Leto wrote:It's a foregone conclusion that Deep Blue wasn't very strong, clearly weaker than today's top engines, and that Kasparov could have played much better. Psychology definitely played a large role in that match.
"wasn't very strong" yet it blew away every program 10 years ago. Sort of a "self-contradiction" IMHO. It was far from "not very strong"...
Maybe strong a decade ago, but it certainly isn't "very strong" today. You can use today's engines to see that they find Deep Blue's move in a fraction of the time on ordinary hardware, and they can even find stronger moves.
Your logic escapes me. It was strong enough, 10 years ago, to defeat Kasparov in his prime. But it isn't very strong by today's standards?
I must be missing something...
Kasparov played horrible chess in that match, he was psychologically defeated. Deep Blue's strength could have been 2650, perhaps 2700, but in Kasparov's mind Deep Blue was 3000.
ah yes. When all else fails, let's place the blame on the loser, not on the victor...
Did you see how awfully Kramnik played in the last computer vs human match? Disgraceful.
Kasparov is to blame for his loss. Game 2 he was shocked at the moves Deep Blue was playing (analysis of the moves by today's top engines show that these moves aren't anything special), he was thinking that there was something very different about this Deep Blue, that it was not what he had played in Game 1. Kasparov played Game 2 much too defensively, and then resigned in a drawn position!
Game 6 was about as big a disgrace as Kramnik's 'blunder of the century' in his match against Deep Fritz 10, wouldn't you agree?
Leto wrote:It's a foregone conclusion that Deep Blue wasn't very strong, clearly weaker than today's top engines, and that Kasparov could have played much better. Psychology definitely played a large role in that match.
"wasn't very strong" yet it blew away every program 10 years ago. Sort of a "self-contradiction" IMHO. It was far from "not very strong"...
Maybe strong a decade ago, but it certainly isn't "very strong" today. You can use today's engines to see that they find Deep Blue's move in a fraction of the time on ordinary hardware, and they can even find stronger moves.
Too bad we can't put that to the test...the results might surprise you!
Who says we can't put that to the test? Even in Deep Blue's prime there were hundreds of computer systems more powerful than it. Today there are computer systems that are billlions of times more powerful than Deep Blue was.
Hydra, which calculates just as fast as Deep Blue did, is arguably stronger, and look how well it has been doing lately against the top engines (not well at all).
If you have a top chess engine, you can analyse all of Deep Blue's moves and you'll see that the engine finds the moves quicker than Deep Blue does, and can even produce stronger moves. Logically, today's top engines are clearly stronger than Deep Blue was.
What a load!
First, there are NOT computers billions of times faster than Deep Blue, and there may not be for a long time to come.
Hydra can't match Deep Blues speed. I've no idea where you're getting your information from....the top of your head, I suppose?
Hydra is in the closet so you can't test it, and it's playing no one or no machine either as of late.
Some engines have found Deep Blues moves, not faster than Deep Blue. How would you know if it found stronger moves than Deep Blue?
Sometimes I don't know why I bother answering, it doesn't do any good, and facts seem to escape most people
You can certainly know that engines found stronger moves than deep blue.
In game 2 Deep blue blundered by Kf1 and kasparov missed a draw later and I remember before rybka that engines could find Kh1 that is winning by search of few minutes.
Of course one position proves nothing and I did not analyze seriously to prove that there are more positions when commercial programs are better than deep blue.
Note that it is not easy to know the best move in quiet position but it is possible to get some conclusion.
If we give top chess programs 24 hours per move in all the positions of the games we can get list of candidate moves to be the best move.
If we take only cases when the top programs converge to the same move
then it is logical to believe that they converge to the best move.
After having positions with best moves we can see if there are cases when top programs find the best move in few minutes when deep blue did not find them.
Leto wrote:It's a foregone conclusion that Deep Blue wasn't very strong, clearly weaker than today's top engines, and that Kasparov could have played much better. Psychology definitely played a large role in that match.
"wasn't very strong" yet it blew away every program 10 years ago. Sort of a "self-contradiction" IMHO. It was far from "not very strong"...
Maybe strong a decade ago, but it certainly isn't "very strong" today. You can use today's engines to see that they find Deep Blue's move in a fraction of the time on ordinary hardware, and they can even find stronger moves.
Too bad we can't put that to the test...the results might surprise you!
Who says we can't put that to the test? Even in Deep Blue's prime there were hundreds of computer systems more powerful than it. Today there are computer systems that are billlions of times more powerful than Deep Blue was.
Hydra, which calculates just as fast as Deep Blue did, is arguably stronger, and look how well it has been doing lately against the top engines (not well at all).
If you have a top chess engine, you can analyse all of Deep Blue's moves and you'll see that the engine finds the moves quicker than Deep Blue does, and can even produce stronger moves. Logically, today's top engines are clearly stronger than Deep Blue was.
What a load!
First, there are NOT computers billions of times faster than Deep Blue, and there may not be for a long time to come.
Hydra can't match Deep Blues speed. I've no idea where you're getting your information from....the top of your head, I suppose?
Hydra is in the closet so you can't test it, and it's playing no one or no machine either as of late.
Some engines have found Deep Blues moves, not faster than Deep Blue. How would you know if it found stronger moves than Deep Blue?
Sometimes I don't know why I bother answering, it doesn't do any good, and facts seem to escape most people
You can certainly know that engines found stronger moves than deep blue.
In game 2 Deep blue blundered by Kf1 and kasparov missed a draw later and I remember before rybka that engines could find Kh1 that is winning by search of few minutes.
Of course one position proves nothing and I did not analyze seriously to prove that there are more positions when commercial programs are better than deep blue.
Note that it is not easy to know the best move in quiet position but it is possible to get some conclusion.
If we give top chess programs 24 hours per move in all the positions of the games we can get list of candidate moves to be the best move.
If we take only cases when the top programs converge to the same move
then it is logical to believe that they converge to the best move.
After having positions with best moves we can see if there are cases when top programs find the best move in few minutes when deep blue did not find them.
Uri
You may have a good arguement Uri? As for the Kf1? in game 2, well it's too deep for programs to see it imo, they would avoid it due to better evaluations/knowledge.
In many ways Kf1 made sense for the endgame but it was premature, which Kasparov failed to realize and missed the perpetual.
Leto wrote:It's a foregone conclusion that Deep Blue wasn't very strong, clearly weaker than today's top engines, and that Kasparov could have played much better. Psychology definitely played a large role in that match.
"wasn't very strong" yet it blew away every program 10 years ago. Sort of a "self-contradiction" IMHO. It was far from "not very strong"...
Maybe strong a decade ago, but it certainly isn't "very strong" today. You can use today's engines to see that they find Deep Blue's move in a fraction of the time on ordinary hardware, and they can even find stronger moves.
Your logic escapes me. It was strong enough, 10 years ago, to defeat Kasparov in his prime. But it isn't very strong by today's standards?
I must be missing something...
Kasparov played horrible chess in that match, he was psychologically defeated. Deep Blue's strength could have been 2650, perhaps 2700, but in Kasparov's mind Deep Blue was 3000.
ah yes. When all else fails, let's place the blame on the loser, not on the victor...
Did you see how awfully Kramnik played in the last computer vs human match? Disgraceful.
Kasparov is to blame for his loss. Game 2 he was shocked at the moves Deep Blue was playing (analysis of the moves by today's top engines show that these moves aren't anything special), he was thinking that there was something very different about this Deep Blue, that it was not what he had played in Game 1. Kasparov played Game 2 much too defensively, and then resigned in a drawn position!
Game 6 was about as big a disgrace as Kramnik's 'blunder of the century' in his match against Deep Fritz 10, wouldn't you agree?
Not even close. The mistake Kasparov made was _way_ deeper. Kramnik just overlooked a simple mate.
Kasparov did resign a drawn position. But it wasn't a trivial draw (in fact it was very difficult to prove this was a draw at all). But the rest of the game was well-played by _both_ sides. He didn't just cave in, the computer played him move for move and ended up in a better position.
bob wrote:The thing that most amazes me is that supposedly Kasparov claims he has never been able to look at the deep blue logs. Even though they were (and still are) available on the web. I could email 'em to him if he would shut that claim up.
Those logs have a problem. The logs on the ibm web site have no independent certification as being created by deep blue during the match. For the logs to be valid the judges would need to see them being created by deep blue during the game. The logs need to given to the judges during the match. The judges did not verify the logs on the ibm web site.
Sorry, but that's wrong. The logs _were_ verified _during_ the match. I even saw a copy of the key position's log emailed to me by Ken Thompson within 24 hours of the "fiasco" happening.
You seem to demand that they disprove a negative, which is impossible. There are way too many ways to actually pull off cheating without detection. But for every move DB found in that match that was questioned by Kasparov, other programs have since shown that the moves were not surprising at all and are reproducible by several different programs.
But the logs are available, they match the games, there's no unusual aspect to them whatsoever...
Bob, you were not an arbiter and Ken Thompson was not an arbiter. So neither of you could verify that logs were correct. Only the arbiter, Carol Jarecki, could verify the logs. This was not done. The logs should have been created in front of the arbiter and given to the arbiter after each game for same keeping.
The question is not if other chess programs could find the move. The question is did deep blue find the moves and could it do find them again. The question could easily be answered by having deep blue replay the games. Simple, setup deep blue and see if could replay the same moves. Oh, I forgot we couldn’t do that. Ibm dismantled deep blue so it could never play again. So it looks like we will never know if deep blue really played the moves.
If you go back and look again, you will find that Ken, Monty, Carol, were _all_ on the committee responsible for handling these kinds of problems. Ken did watch part of the games watching the remote operators screen, as this was a group of "friends". I probably would have been back there myself had I been present. Ken had a copy of the log in question the day the protest was made. I personally looked at it. Amir Ban received excerpts from the log (pertaining to the move questioned at the time) within a day or two. They were not "hidden".
It does seem ridiculous to claim that they were doctored, and demand proof they were not, when it is _impossible_ to prove they were not altered. No way to prove something did not happen.
This is just an excuse. And a bad one.
The reason there is a problem is the rules did not say kasparov could ever get the logs. When kaparov asked for the logs during the match. The first response was no. Later they agreed he should get logs.
Kasparov wanted to verify the moves were made by deep blue. There are 2 easy ways to do that. 1 way is to have deep blue replay the games after the match. But, ibm in its infinite wisdom had the deep blue dismantled never to play again, a great loss for the chess and scientific communities.
A 2nd way is to have the arbiter see the logs printed out as the game is played. Then the arbiter can see there is no time for moves or logs to be doctored. The logs can be taken immediately by the arbiter. The Arbiter can give the logs to Garry when the match is over.
"Chess isn't on the radar of computer science challenges anymore, he said, as the focus has turned to new technologies, like Google."
\
The thing that most amazes me is that supposedly Kasparov claims he has never been able to look at the deep blue logs. Even though they were (and still are) available on the web. I could email 'em to him if he would shut that claim up.
Kasparov, who retired from chess in 2005 to devote himself to political activities in the former Soviet Union, has never seen the computer logs that showed Deep Blue's logic, Khodarkovsky said.
Khodarkovsky is misinformed. It is true that for many years, Kasparov was ignorant of this fact. Even after I had written an e-mail to his then manager, Owen Williams, whom I knew, informing him of this. Nevertheless, a few years ago, two or three I believe, Kasparov stated in an interview (published or republished on the Chessbase site I believe) that he had finally seen them, and promptly glossed over this as if it were a non-issue. Typical.
bob wrote:The thing that most amazes me is that supposedly Kasparov claims he has never been able to look at the deep blue logs. Even though they were (and still are) available on the web. I could email 'em to him if he would shut that claim up.
Those logs have a problem. The logs on the ibm web site have no independent certification as being created by deep blue during the match. For the logs to be valid the judges would need to see them being created by deep blue during the game. The logs need to given to the judges during the match. The judges did not verify the logs on the ibm web site.
Sorry, but that's wrong. The logs _were_ verified _during_ the match. I even saw a copy of the key position's log emailed to me by Ken Thompson within 24 hours of the "fiasco" happening.
You seem to demand that they disprove a negative, which is impossible. There are way too many ways to actually pull off cheating without detection. But for every move DB found in that match that was questioned by Kasparov, other programs have since shown that the moves were not surprising at all and are reproducible by several different programs.
But the logs are available, they match the games, there's no unusual aspect to them whatsoever...
Bob, you were not an arbiter and Ken Thompson was not an arbiter. So neither of you could verify that logs were correct. Only the arbiter, Carol Jarecki, could verify the logs. This was not done. The logs should have been created in front of the arbiter and given to the arbiter after each game for same keeping.
The question is not if other chess programs could find the move. The question is did deep blue find the moves and could it do find them again. The question could easily be answered by having deep blue replay the games. Simple, setup deep blue and see if could replay the same moves. Oh, I forgot we couldn’t do that. Ibm dismantled deep blue so it could never play again. So it looks like we will never know if deep blue really played the moves.
If you go back and look again, you will find that Ken, Monty, Carol, were _all_ on the committee responsible for handling these kinds of problems. Ken did watch part of the games watching the remote operators screen, as this was a group of "friends". I probably would have been back there myself had I been present. Ken had a copy of the log in question the day the protest was made. I personally looked at it. Amir Ban received excerpts from the log (pertaining to the move questioned at the time) within a day or two. They were not "hidden".
It does seem ridiculous to claim that they were doctored, and demand proof they were not, when it is _impossible_ to prove they were not altered. No way to prove something did not happen.
This is just an excuse. And a bad one.
The reason there is a problem is the rules did not say kasparov could ever get the logs. When kaparov asked for the logs during the match. The first response was no. Later they agreed he should get logs.
Kasparov wanted to verify the moves were made by deep blue. There are 2 easy ways to do that. 1 way is to have deep blue replay the games after the match. But, ibm in its infinite wisdom had the deep blue dismantled never to play again, a great loss for the chess and scientific communities.
A 2nd way is to have the arbiter see the logs printed out as the game is played. Then the arbiter can see there is no time for moves or logs to be doctored. The logs can be taken immediately by the arbiter. The Arbiter can give the logs to Garry when the match is over.
The problem with the match rules rests solely on Kasparov. He was in the driver's seat and could have specified _anything_ he wanted. IBM needed to play him. So that simply is not an excuse, it is just a complete lack of thought and planning on his/his team's part... Using that as a stick against IBM is pretty sad... "I screwed up and you guys are jerks for letting me screw up..." That's not an adult way of thinking.
As far as an "arbiter" watching during the match, I'll guarantee you I could fix Crafty so that I could give it advice during a game, and have it make its output conform to that analysis. And the arbiter would not have a clue anything untoward had been done.
Again, you can't prove something did _not_ happen. You can only prove that it did.
bob wrote:The thing that most amazes me is that supposedly Kasparov claims he has never been able to look at the deep blue logs. Even though they were (and still are) available on the web. I could email 'em to him if he would shut that claim up.
Those logs have a problem. The logs on the ibm web site have no independent certification as being created by deep blue during the match. For the logs to be valid the judges would need to see them being created by deep blue during the game. The logs need to given to the judges during the match. The judges did not verify the logs on the ibm web site.
Sorry, but that's wrong. The logs _were_ verified _during_ the match. I even saw a copy of the key position's log emailed to me by Ken Thompson within 24 hours of the "fiasco" happening.
You seem to demand that they disprove a negative, which is impossible. There are way too many ways to actually pull off cheating without detection. But for every move DB found in that match that was questioned by Kasparov, other programs have since shown that the moves were not surprising at all and are reproducible by several different programs.
But the logs are available, they match the games, there's no unusual aspect to them whatsoever...
Bob, you were not an arbiter and Ken Thompson was not an arbiter. So neither of you could verify that logs were correct. Only the arbiter, Carol Jarecki, could verify the logs. This was not done. The logs should have been created in front of the arbiter and given to the arbiter after each game for same keeping.
The question is not if other chess programs could find the move. The question is did deep blue find the moves and could it do find them again. The question could easily be answered by having deep blue replay the games. Simple, setup deep blue and see if could replay the same moves. Oh, I forgot we couldn’t do that. Ibm dismantled deep blue so it could never play again. So it looks like we will never know if deep blue really played the moves.
If you go back and look again, you will find that Ken, Monty, Carol, were _all_ on the committee responsible for handling these kinds of problems. Ken did watch part of the games watching the remote operators screen, as this was a group of "friends". I probably would have been back there myself had I been present. Ken had a copy of the log in question the day the protest was made. I personally looked at it. Amir Ban received excerpts from the log (pertaining to the move questioned at the time) within a day or two. They were not "hidden".
It does seem ridiculous to claim that they were doctored, and demand proof they were not, when it is _impossible_ to prove they were not altered. No way to prove something did not happen.
This is just an excuse. And a bad one.
The reason there is a problem is the rules did not say kasparov could ever get the logs. When kaparov asked for the logs during the match. The first response was no. Later they agreed he should get logs.
Kasparov wanted to verify the moves were made by deep blue. There are 2 easy ways to do that. 1 way is to have deep blue replay the games after the match. But, ibm in its infinite wisdom had the deep blue dismantled never to play again, a great loss for the chess and scientific communities.
A 2nd way is to have the arbiter see the logs printed out as the game is played. Then the arbiter can see there is no time for moves or logs to be doctored. The logs can be taken immediately by the arbiter. The Arbiter can give the logs to Garry when the match is over.
The problem with the match rules rests solely on Kasparov. He was in the driver's seat and could have specified _anything_ he wanted. IBM needed to play him. So that simply is not an excuse, it is just a complete lack of thought and planning on his/his team's part... Using that as a stick against IBM is pretty sad... "I screwed up and you guys are jerks for letting me screw up..." That's not an adult way of thinking.
As far as an "arbiter" watching during the match, I'll guarantee you I could fix Crafty so that I could give it advice during a game, and have it make its output conform to that analysis. And the arbiter would not have a clue anything untoward had been done.
Again, you can't prove something did _not_ happen. You can only prove that it did.
What about deep blue replaying the games? If ibm had not dismantled deep blue then the kasparov team replays the 6 games. The ibm team would not be present so they could not give advice to deep blue. This would be an easy proof deep blue played the games.
bob wrote:The thing that most amazes me is that supposedly Kasparov claims he has never been able to look at the deep blue logs. Even though they were (and still are) available on the web. I could email 'em to him if he would shut that claim up.
Those logs have a problem. The logs on the ibm web site have no independent certification as being created by deep blue during the match. For the logs to be valid the judges would need to see them being created by deep blue during the game. The logs need to given to the judges during the match. The judges did not verify the logs on the ibm web site.
Sorry, but that's wrong. The logs _were_ verified _during_ the match. I even saw a copy of the key position's log emailed to me by Ken Thompson within 24 hours of the "fiasco" happening.
You seem to demand that they disprove a negative, which is impossible. There are way too many ways to actually pull off cheating without detection. But for every move DB found in that match that was questioned by Kasparov, other programs have since shown that the moves were not surprising at all and are reproducible by several different programs.
But the logs are available, they match the games, there's no unusual aspect to them whatsoever...
Bob, you were not an arbiter and Ken Thompson was not an arbiter. So neither of you could verify that logs were correct. Only the arbiter, Carol Jarecki, could verify the logs. This was not done. The logs should have been created in front of the arbiter and given to the arbiter after each game for same keeping.
The question is not if other chess programs could find the move. The question is did deep blue find the moves and could it do find them again. The question could easily be answered by having deep blue replay the games. Simple, setup deep blue and see if could replay the same moves. Oh, I forgot we couldn’t do that. Ibm dismantled deep blue so it could never play again. So it looks like we will never know if deep blue really played the moves.
If you go back and look again, you will find that Ken, Monty, Carol, were _all_ on the committee responsible for handling these kinds of problems. Ken did watch part of the games watching the remote operators screen, as this was a group of "friends". I probably would have been back there myself had I been present. Ken had a copy of the log in question the day the protest was made. I personally looked at it. Amir Ban received excerpts from the log (pertaining to the move questioned at the time) within a day or two. They were not "hidden".
It does seem ridiculous to claim that they were doctored, and demand proof they were not, when it is _impossible_ to prove they were not altered. No way to prove something did not happen.
This is just an excuse. And a bad one.
The reason there is a problem is the rules did not say kasparov could ever get the logs. When kaparov asked for the logs during the match. The first response was no. Later they agreed he should get logs.
Kasparov wanted to verify the moves were made by deep blue. There are 2 easy ways to do that. 1 way is to have deep blue replay the games after the match. But, ibm in its infinite wisdom had the deep blue dismantled never to play again, a great loss for the chess and scientific communities.
A 2nd way is to have the arbiter see the logs printed out as the game is played. Then the arbiter can see there is no time for moves or logs to be doctored. The logs can be taken immediately by the arbiter. The Arbiter can give the logs to Garry when the match is over.
The problem with the match rules rests solely on Kasparov. He was in the driver's seat and could have specified _anything_ he wanted. IBM needed to play him. So that simply is not an excuse, it is just a complete lack of thought and planning on his/his team's part... Using that as a stick against IBM is pretty sad... "I screwed up and you guys are jerks for letting me screw up..." That's not an adult way of thinking.
As far as an "arbiter" watching during the match, I'll guarantee you I could fix Crafty so that I could give it advice during a game, and have it make its output conform to that analysis. And the arbiter would not have a clue anything untoward had been done.
Again, you can't prove something did _not_ happen. You can only prove that it did.
What about deep blue replaying the games? If ibm had not dismantled deep blue then the kasparov team replays the 6 games. The ibm team would not be present so they could not give advice to deep blue. This would be an easy proof deep blue played the
games.
If you were more into programming, you would already know the answer to that question. It is called "non-determinism". You can give a position to a parallel search program, and give it the same tim limit, and it might (or might not) find the same best move. I have posted several such positions here. So if DB played a different move the second time around, what would it prove? Absolutely nothing except yet again a parallel chess program shows non-deterministic behavior.
bob wrote:
If you were more into programming, you would already know the answer to that question. It is called "non-determinism". You can give a position to a parallel search program, and give it the same tim limit, and it might (or might not) find the same best move. I have posted several such positions here. So if DB played a different move the second time around, what would it prove? Absolutely nothing except yet again a parallel chess program shows non-deterministic behavior.
So what would be the point???
Yes, but there would always be the chance that it would choose the same moves so Kasparov would have to stop complaining.....
