the ICCA journal.
Bronstein also attacked the statements of Botwinnik.
But without personal abuse. He was mildly and slightly
amusingly sarcastic, but not personally abusive.
Bronstein showed one entirely reasonable method and style of
attacking Botwinnik.
This was the difference.
Mr Nice and Mr Nasty.
The ICCA should have had the good sense to publish nice an not nasty.
That they didn't remains my gripe.
Chris Whittington
Rolf W. Tueschen
gil...@ilk.de (Peter W. Gillgasch) wrote:
>Rolf W. Tueschen wrote:
>[
>big snip
Agreement on every snip. To save the important point. Ok.
First of all statement of a trivial fact: I wouldn't dare to argue on
specific programmer's fields. And I never did.
I'm just writing in the sand, as someone wrote elsewhere:
Point I (Where is the starting point for an accepted c.c.scientist)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Are writers of lines from above really capable to judge if Botvinnik
>> achieved NOTHING?
>First you have to learn to read carefully. He never had a working
>program. In the computer chess sense he has achieved __nothing__,
>yet he claimed and claimed and claimed...
>>I don't think so. Even if ALL theories were only in
>> Botvinnik's head and nowhere implemented I would always had invited
>> him to each and every congress at least as guest of honour.
>So show me his theory. There is none. The exhibitions of his "theory"
>[since the late 70ties] went something like this:
[big snip]
This little exchange shows quite clearly that we're talking about
different things. You as *higher* expert should have realized this.
If you didn't -- it's simply because you left scientific correct
arguments. You must have the spirit to being able to realize that I
myself are not at all in the details themselves. Only point that I
could maintain in question is excactly that one where you in my
opinion left the field and unnecessarily tried to complete *facts*
which are -- for me at least -- are not at all proven beyond every
allowed doubts.
It doesn't help you to give some sidekicks to my very innocent part in
this debate. Because I conceded this winner right at the beginning.
For me the debate first of all is a technical one -- and there I
wouldn't come across you and your arguments. Please try to understand
that beside this there is another field -- the off-technical one if
you would friendly allow me to point to -- where everyone can join who
has the minimum knowledge of scientific procedures.
And standing on these grounds I do make the approach that you are not
at all making clearer things but you try to superficially confuse
people here in the news group.
E.g. read your own lines with minimum care:
>You are wrong, it has to be done different, I know how do to it since I
>am Botvinnik the great and you are a pile of idiots and if I'll tell you
>how Pioneer does this you would not appreciate it anyway, so why bother.
>---
>I promise to demolish your kitchen if you invite me to your house and
>give me food, drink and cash and pay my travel expenses. I assume that
>you would like that and you will invite me again, right ?
What is this? Well these are many words -- which explain nothing. Two
possibilities: (a) you are no professional writer or (b) you try to
expose yourself unintentionaly.
Look, I'm 100% (yes, this time I try this one) sure that Botvinnik
nowhere used the words you are *quoting*. And therefore your example
of my kitchen is absolutely ridiculous.
You didn't get my point. If someone like him did speak such stupid
phrases he would certainly not have been respected as sufficiently
*normal*. You don't had to worry about that.
No, you certainly only wanted to explain how you did understand some
of Botvinnik's sayings. You found out that you couldn't believe this
man. But Peter, that's completely ok with me. And even if all your
collegues thout the same -- it's ok with me.
But another -- totally another point is to prove quasi scientifically
that Botvinnik should better kept his mouth closed because he had
*nothing* better to offer instead to you and your team and *all*
programmers.
HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? Where are your proofs on that?
I couldn't find them in your long articles. You may be right but you
didn't prove it.
And since a very long time of centuries in science for me it's simply
asking for your proof. I myself have NOTHING to contribute. So I'm not
examined , I didn't throw speculations about anything into the arena.
You tried to explain s.th. that you could simply not prove --- yet.
It's simple as this.
>You didn't read the "Three positions" article and the criticism it
>raised otherwise you wouldn't ask. BTW GM Bronstein was laughing
Ok, you may be right. But I never told you the contrary. (But it would
be very friendly if you could give some *important* hints for a
beginners read-must to finally understand some of the technical sides
of your arguments. Could you? Please do it.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Point II (Why scientists had to be protected against nonscientific
bull?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> As I stated earlier you cannot slap a scientist into his face. You
>> could only loose your own reputation. Period. No one has to protect
>> *helpless* scientists who probably won't see the point.
>I was *not* talking about a specific scientist, I was talking about
>the set of researchers working on an arbitrary field of science. If you
>can't see that publishing manicured results does hurt the field it is
>dealing with and - as a consequence - hurts all the researchers in this
>field, well. Example: One football player goes into a bar and beats some
>folks up, just for the fun of it. What do you think do the other
>football players think about that ? What do you think the sponsors think
>about that ? Can you imagine that the sponsors think "well, tennis
>players don't do that, so..." You get the idea this time, I hope.
I don't need and want to make any commentary on this one. It speaks
for itself. And you may read my section above. BTW I always took you
serious as a scientist. What the hell -- sorry -- are you reflecting
on?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Point III (How to prove the non-exisence of UFOs --- scientifically)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>(b) after it was known that he has a machine Pioneer or Chess Computer
> Sapiens still was __never__ shown to anybody, not even to his
> friends from the USA/Canada who travelled to Russia to visit him.
>Those are the facts. Go figure. Conclusion: His program never reached
>a working state. Yet he published his search trees...
Are you really believing that you did prove the non-existence of a
sort of machine Botvinnik worked on? Well again you left science this
time for 103%. (My private scale. :))
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Point IV (Human touch)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>I don't care what Friedel meant with that. Ask him, not me. Do you think
>this was a plot to kill Botvinnik by voodoo ? Gimme a break.
Oh yes. We're scientists. We're only doing our job. We're only asking
for the truth. Without emotions. Someone has to do it. etc.
Didn't you remark some contradictions in your own head? You're
protecting innocent scientists but this cheater from Russia doesn't
have any worth as human being to be respected?
I understand. So we finally did discover some interesting details.
More and more we are entering another field in science. That of the so
called psychology. Not without interest in this discussion for me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conclusion
~~~~~~~~
Please continue to maintain your arguments regarding technical stuff.
Write about it here for us. I myself will read everything and can
learn a lot.
But please don't push your speculations further. You can only loose.
What? Well let's wait a bit with final diagnosis. I would prefer you
returned to computer chess programming.
Politics and the like is totally another field. And in that field I
would attest -- you are somewhat like me (in the programmers domain).
What is the motive that you changed your working field?
Did Botvinnik really hurt you personally?
Rolf Tueschen
Robert Hyatt
mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: Robert Hyatt wrote:
: >
: > mcl...@prima.ruhr.de wrote:
: > : Maybe we should forget the Pionier and Chess Sapiens discussion,
: > Hashing was used in Mac Hack, in the 60's... it was used in every
: > version of my program dating back to 1972. Null Move was used in
: > 1983, because I used it in the program that won the world computer
: > chess championship that year. They aren't particularly new ideas
: > at all, particularly hashing...
:
: have 32 K for ROM
: and 8 K for RAM.
:
: How much hash tables would you use on this 8-bit machines ??? :-)
:
: The program should compute 1-3 or 10 pos. per second.
:
: How strong would crafty be if it computes 3 positions per second?
: Try it out.
How safe would a frog be if he had pockets? He'd carry a gun, and
never worry about getting eaten by snakes. :)
Were I writing for an old chip, I'd do it differently. Fortunately,
I'm not...
Rolf W. Tueschen
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>Hashing was used in Mac Hack, in the 60's... it was used in every
>version of my program dating back to 1972. Null Move was used in
>1983, because I used it in the program that won the world computer
>chess championship that year. They aren't particularly new ideas
>at all, particularly hashing...
I would like to hear some more details of that kind.
Bob, when do you have you 25 th jubilee? Please tell us more about
your experience. Or perhaps you write a book? Did you write one? Which
is understandable to non-formular aquainted readers too?
One question for beginners:
Could you explain the difference between those former *big* machines
from 70ies and 80ies and the software programs from now? Did they
*only* try to translate some of the old programs into new languages?
Or are there really some new inventions specific in chess (in
machine's understanding) that were not known in those days?
And another one, which I never understood:
How could it happen that a program who is able to calculate to a
horrible depth -- lost against one of those new ones which was much
more short-sighted?
And the last (perhaps more suiting the Botvinnik topic) one:
Is there a principle border for implanting all those important
grammatical chess frames into machine language?
It could not be a capacity problem for these huge multi-parallel ones?
So why they don't do it?
I cannot stop, Bob:
Is there any reason to believe that at a certain point -- after we put
ALL chess games ever played plus opening theory -- the machines could
use the files after a nebulous // that might be not correct english //
I mean a thing like a turning change point --- the machines could play
sort of superior chess which would not only be of a deeper
calculation? Stupid speculations?
Rolf Tueschen
mclane
> version of my program dating back to 1972. Null Move was used in
> 1983, because I used it in the program that won the world computer
> chess championship that year. They aren't particularly new ideas
> at all, particularly hashing...
If you want you can try hashing on the 1806 10 MHz CPU if you
mclane
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
>: Robert Hyatt wrote:
>: >
>: > mcl...@prima.ruhr.de wrote:
>: > : Maybe we should forget the Pionier and Chess Sapiens discussion,
>: >
>: > Hashing was used in Mac Hack, in the 60's... it was used in every
>: > version of my program dating back to 1972. Null Move was used in
>: > 1983, because I used it in the program that won the world computer
>: > chess championship that year. They aren't particularly new ideas
>: > at all, particularly hashing...
>:
>: If you want you can try hashing on the 1806 10 MHz CPU if you
>: have 32 K for ROM
>: and 8 K for RAM.
>:
>: How much hash tables would you use on this 8-bit machines ??? :-)
>:
>: The program should compute 1-3 or 10 pos. per second.
>:
>: How strong would crafty be if it computes 3 positions per second?
>: Try it out.
>How safe would a frog be if he had pockets? He'd carry a gun, and
>never worry about getting eaten by snakes. :)
>Were I writing for an old chip, I'd do it differently. Fortunately,
>I'm not...
Ok, do it on the Pentium, but how strong would crafty be without
hash, (ok - I can hear your: hash is very old invention! OK, do it
with hash!!) and with 3 positions per second ???
Would it win against my Mephisto III from 1984 ?
Robert Hyatt
mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
:
: >mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: >: Robert Hyatt wrote:
: >: >
: >: > mcl...@prima.ruhr.de wrote:
: >: > version of my program dating back to 1972. Null Move was used in
: >: > 1983, because I used it in the program that won the world computer
: >: > chess championship that year. They aren't particularly new ideas
: >: > at all, particularly hashing...
: >:
: >: If you want you can try hashing on the 1806 10 MHz CPU if you
: >: have 32 K for ROM
: >: and 8 K for RAM.
: >:
: >: How much hash tables would you use on this 8-bit machines ??? :-)
: >:
: >: The program should compute 1-3 or 10 pos. per second.
: >:
: >: How strong would crafty be if it computes 3 positions per second?
: >: Try it out.
:
: >How safe would a frog be if he had pockets? He'd carry a gun, and
: >never worry about getting eaten by snakes. :)
:
: >Were I writing for an old chip, I'd do it differently. Fortunately,
: >I'm not...
:
: Ok, do it on the Pentium, but how strong would crafty be without
: hash, (ok - I can hear your: hash is very old invention! OK, do it
: with hash!!) and with 3 positions per second ???
:
: Would it win against my Mephisto III from 1984 ?
I've been to many tournaments. In 1984 the Mephisto I know of was not
searching any 3 nodes per second... although there were several variants
some by Lang, some by Ed, some by who knows who else. However, in 1984
the Spracklens and Kittinger were as good as any around (micro-based)
and they were all going way over 3 nodes per sec. way over 1,000 nodes
per second even...
mclane
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
>: hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>:
>: >mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
>: >: Robert Hyatt wrote:
>: >: >
>: >: > mcl...@prima.ruhr.de wrote:
>: >: > : Maybe we should forget the Pionier and Chess Sapiens discussion,
Sorry, but you seem to have mixed a few facts, as I know them:
8th until 15th September 1984 there was the 4th ICCA
world-championship in Glasgow!
Spracklen / Fidelity was there,
Kittinger / Superconny was not there, due to strange reasons
Richard was there!! ALONE, not yet linked with
Hegener+Glaser, on Motorola Sinlcair QL and PSION,
Mephisto was there with the Motorola 68000 on 12Mhz
64Kbyte ROM and 16 KBYte Ram.
I have one machine with the same data at home, also
the 16-Bit Mephisto S program , and it really computes
only arround 5-15 pos. per second.
The 8-Bit version of this program (32 Kbyte Rom, 8 Kbyte Ram 1806 8
Mhz CPU ) really computes 1-3 positions per second.
The mephisto III in the small black case, without chess-board
runs with 6.1 Mhz or less and computes only 1-2 pos. per second.
AND IT PLAYS NICE CHESS !!!!!
Richard came to Hegener+Glaser 1985 with his win in Amsterdam.
It should be sure that Hegener+Glaser made the business-connections
in 1984 Glasgow, but in Glasgow Richard was NOT working for Mephisto.
Also Ed and your
> who knows who else
they all came later!!
I am speaking about Mephisto III from Elmar Henne and Thomas Nitsche.
This is the predecessor of Mephisto II (the same authors).
Mephisto A (the program I refer to!!! It was released later as
Mephisto III [8-Bit] and Mephisto 68000 S [16-Bit].
was the commercial-winner of Glasgow !!!!
So it showed 1984 that it could play chess with less nodes per
second!!!
BTW: at this championship OSSI WEINER again found out that
the Fidelity ELITE program was NOT really a commercial version,
because it used a special (killer ?) opening book.
Again my statement: killer-books are older than any software on pc's.
It was always a very important EFFECT in tournaments and in LISTS.
But we do discuss the whole stuff today, to be nice to Marty.
4 programs were world-champions in 1984 Glasgow:
ELITE X Spracklen
Mephisto A Nitsche+Henne Mephisto was champion in commercial
class.
Princhess X Rathsmann
Psion Chess Richard Lang
Again:
Would you win against this program from 1984 if your crafty makes 1-3
or 5-15 positions per second ???
I have the machine at home.
Lets try out !!
Best wishes
Ed Schröder
From: mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)
: The mephisto III in the small black case, without chess-board
: runs with 6.1 Mhz or less and computes only 1-2 pos. per second.
: AND IT PLAYS NICE CHESS !!!!!
And once found a mate in 10 moves including a few silent moves!!
Indeed only computing 1-2 nodes a second at 40 in 2:00
I have seen it with my own eyes otherwise I would not believed it.
: Richard came to Hegener+Glaser 1985 with his win in Amsterdam.
: It should be sure that Hegener+Glaser made the business-connections
: in 1984 Glasgow, but in Glasgow Richard was NOT working for Mephisto.
Second part is not true...
: Also Ed and your
: > who knows who else
: they all came later!!
1986
: I am speaking about Mephisto III from Elmar Henne and Thomas Nitsche.
: This is the predecessor of Mephisto II (the same authors).
: So it showed 1984 that it could play chess with less nodes per
: second!!!
True but often it lost completely won games.
Even with scores of +7.00 or higher.
Never resign against Mephisto III
You always had a chance :)
: Again:
: Would you win against this program from 1984 if your crafty makes 1-3
: or 5-15 positions per second ???
: I have the machine at home.
: Lets try out !!
Or better...
I would love to see Mephisto III running on a PP-200
- Ed Schroder -
Robert Hyatt
mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
:
: >mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
I played against them back then and won. :) And I still don't believe
that any commercial program in 1984 was searching 3-4 nodes per second,
as we count nodes today. The spracklens were going over 1K. I'll try
to dig up my old tourney info when I hit the office on Monday. I only
remember one program searching that slow, ever, and that was Wita/Awit
by Tony Marsland that was highly selective. If 3nps was that good back
then, why isn't it world champion now at 10,000 times that speed?
Rolf W. Tueschen
Simon Read <s.r...@cranfield.ac.uk> wrote:
>Rolfschen wrote:
Simon, it would be Rolli :)
>particular the posting by Jonathan Schaeffer:
> "He said that all he needed was a 68030, so we offered to pay his
> expenses, give him a programmer for a couple of weeks and give him
> a 68030. He refused and asked if we were trying to embarrass him."
>So don't try to pull the old "he didn't have enough computer power" joke.
No this was no joke. And second this quoting says a lot, right. In
your opinion 100% against Botvinnik. And still -- not denying this
fact at all -- it's not a proof that Botvinnik didn't have anything
valuable.
Let's say it speaks a lot against him. But it's no proof.
If only you could imagine/think of some other possible causes.
I made some other points. Chris too.
You know, logically it's very simple: people who condemn Botvinnik as
100% *guilty* follow the same uncertainty-combined with attackable
cheaty aspects-*logic* they try to prove on the accused's side. I
apologize, it's NOT that simple. :)
To give an historically justified verdict -- that was my one and only
point -- Berliner just had to omit those 5% and -- I adjust -- some
*certanities* which he could never prove. Chris and Bob pointed out.
(I always asked for the second part of Berliner's essay which I even
hadn't read.)
Believe me, I wouldn't be that stupid to attack or comment any
technical *stuff* of the expert Hans Berliner. That would really be a
joke. Sorry, but reading those casual postings here in these groups I
dared to give my comment on aspects I'm used to deal with in MY
profession. That's it. And in the *search* for motives I think young
people underestimate the factor age a little bit. Bob gave a word on
this one. And I even go further. '89 Botvinnik was 77. He had made his
decisions. How creative one should be at that age in your opinion?
Whithout some very special injections for rebirthing but not a 386.
:)
Last aspect: I jumprd in because of some ethical sides of the events.
Not knowing if every programmer necessarily IS a scientist I
understood that Berliner really has an academical *title*. Taking this
into account I'm very sure that he acted widely outside the typical
scientific's sophistical arguing. Therefore some experts critizised
the ICCA journal as well. That's all.
Rolli Tueschen
Rolf W. Tueschen
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>How safe would a frog be if he had pockets? He'd carry a gun, and
>never worry about getting eaten by snakes. :)
>Were I writing for an old chip, I'd do it differently. Fortunately,
>I'm not...
We were talking about Berliners didn't we.
But I find another new hot trace in the sand.
Maybe these lines tell s.th. about this unacceptable witholding of the
best machine for the world champion HIARCS on SSDF. Each new program
-- and surely if it's the *best* -- should be run on the best
equipment. Your opinion?
Robert Hyatt
Rolf W. Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
I don't have any info about what went on back then. I take the SSDF
rating list with a grain of salt, because they are doing this for free,
using volunteers to play the games, using their own machines. It seems
like it's a lot to ask to suggest that they conform their testing regime
to our perception of how it should be done. If we were paying 'em, I'd
expect more input into the process.
If everyone would simply get past the idea that the SSDF is an absolute
scale, and simply use it to see how their favorite program does against
a particular opponent on a particular set of machines, there'd be fewer
questions about their methods and fewer misunderstandings about their
results...