My System
Jerry Creed
If not, say no
Scott F
Vladimir R. Medvedev
Lin
Chris Whittington
Yes.
I'm in the process of writing a review article on it.
Chris Whittington
>
Chris Whittington
Chris Whittington <ch...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:947846020.16270.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
Which can now be found on The Intelligent Chess Forum at
www.oxford-softworks.com under My System by Berliner - A review
>
> Chris Whittington
>
>
> >
>
>
Robert Hyatt
> Jerry Creed <jcr...@snip.net> wrote:
>> If you've read it cover to cover, say yes.
>> If not, say no
> It was the first chess book I ever read, cover to cover. It was also
> the second and third. There is a lot of info in there.
Ugh. Scratch that. Seems there are two books named "My System". One
is a classic. The other is not. (Hint: the classic is more than 5
years old. :) )
> --
> 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
--
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
Robert Hyatt
It was the first chess book I ever read, cover to cover. It was also
the second and third. There is a lot of info in there.
Tord Kallqvist Romstad
>
>Chris Whittington <ch...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:947846020.16270.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> Jerry Creed <jcr...@snip.net> wrote in message
>> news:s7ss4g...@corp.supernews.com...
>> > If not, say no
>> >
>>
>>
>> I'm in the process of writing a review article on it.
>
>Which can now be found on The Intelligent Chess Forum at
>www.oxford-softworks.com under My System by Berliner - A review
Wrong book! "My System" was written by Nimzovitsch. The name of
Berliner's book is "The System". Thanks for the review, by the
way! :-)
Tord
Vladimir R. Medvedev
I think it's the best chess learning book I ever seen.
Chris Whittington
Tord Kallqvist Romstad <rom...@janus.uio.no> wrote in message
news:slrn87uboq....@janus.uio.no...
> In article <947853923.17898.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Chris
> Whittington wrote:
> >
> >Chris Whittington <ch...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:947846020.16270.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >>
> >> news:s7ss4g...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> > If you've read it cover to cover, say yes.
> >> > If not, say no
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm in the process of writing a review article on it.
> >
> >Which can now be found on The Intelligent Chess Forum at
> >www.oxford-softworks.com under My System by Berliner - A review
>
> Wrong book! "My System" was written by Nimzovitsch. The name of
> Berliner's book is "The System". Thanks for the review, by the
> way! :-)
>
Doh ! Did I say 'My' ? Meant 'The'.
Have you read the book?
Chris Whittington
> Tord
Chris Whittington
Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote in message
news:85na0r$k6a$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu...
> >> If not, say no
>
> > the second and third. There is a lot of info in there.
>
> is a classic. The other is not. (Hint: the classic is more than 5
> years old. :) )
>
For my article / review on "The System" by Berliner, in which I make
reference to Hyatt's constant snide attacks on Berliner (as in his childish
comment above), see The Intelligent Chess Forum on www.oxford-softworks.com
Chris Whittington
Tord Kallqvist Romstad
Whittington wrote:
>Doh ! Did I say 'My' ? Meant 'The'.
>
>Have you read the book?
Which one? I tried to read Nimzowitsch' book many years ago, but found it
boring and gave up. I am not saying that the book is bad, but it simply
did not suit my style of play very well --- I am (or rather was, I am not
playing chess actively any more) more of a tactical chess player.
I still haven't read Berliner's book, because the reviews I have seen have
generally been very negative.
Tord
Chris Whittington
> In article <947859890.18948.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Chris
> Whittington wrote:
>
> >Doh ! Did I say 'My' ? Meant 'The'.
> >
> >Have you read the book?
>
> Which one? I tried to read Nimzowitsch' book many years ago, but found it
> boring and gave up.
It is heavy going, written in central European pre-WW2 style. Best to try
and catch the 'prophylaxis' stuff, which is not too difficult to cope with.
Pawn blockades.
I am not saying that the book is bad, but it simply
> did not suit my style of play very well --- I am (or rather was, I am not
> playing chess actively any more)
me neither.
more of a tactical chess player.
>
> I still haven't read Berliner's book, because the reviews I have seen have
> generally been very negative.
Worth it if you are into comp chess. Simply because it is about the only
one. Hyatt always used to claim he would 'write a book', but Berliner got
there first. Most interesting for me was the material that was NOT in there.
And why is wasn't. Also interesting is to treat it as an exposition of how
the chess programmers from that time used to think.
Chris Whittington
>
> Tord
Jeroen ;-}
--
Jeroen ;-}
-------------------------------
The ChessBrat at:
jimva...@wxs.nl
http://zip.to/jeroen
ICQ#45740870
-------------------------------
Robert Hyatt
> In article <947859890.18948.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Chris
> Whittington wrote:
>>Doh ! Did I say 'My' ? Meant 'The'.
>>
>>Have you read the book?
> Which one? I tried to read Nimzowitsch' book many years ago, but found it
> boring and gave up. I am not saying that the book is bad, but it simply
> did not suit my style of play very well --- I am (or rather was, I am not
> playing chess actively any more) more of a tactical chess player.
> I still haven't read Berliner's book, because the reviews I have seen have
> generally been very negative.
> Tord
Personally, I loved "My System". Taught me how to stomp one of my college
buddies when I was a Junior in College. After a lot of reading, studying
and thinking.
Perhaps I liked it so well because it was my first _real_ chess book. But
it definitely taught me a lot...
Robert Hyatt
> Tord Kallqvist Romstad <rom...@janus.uio.no> wrote in message
> news:slrn87uek4....@janus.uio.no...
>> In article <947859890.18948.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Chris
>> Whittington wrote:
>>
>> >Doh ! Did I say 'My' ? Meant 'The'.
>> >
>> >Have you read the book?
>>
>> Which one? I tried to read Nimzowitsch' book many years ago, but found it
>> boring and gave up.
> It is heavy going, written in central European pre-WW2 style. Best to try
> and catch the 'prophylaxis' stuff, which is not too difficult to cope with.
> Pawn blockades.
> I am not saying that the book is bad, but it simply
>> did not suit my style of play very well --- I am (or rather was, I am not
>> playing chess actively any more)
> me neither.
> more of a tactical chess player.
>>
>> I still haven't read Berliner's book, because the reviews I have seen have
>> generally been very negative.
> Worth it if you are into comp chess. Simply because it is about the only
> one. Hyatt always used to claim he would 'write a book', but Berliner got
> there first. Most interesting for me was the material that was NOT in there.
> And why is wasn't. Also interesting is to treat it as an exposition of how
> the chess programmers from that time used to think.
> Chris Whittington
Berliner's book is not about writing a chess program. IE you won't
find chapters on board representation, hashing, search techniques,
etc.
Mine may get finished before I die. Problem is "crafty". It takes a lot
of time. Something I seem to have less and less of for various reasons.
:)
Or maybe, as done by Bethoven, it will be published as "The unfinished
computer chess book..."
That would be in good company of course. :)
>>
>> Tord
Robert Hyatt
> Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote in message
> news:85na0r$k6a$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu...
>> Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>> > Jerry Creed <jcr...@snip.net> wrote:
>> >> If you've read it cover to cover, say yes.
>> >> If not, say no
>>
>> > It was the first chess book I ever read, cover to cover. It was also
>> > the second and third. There is a lot of info in there.
>>
>> Ugh. Scratch that. Seems there are two books named "My System". One
>> is a classic. The other is not. (Hint: the classic is more than 5
>> years old. :) )
>>
> For my article / review on "The System" by Berliner, in which I make
> reference to Hyatt's constant snide attacks on Berliner (as in his childish
> comment above), see The Intelligent Chess Forum on www.oxford-softworks.com
> Chris Whittington
I don't make constant snide attacks on Berliner. I clearly stated my
problem with him on more than one occasion. He made a baseless claim,
and _never_ retracted it even after a lengthy investigation by the ICCA
and others.
I do have a problem with that.
Chris Whittington
Absolutely quite so. You said it.
Berliners book is about chess and computer chess *concepts*. As I said,
Berliner thinks *chess* and Hyatt thinks *bits*.
As a result Berliner is able to go to higher levels than Hyatt who remains
stuck in the detail. Berliner (and others) see the wood. Hyatt can only see
the trees.
>
> Mine may get finished before I die.
I am reminded of the famous Barry Fantoni cartoon from Private Eye. Two
arty-types at a drinks party. One says to the other "I'm writing a book".
Second one says "Neither am I".
"I'm writing a book" is well-known bs, Bob. You've been 'writing' one for 5
years now.
Problem is "crafty". It takes a lot
> of time. Something I seem to have less and less of for various reasons.
>
> :)
>
> Or maybe, as done by Bethoven, it will be published as "The unfinished
> computer chess book..."
>
> That would be in good company of course. :)
The name is Beethoven. Re-diculous to imagine otherwise. ^H^H Ridiculous.
Chris Whittington
UA Bus Station.
>
>
> >>
> >> Tord
Robert Hyatt
You'd be surprised how many "trees" I can see.
>>
>> Mine may get finished before I die.
> I am reminded of the famous Barry Fantoni cartoon from Private Eye. Two
> arty-types at a drinks party. One says to the other "I'm writing a book".
> Second one says "Neither am I".
> "I'm writing a book" is well-known bs, Bob. You've been 'writing' one for 5
> years now.
I can't disagree totally. I have three major pieces done, working on #4.
Several have seen the pieces. It has a ways to go. And I'm in no big
hurry, since I have no knowledge that I will kick the bucket by 12/31/00
or so...
> Problem is "crafty". It takes a lot
>> of time. Something I seem to have less and less of for various reasons.
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Or maybe, as done by Bethoven, it will be published as "The unfinished
>> computer chess book..."
>>
>> That would be in good company of course. :)
> The name is Beethoven. Re-diculous to imagine otherwise. ^H^H Ridiculous.
> Chris Whittington
You are correct. I originally had three 'e's due to typing. I then cut
it to 1 without thinking...
Chris Whittington
> Chris Whittington <ch...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote in message
> >> Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
> >> > Jerry Creed <jcr...@snip.net> wrote:
> >> >> If you've read it cover to cover, say yes.
> >> >> If not, say no
> >>
> >> > It was the first chess book I ever read, cover to cover. It was also
> >> > the second and third. There is a lot of info in there.
> >>
> >> Ugh. Scratch that. Seems there are two books named "My System". One
> >> is a classic. The other is not. (Hint: the classic is more than 5
> >> years old. :) )
> >>
>
> > For my article / review on "The System" by Berliner, in which I make
> > reference to Hyatt's constant snide attacks on Berliner (as in his
childish
> > comment above), see The Intelligent Chess Forum on
www.oxford-softworks.com
>
>
> > Chris Whittington
>
> I don't make constant snide attacks on Berliner.
Oh yes you do. I posted that you did just that this morning. You obliged me
with one this afternoon. What is your comment above "One is a classic. The
other is not" but an attack on Berliner? You did the same thing on Fool's
Forum a few weeks ago. A different snide one-liner.
I clearly stated my
> problem with him on more than one occasion. He made a baseless claim,
> and _never_ retracted it even after a lengthy investigation by the ICCA
> and others.
I don't know. What I do know is that I wouldn't trust your friends at the,
what did you recently start calling them, the European Computer Chess
Association, to investigate anything properly or with due justice.
By the way, I'm quite interested in your relationship with the icca and why
it soured recently. I did have a little hypothesis about that. Thought it
might make a good article for some point in the future.
>
> I do have a problem with that.
>
If he never retracted it, then perhaps he still believes it?
And why is it, when you recite the computer chess hall of fame, that
Berliner's name is never mentioned? Didn't writing Hitech and all that count
for anything? Feels like you try and write him out of history.
Chris Whittington
Chris Whittington
> Chris Whittington <ch...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote in message
Yes, one per processor. We know. Nevertheless playing word games doesn't
mask the fact that Berliner thinks *chess* while you think *bitmaps*. Result
is that Berliner can think on deeper levels. But we knew that, after all he
was World Correspondence Chess Champion.
>
> >>
> >> Mine may get finished before I die.
>
> > I am reminded of the famous Barry Fantoni cartoon from Private Eye. Two
> > arty-types at a drinks party. One says to the other "I'm writing a
book".
> > Second one says "Neither am I".
>
> > "I'm writing a book" is well-known bs, Bob. You've been 'writing' one
for 5
> > years now.
>
> I can't disagree totally. I have three major pieces done, working on #4.
> Several have seen the pieces. It has a ways to go. And I'm in no big
> hurry, since I have no knowledge that I will kick the bucket by 12/31/00
> or so...
Send me the cyber-drafts. I just love making reviews for the Intelligent
Chess Forum :))))
>
>
> > Problem is "crafty". It takes a lot
> >> of time. Something I seem to have less and less of for various
reasons.
> >>
> >> :)
> >>
> >> Or maybe, as done by Bethoven, it will be published as "The unfinished
> >> computer chess book..."
> >>
> >> That would be in good company of course. :)
>
> > The name is Beethoven. Re-diculous to imagine otherwise. ^H^H
Ridiculous.
>
> > Chris Whittington
>
> You are correct. I originally had three 'e's due to typing. I then cut
> it to 1 without thinking...
>
Reeediculous ! ! !
By the way, just a little teaser for you. The only person in computer chess
who I ever saw commit the expression 'pissing contest' to a post (actually
an email to me from some while back) was Mr Steven Schwartz of ICD.
Imagine my surprise at reading this self-same expression "pissing contest",
from somebody calling themselves "Albert Silver" on the Fool's Forum (it's
in a post today, replying to Thorsten).
Do you think there is any chance these two might be related? If you know
what I mean.
Rob Ryan
(snip)
> It is heavy going, written in central European pre-WW2 style.
There's a 1991 edition titled "My System: 21 Century Edition" that is much
more readable than the original. Still not as accessible as some more modern
books, but it makes it much easier to read.
Rob
Paul Morphy
appeared once.
Oops.
Jeroen ;-} <jimva...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:85nici$upaa$1...@reader1.wxs.nl...
Chris Whittington
Rob Ryan <r...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:85nskr$2lp$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Chris Whittington" <ch...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:947862767.14977.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> (snip)
>
> > It is heavy going, written in central European pre-WW2 style.
>
> There's a 1991 edition
That must have been the one .....
> titled "My System: 21 Century Edition" that is much
> more readable than the original.
that Bob Hyatt read 25 years ......
> Still not as accessible as some more modern
> books, but it makes it much easier to read.
ago ....................
:))))))))))))))))))))))
Chris Whittington
>
> Rob
>
>
Robert Hyatt
> Yes, one per processor. We know. Nevertheless playing word games doesn't
> mask the fact that Berliner thinks *chess* while you think *bitmaps*. Result
> is that Berliner can think on deeper levels. But we knew that, after all he
> was World Correspondence Chess Champion.
Of course. But _he_ was never a "World Computer Chess Champion". And that
was the original topic, since this is "rec.games.chess.COMPUTER" IIRC???
IE my 'trees' are not worthless, in that context, I would think.
> Send me the cyber-drafts. I just love making reviews for the Intelligent
> Chess Forum :))))
If the offer is "serious" I will be happy to do so. :) Although several
have reviewed pieces for me already...
> Reeediculous ! ! !
> By the way, just a little teaser for you. The only person in computer chess
> who I ever saw commit the expression 'pissing contest' to a post (actually
> an email to me from some while back) was Mr Steven Schwartz of ICD.
> Imagine my surprise at reading this self-same expression "pissing contest",
> from somebody calling themselves "Albert Silver" on the Fool's Forum (it's
> in a post today, replying to Thorsten).
> Do you think there is any chance these two might be related? If you know
> what I mean.
> Chris Whittington
Not a change, IMHO. but "pissing contest" is a pretty common metaphor,
after all. The idea being that it is a contest, and obviously both
want to win. But the 'activity' they are competing in is actually
pretty pointless...
Robert Hyatt
> ago ....................
Nope. Mine was the paperback version original. About 1.5" thick or so
IIRC. I didn't find it hard to read. I found it somewhat "dry" but since
I was also studying physics, calculus, chemistry, computer science,
_everything_ seemed pretty 'dry' to me at the time.
I got it from a friend of mine (same age) that also liked the book. It
was my first exposure to center control, and a lot of pawn structure
knowledge.
And I read it in 1969 to get the date correct... a bit before "1991".
Robert Hyatt
> Oh yes you do. I posted that you did just that this morning. You obliged me
> with one this afternoon. What is your comment above "One is a classic. The
> other is not" but an attack on Berliner? You did the same thing on Fool's
> Forum a few weeks ago. A different snide one-liner.
"classic" usually means "old". At least here. I doubt my son would
be insulted if I said "Hey, that old mustang of yours is a classic."
I doubt my neighbor would be insulted if I told him his 2000 Honda Accord
is _not_ a classic. yet.
I was referring to the _age_ of the book. I have not read Berliner's
book, period. I have seen a chapter-type table of contents somewhere.
> I don't know. What I do know is that I wouldn't trust your friends at the,
> what did you recently start calling them, the European Computer Chess
> Association, to investigate anything properly or with due justice.
There were non-ICCA people involved, that I respect. Ken Thompson. Monty
Newborn. Tony Marsland. The only two of that list that were ICCA-type
officers at the time was Marsland, since David was the president at that
point.
> By the way, I'm quite interested in your relationship with the icca and why
> it soured recently. I did have a little hypothesis about that. Thought it
> might make a good article for some point in the future.
It hasn't soured, particularly. I was a charter member, when Barend Swets
made the original proposal in 1977 in Toronto. We later agreed on a WCCC
format of every 3 years, alternating between North America and Europe.
1974 was history in Austria by that point. 1977 was in Canada, where we
formed the ICCA. 1980 went back to Europe (I don't remember where as I
couldn't go). 1983 was New York. 1986 was Germany. 1989 was in Alberta
Canada. 1992 was back to europe. As was 1995. And 1999 (should have been
in 1998 but it didn't happen). And the next one is apparently going to
be in London.
That essentially makes it difficult for NA players to attend. The cost is
significant.
That has been my only complaint... but we now have relief. ICC is going to
do an internet world computer chess event later this month. Where travel isn't
an issue. Which will at least give everyone working on a program an event they
can play in with minimal (read zero except for connect fees) cost.
> If he never retracted it, then perhaps he still believes it?
I don't think so. He made "retraction-like" statements several times.
ie "OK. I agree that a computer might play this move that I originally
said no computer would possibly play." (this after Ken Thompson had showed
him output from Belle, playing the exact same move. In his letter of formal
protest to the ICCA, he said "If the ICCA reasonably concludes that this
apparent cheating did not happen, I will give Hyatt my abject apology."
It was resolved to everyone's satisfaction. I even posted the full text
of Levy's letter to Hans. I have yet to get that "abject apology." It was
a downer to repeat as world champion, and _immediately_ have to start
defending ourselves against an outrageous claim. And after it was completely
investigated and dismissed, the statements were never retracted, and were
actually repeated several times.
BTW I am talking about Berliner vs Cray Blitz, and not Kasparov vs Deep Blue.
Although by reading the above paragraph you probably couldn't tell. :)
> And why is it, when you recite the computer chess hall of fame, that
> Berliner's name is never mentioned? Didn't writing Hitech and all that count
> for anything? Feels like you try and write him out of history.
I don't include him in the list I publish, because my list usually is about
the 'phases' of computer chess. IE slate/atkin until 1977, then slate/atkin
+ thompson were equal until 1980. Then Thompson until 1983, then Cray
Blitz, until along came Hsu and deep whatever to finish out the history
lesson.
I didn't exclude GreenBlatt because I don't think much of him. I excluded
him because he never played in the ACM events and never took an important
place from 1970 on. In the 1960's, he _might_ have been the best. But he
wouldn't compete with anyone to see.
Exactly where would Hitech fit in in the ACM record book? It won one ACM
event in 1985. Which wasn't easy, although we made it easier for him than
it should have been (my fault, however.)
Robert Hyatt
> Chris Whittington <ch...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I didn't exclude GreenBlatt because I don't think much of him. I excluded
> him because he never played in the ACM events and never took an important
> place from 1970 on. In the 1960's, he _might_ have been the best. But he
> wouldn't compete with anyone to see.
That read poorly. Better would be "the reason I excluded GreenBlatt was
not because I didn't think much of him, but because he never competed in
the computer chess events..."
I thought a lot of GreenBlatt (and still do) and talked to him several
times in the early 70's about chess-related stuff.
Jerry Creed
and I'm going to follow up with a few questions to clarify what I don't
understand. So I'm just polling now. If you answer incorrectly, if you lie
about it, you know you're going to lose your next 10 games in a row. Of
course, for some, that may be a good news. So Jeroen ;-}, are you still
saying yes?
Jeroen ;-} <jimva...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:85qv4g$12nk6$1...@reader1.wxs.nl...
> I love votes.
>
> Yes!!
>
> What is the vote about?
>
> --
> Jeroen ;-}
> -------------------------------
> the ChessBrat at:
Paul Morphy
rewards, eh Jeroen? ;-}
Jerry Creed <jcr...@snip.net> wrote in message
news:s82b45g...@corp.supernews.com...
Jeroen ;-}
Jeroen ;-}
oh YESSSSS!!!!
Where It's At
>YES YES YES!!!!! YES YES!!!
>
> oh YESSSSS!!!!
... so said Bloom's wife after getting banged by ol' Blazes Boylan ...
Chris Whittington
> Chris Whittington <ch...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > Oh yes you do. I posted that you did just that this morning. You obliged
me
> > with one this afternoon. What is your comment above "One is a classic.
The
> > other is not" but an attack on Berliner? You did the same thing on
Fool's
> > Forum a few weeks ago. A different snide one-liner.
>
> "classic" usually means "old". At least here. I doubt my son would
> be insulted if I said "Hey, that old mustang of yours is a classic."
> I doubt my neighbor would be insulted if I told him his 2000 Honda Accord
> is _not_ a classic. yet.
>
> I was referring to the _age_ of the book. I have not read Berliner's
> book, period. I have seen a chapter-type table of contents somewhere.
That's you story and you're sticking to it. Ok. Forgive me for sticking to
my alternative view.
[ snip ]
>
> > If he never retracted it, then perhaps he still believes it?
>
> I don't think so. He made "retraction-like" statements several times.
> ie "OK. I agree that a computer might play this move that I originally
> said no computer would possibly play." (this after Ken Thompson had showed
> him output from Belle, playing the exact same move. In his letter of
formal
> protest to the ICCA, he said "If the ICCA reasonably concludes that this
> apparent cheating did not happen, I will give Hyatt my abject apology."
>
> It was resolved to everyone's satisfaction. I even posted the full text
> of Levy's letter to Hans. I have yet to get that "abject apology." It
was
> a downer to repeat as world champion, and _immediately_ have to start
> defending ourselves against an outrageous claim. And after it was
completely
> investigated and dismissed, the statements were never retracted, and were
> actually repeated several times.
>
> BTW I am talking about Berliner vs Cray Blitz, and not Kasparov vs Deep
Blue.
> Although by reading the above paragraph you probably couldn't tell. :)
Well made point.
In all these cases, and they happen regularly, someone, one side is lieing.
Or one side said something which can't be proven, or can be discredited, but
still they go on and on, from new directions. In your Kasparov vs Deep Blue
case, the sides are lined up, the support 'pesonalities' involved can be
guaranteed to keep on firing potshots. My guess, is that, in ten years or
so, when computer chess is finished and worthless, or, rather, reaches the
point where even the slow ones have accepted it is finished, that, you'll
look back at the Kasparov vs DB saga, and say that was what killed it.
There was too much money, from the prize, to the spin-offs, to the
organisers, to the agents and middleman, it was money beyond their wildest
dreams. Far more than the tiddly sums computer chess had meant in the past.
This was the big one. The greedy organsisers and agents got carried away,
too much hubris, they *never considered what would happen if Kasparov lost*.
No rematch clause in the contract. Bewitched by the hundreds of thousands of
dollars, Kasparov's advisors screwed up big-time.
The attacks on Hsu and IBM afterwards were all just spoilers. To cover their
own idiocy for allowing such a state of affairs to arise. To try and take
away from Hsu his victory. To try and embarrass IBM. To get some DB output
'data' hieroglyphics, over which they can have apparently scientific
discussions, but really are just a cover to keep the attacks alive.
Yet Hsu and co are hardly blameless. Hsu, apparently a quiet technical guy,
must have been completely out of his depth in discussions with these sharks.
In the endgame play after the match, with Hsu getting rights to his baby
again, the sharks just toyed with him and spat him out. It's clear what they
are interested in, not a rematch with DB/Hsu, as you all thought, but *more
money*. Hsu has got no money. Or no *real* money. So he can go take a hike.
Did you and Hsu really believe that those 'organisers', those ones who've
been controlling computer chess magazines and tournaments had any interest
in computer chess per se? The same interest you and Hsu had? Why do you
think (a) I had so much trouble with these guys? (b) Thorsten has so much
trouble with his particular demon? Because we both saw straight through them
right at the start, and they knew it. They only accept compliant programmers
who don't think about these things. Think, see, speak, and they have to
character assassinate you. When what you say makes sense, but they don't
like it, they get left with only one option, attack you in person. Simple.
Meanwhile, Hsu is left in terrible position. He won, but he didn't. He beat
the world champion, but he didn't. Hsu's peers, the loudmouths on ccc, have
taken his victory from him. What use is the 'win' when his peers don't
accept it. Don't accept it for their own shit reasons. Don't accept because
they are tied in with Kasparov, or Kasparov's agents, or don't want to
accept the end of computer chess because they still need the money from it,
or whatever.
So Hsu does all he can to try and prove he can, he really, really can. So
they chew him up, spit him out and humiliate him.
It stinks. Like rotten fish.
My message to Hsu is this. Either you know you won, either you know you
produced a marvel to take on the world champion, or you don't. I hope you
know, in your heart, that you did it. I hope you have enough strength to
disregard the shit and the lies. Go do something else now. You're too good
for them.
Chris Whittington
>
> > And why is it, when you recite the computer chess hall of fame, that
> > Berliner's name is never mentioned? Didn't writing Hitech and all that
count
> > for anything? Feels like you try and write him out of history.
>
> I don't include him in the list I publish, because my list usually is
about
> the 'phases' of computer chess. IE slate/atkin until 1977, then
slate/atkin
> + thompson were equal until 1980. Then Thompson until 1983, then Cray
> Blitz, until along came Hsu and deep whatever to finish out the history
> lesson.
>
> I didn't exclude GreenBlatt because I don't think much of him. I excluded
> him because he never played in the ACM events and never took an important
> place from 1970 on. In the 1960's, he _might_ have been the best. But he
> wouldn't compete with anyone to see.
>
> Exactly where would Hitech fit in in the ACM record book? It won one ACM
> event in 1985. Which wasn't easy, although we made it easier for him than
> it should have been (my fault, however.)
>
>
Jeroen ;-}
Robert Hyatt
> Well made point.
> In all these cases, and they happen regularly, someone, one side is lieing.
> Or one side said something which can't be proven, or can be discredited, but
> still they go on and on, from new directions. In your Kasparov vs Deep Blue
> case, the sides are lined up, the support 'pesonalities' involved can be
> guaranteed to keep on firing potshots. My guess, is that, in ten years or
> so, when computer chess is finished and worthless, or, rather, reaches the
> point where even the slow ones have accepted it is finished, that, you'll
> look back at the Kasparov vs DB saga, and say that was what killed it.
I don't think it will be "finished and worthless" in 10 years... But I could
be wrong. However I suspect that in 2010, things will be as they are today,
except with faster hardware, and arguing about whether computers are now
at a super-GM level rather than whether they are barely at a GM level or
not.
> There was too much money, from the prize, to the spin-offs, to the
> organisers, to the agents and middleman, it was money beyond their wildest
> dreams. Far more than the tiddly sums computer chess had meant in the past.
> This was the big one. The greedy organsisers and agents got carried away,
> too much hubris, they *never considered what would happen if Kasparov lost*.
> No rematch clause in the contract. Bewitched by the hundreds of thousands of
> dollars, Kasparov's advisors screwed up big-time.
> The attacks on Hsu and IBM afterwards were all just spoilers. To cover their
> own idiocy for allowing such a state of affairs to arise. To try and take
> away from Hsu his victory. To try and embarrass IBM. To get some DB output
> 'data' hieroglyphics, over which they can have apparently scientific
> discussions, but really are just a cover to keep the attacks alive.
I've said that a hundred times. He listened to the wrong people. Unfortunate,
but it happens all the time.
> Yet Hsu and co are hardly blameless. Hsu, apparently a quiet technical guy,
> must have been completely out of his depth in discussions with these sharks.
> In the endgame play after the match, with Hsu getting rights to his baby
> again, the sharks just toyed with him and spat him out. It's clear what they
> are interested in, not a rematch with DB/Hsu, as you all thought, but *more
> money*. Hsu has got no money. Or no *real* money. So he can go take a hike.
> Did you and Hsu really believe that those 'organisers', those ones who've
> been controlling computer chess magazines and tournaments had any interest
> in computer chess per se? The same interest you and Hsu had? Why do you
> think (a) I had so much trouble with these guys? (b) Thorsten has so much
> trouble with his particular demon? Because we both saw straight through them
> right at the start, and they knew it. They only accept compliant programmers
> who don't think about these things. Think, see, speak, and they have to
> character assassinate you. When what you say makes sense, but they don't
> like it, they get left with only one option, attack you in person. Simple.
I can't argue with respect to 'companies'. But with the ICCA I don't think
this was an issue. The ICCA didn't "make money". I think that probably
every "officer" spent more than they received from ICCA. Maybe not out of
their own pockets, but things like phone calls, postage, network bandwidth,
travel, paper, pencils... And the "journal" that has never broken even
without donations, usually from the institution where the editor lives.
> Meanwhile, Hsu is left in terrible position. He won, but he didn't. He beat
> the world champion, but he didn't. Hsu's peers, the loudmouths on ccc, have
> taken his victory from him. What use is the 'win' when his peers don't
> accept it. Don't accept it for their own shit reasons. Don't accept because
> they are tied in with Kasparov, or Kasparov's agents, or don't want to
> accept the end of computer chess because they still need the money from it,
> or whatever.
> So Hsu does all he can to try and prove he can, he really, really can. So
> they chew him up, spit him out and humiliate him.
> It stinks. Like rotten fish.
> My message to Hsu is this. Either you know you won, either you know you
> produced a marvel to take on the world champion, or you don't. I hope you
> know, in your heart, that you did it. I hope you have enough strength to
> disregard the shit and the lies. Go do something else now. You're too good
> for them.
> Chris Whittington
sounds strange coming from you, and then from me, but I agree.
:)
albert...@my-deja.com
> Not a change, IMHO. but "pissing contest" is a pretty common
metaphor,
> after all. The idea being that it is a contest, and obviously both
> want to win. But the 'activity' they are competing in is actually
> pretty pointless...
>
Yes, in this case, one of the elements of the 'contest' was how many
children Chris had. No comment.
Albert Silver
> --
> 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
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Albert Silver
<ch...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Reeediculous ! ! !
>
>By the way, just a little teaser for you. The only person in computer chess
>who I ever saw commit the expression 'pissing contest' to a post (actually
>an email to me from some while back) was Mr Steven Schwartz of ICD.
>
>Imagine my surprise at reading this self-same expression "pissing contest",
>from somebody calling themselves "Albert Silver" on the Fool's Forum (it's
>in a post today, replying to Thorsten).
Your logic is impeccable. I admit it. I have been found out. I'm not
the real Albert Silver. No! I'm an impostor just 'calling' myself
Albert Silver because of all the obvious benefits I can reap from
this. I guess I'll have to change names again. Damn.
>
>Do you think there is any chance these two might be related? If you know
>what I mean.
Oh no! Dad! He found me out! How did you know Chris? Was it really
just that century-old expression that gave me away? Amazing. You were
able to correctly deduce that the only way I could ever write this
over-used expression in a post was if Mr Schwartz (Dad!) were to come
over to Brazil and foster a child whose breeding and education would
secretly direct him towards the sequential use of the words Pissing
and then Contest. Yes, truly you must be several intellectual notches
beyond our grasp. Now that this has been made clear, I would venture
to say that you too, are harboring a dark secret: You must be the long
lost cousin of Sherlock Holmes! Aha!
Albert Silver
(until I find a better alternative)
>
>Chris Whittington
PMG
Albert Silver wrote:
[.......
>
> Albert Silver
> (until I find a better alternative)
Try Kris Witington, that's probably not being used (I'm only guessing)
Pete
>
> >
> >Chris Whittington
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
> >
--
That's what they all say,
they all say d'oh... --Chief Wiggum
Chris Whittington
> Chris Whittington <ch...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Well made point.
>
> > In all these cases, and they happen regularly, someone, one side is
lieing.
> > Or one side said something which can't be proven, or can be discredited,
but
> > still they go on and on, from new directions. In your Kasparov vs Deep
Blue
> > case, the sides are lined up, the support 'pesonalities' involved can be
> > guaranteed to keep on firing potshots. My guess, is that, in ten years
or
> > so, when computer chess is finished and worthless, or, rather, reaches
the
> > point where even the slow ones have accepted it is finished, that,
you'll
> > look back at the Kasparov vs DB saga, and say that was what killed it.
>
could
> be wrong. However I suspect that in 2010, things will be as they are
today,
> except with faster hardware, and arguing about whether computers are now
> at a super-GM level rather than whether they are barely at a GM level or
> not.
>
>
> > organisers, to the agents and middleman, it was money beyond their
wildest
> > dreams. Far more than the tiddly sums computer chess had meant in the
past.
> > This was the big one. The greedy organsisers and agents got carried
away,
> > too much hubris, they *never considered what would happen if Kasparov
lost*.
> > No rematch clause in the contract. Bewitched by the hundreds of
thousands of
> > dollars, Kasparov's advisors screwed up big-time.
>
> > The attacks on Hsu and IBM afterwards were all just spoilers. To cover
their
> > own idiocy for allowing such a state of affairs to arise. To try and
take
> > away from Hsu his victory. To try and embarrass IBM. To get some DB
output
> > 'data' hieroglyphics, over which they can have apparently scientific
> > discussions, but really are just a cover to keep the attacks alive.
>
Unfortunate,
> but it happens all the time.
>
>
When I read that he refused the german chess tournament if Fritz (a Freidel
program) played, and in refusing, praised Genius (a not-Freidel program), I
wondered if there hadn't been a falling out between Kasparov and Thorsten's
best friend.
He (Thorsten's friend) was closely involved with Kasparov at that time,
provided 'training partners' for Kasparov to 'get an idea of DB' - and,
presumably advising on the IBM-Kasparov contract.
Advice appreared to have been. Train fro DB with Fritz and Hiarcs (surprise,
surprise, two ChessBase engines). And don't even think about what might
happen if you lose with safeguards for a rematch.
Great advice. Kasparov, of course, is not a very bright guy, slow of
thought. But even he just might eventually see that with advisors like these
..........
> I can't argue with respect to 'companies'. But with the ICCA I don't
think
> this was an issue. The ICCA didn't "make money". I think that probably
> every "officer" spent more than they received from ICCA. Maybe not out of
> their own pockets, but things like phone calls, postage, network
bandwidth,
> travel, paper, pencils... And the "journal" that has never broken even
> without donations, usually from the institution where the editor lives.
>
This is not the time, nor the place right now, for an analysis of the
purposes and function of the ICCA. Let's just say I disagree with you.
>
> > Meanwhile, Hsu is left in terrible position. He won, but he didn't. He
beat
> > the world champion, but he didn't. Hsu's peers, the loudmouths on ccc,
have
> > taken his victory from him. What use is the 'win' when his peers don't
> > accept it. Don't accept it for their own shit reasons. Don't accept
because
> > they are tied in with Kasparov, or Kasparov's agents, or don't want to
> > accept the end of computer chess because they still need the money from
it,
> > or whatever.
>
> > So Hsu does all he can to try and prove he can, he really, really can.
So
> > they chew him up, spit him out and humiliate him.
>
> > It stinks. Like rotten fish.
>
> > My message to Hsu is this. Either you know you won, either you know you
> > produced a marvel to take on the world champion, or you don't. I hope
you
> > know, in your heart, that you did it. I hope you have enough strength to
> > disregard the shit and the lies. Go do something else now. You're too
good
> > for them.
>
>
> > Chris Whittington
>
> sounds strange coming from you, and then from me, but I agree.
>
> :)
Why not? Although I strongly disagree with just about everything you say, I
recognise two things. Heart and spirit. Hyatt, you are no robot. Therefore,
every now and again, there comes about a commonality of opinion. In the case
of Hsu, it is utterly obvious that his detractors are against him for their
own motives. Hsu and DB were/are the biggest threat to PC and commercial
programmers ever, of all time. That chip was going to wipe them off the face
of the chess-planet. ChessBase wasn't going to get to see the distribution
rights, not after the Kasparov-DB thing. Schroeder doesn't have the money to
get it. So they were both going to get wiped. The result was ChessBase and
Schroder supporters making a character assassination of Hsu, taking his
victory away from him with peer-group criticisms, and hoping to hell that
the chip venture never got going.
And it wasn't just the to-be chip. DB beating Kasparov makes a sea-change
for computer chess. Why carry on making programs when the great challenge
has already been done? Why buy a chess program after Kasparov has fallen? I
know you don't believe me that it is all over now, but I think we are in the
phase of computer chess like that of model aeroplanes. Once, designing model
planes was probably high-tech and provided real challenges. Now you just get
a kit (usally from a shop covered in dust), stick it together, and pretend
you designed it. Bit like the users with Crafty, no? There isn't really much
more to do, it's all been done. Therefore the smart ones leave. And the dumb
ones remain. It becomes just for nerds. Incidentally, its the nerds who
really hate the 'off-topic'.
Chris Whittington
Mike S.
> (...) Hsu and DB were/are the biggest threat to PC and commercial
> programmers ever, of all time. That chip was going to wipe them off
the face
> of the chess-planet. ChessBase wasn't going to get to see the
distribution
> rights, not after the Kasparov-DB thing. Schroeder doesn't have the
money to
> get it. So they were both going to get wiped. The result was ChessBase
and
> Schroder supporters making a character assassination of Hsu, taking
his
> victory away from him with peer-group criticisms, and hoping to hell
that
Are there any details about how "the chip" would work? I thought so far,
it would be a kind of chess processor for very quick move generating and
evaluation only, but with lots of parameters to be set externally, so
that any chess programmer could make use of it in different ways. I
think it makes sense from a commercial viewpoint, that hardware should
be capable of running many different programs of course. The best way to
sell quantities of it would surely be, to make the specifications
available to the public early to have lots of programs be written and
sold parallel independently. A totally normal method, as it was with the
3dfx graphics for example I believe. Such a chip is not a threat, but a
big step forward for PC chess. Am I wrong?
Regards,
M.Scheidl
Chris Whittington
Mike S. <MSch...@surfeu.at> wrote in message
news:38836...@news.profinet.at...
> Chris Whittington schrieb:
> > (...) Hsu and DB were/are the biggest threat to PC and commercial
> > programmers ever, of all time. That chip was going to wipe them off
> the face
> > of the chess-planet. ChessBase wasn't going to get to see the
> distribution
> > rights, not after the Kasparov-DB thing. Schroeder doesn't have the
> money to
> > get it. So they were both going to get wiped. The result was ChessBase
> and
> > Schroder supporters making a character assassination of Hsu, taking
> his
> > victory away from him with peer-group criticisms, and hoping to hell
> that
>
> Are there any details about how "the chip" would work? I thought so far,
> it would be a kind of chess processor for very quick move generating and
> evaluation only, but with lots of parameters to be set externally, so
> that any chess programmer could make use of it in different ways. I
> think it makes sense from a commercial viewpoint, that hardware should
> be capable of running many different programs of course. The best way to
> sell quantities of it would surely be, to make the specifications
> available to the public early to have lots of programs be written and
> sold parallel independently. A totally normal method, as it was with the
> 3dfx graphics for example I believe. Such a chip is not a threat, but a
> big step forward for PC chess. Am I wrong?
>
No you are completely right. A processor for everybody to program would be
great. The there could be a market for chess programs using the chip.
Except, I thought that Hsu was making a card that was an engine, in other
words you couldn't get at the chip itself.
Although, if everybody used this processor(s) that gave them the extra few
nodes everybody would be using the same evaluation. Boring?
Chris Whittington
> Regards,
> M.Scheidl
>
John Grabowski
>
> In article <947853923.17898.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Chris
> Whittington wrote:
> >
> >Chris Whittington <ch...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:947846020.16270.0...@news.demon.co.uk...> >> news:s7ss4g...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> > If you've read it cover to cover, say yes.
> >> > If not, say no
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm in the process of writing a review article on it.
> >
> >Which can now be found on The Intelligent Chess Forum at
> >www.oxford-softworks.com under My System by Berliner - A review
>
> Wrong book! "My System" was written by Nimzovitsch. The name of
> Berliner's book is "The System".
D'oh! --Homer Simpson
John
--
What are you doing?!? --Vicho DeSusa
Spammers: I don't need Viagra, a work-at-home business or a ground-floor
investment opportunity, thank you.