Father versus Deepblue in the ocean. September 04/2019.. Open letter to Garry Kasparov

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
Ovyron
Posts: 2508
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:30 am

Re: Father versus Deepblue in the ocean. September 04/2019.. Open letter to Garry Kasparov

Post by Ovyron » Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:23 am

Based on my understanding Carlsen and Naka were happy with the training, if Kaspy was a bad trainer they wouldn't have been happy. The problem of being a top player already is finding a strong trainer to keep improving, specially if they were already stronger than him when he was training them, being able to teach them something useful wouldn't have been trivial, so if he did it that'd be some virtue.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.

Father
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Colombia
Full name: Pablo Ignacio Restrepo

...the hug between Jesse Owens and Lutz Long. "The truth without borders." Great souls

Post by Father » Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:49 pm

Ovyron wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:30 am
Father wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:00 pm
“Hard work, virtue and gift”🧗🏿‍♀️🏋🏿‍♀️😇⛹️‍♀️
In human psychology, people tend to believe that the more something requires hard work, the more valuable it is. In reality, cheap wine can taste better than the most expensive ones, if you're not told its price...
Ovyron I am Completely agree with you about that: "In human psychology, people tend to believe that the more something requires hard work, the more valuable it is. In reality, cheap wine can taste better than the most expensive ones, if you're not told its price..."

To defeat the machines, human beings or people do not need to belong to a special race, to a special species, to a special genre, to a condition, to any sex, to any uniform, to any political party, to any federation, It doesn't need titles, it doesn't need press headlines, it doesn't need press releases, it doesn't need to be from any federation, it doesn't require teacher titles.

Human beings who face pure machines and simply win, lose or tie in the battle of man against machines.

All those who pretend to believe that they belong to a special and superior race that gives them the right to be and believe that of the only ones authorized to legitimately confront computers, chess, may well drink their own illusory wine.

In the meantime we will remain in the battle of man against machine... every victory that I can make, or every draw, and even every defeat, a toast to all those who do not have freedom, have no rights, by all those who are orbited by any kind of totalitarianism and injustice.

It comes to mind as my greatest reference and example, the great story of Jesse Owens who traveled to Berlin 1936 to demonstrate to those who thought they were supermen, who did not have such an special condition.

The biggest of those 1936 Olympics in Berlin was the hug between Jesse Owens and Lutz Long. "The truth without borders." Great souls

Sincerely,

Pablo
I am thinking chess is in a coin.Human beings for ever playing in one face.Now I am playing in the other face:"Antichess". Computers are as a fortres where owner forgot to close a little door behind. You must enter across this door.Forget the front.

bob
Posts: 20478
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Father versus Deepblue in the ocean. September 04/2019.. Open letter to Garry Kasparov

Post by bob » Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:21 pm

Father wrote:
Wed Sep 04, 2019 10:51 pm
mwyoung wrote:
Wed Sep 04, 2019 10:40 pm
Father wrote:
Wed Sep 04, 2019 10:17 pm
September 04, 2019

Open letter to Garry Kasparov.


Deep blue was a part of a crucial moment in the history of mankind. The great and great Gary Kasparov faced the power of the machine and economic corporations. The role played by the world champion was extraordinary. Today I wonder if the valuation parameters between game and game were modified. If the answer was affirmative, only that is sufficient reason to disqualify to the computer and remove or dispose of the title doping.

The doping would then be the intervention of the human by changing the lines of play in the course of the confrontation.

I believe that all chess programmers have a moral responsibility to humanity. Scientists and computer programmers of chess must tell us through the study of the games if the value system between them has differences.

I would like to have a deep blue today in front of me; I know it would be a lot of scrap metal. The problem is that IBM shares would fall to their worst historical value.

Please scientific sirs: Help us. Were the valuation systems changed in that historic match? If the answer is, YES THEY WERE, "if they were", and they were not automatically changed by the machine, that match for me was a terrible fraud and ambush against the always great and virtuous Garry Kasparov, who was then a victim of ambush.

Sincerely,

Pablo Ignacio Restrepo
Father and Grand-Father playchess.com player



Trying playserver.chessbase.com Connected Login Welcome, Grand-Father! Server Time = 21:36 (UTC+2h), 2857 users online 8 pm ( CET) – Wednesday-Blitz 5+0, 9 rounds. More Information see Tournaments -> Room Official B -> Info Your local weather: [WTH_2CLOUD_NORAIN], Temperature: 26°C, Wind: NEE 0Bft. Rated (Classic) 1m+3s No. of players receiving your offer: 5 Rated (Classic)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-7920X CPU @ 2.90GHz 2904MHz, (12 cores, 24 threads) New Elo: 2069 (+31),

Yes. The evaluation parameters was changed between games. If that is the question. And this action was allowed by the rules of the match. This was a chess match. GM Kasparov was very ignorant of computer chess. And to think Deep Blue would play as a typical desktop chess engine of the day. With the same weaknesses in closed positions, and other computer chess weaknesses of the day.
mwyoung,

I did not know that chess computer chess program paremeters could be changed... What a sad news!!
So a human learns NOTHING by playing a game of chess? He is EXACTLY the same after the game ends as he was before the game started? This is a pretty ridiculous line of reasoning. There are rules that both sides agreed to before the match started. One was no changes or human interference while the game was in progress. Anything was allowed between games. I know for certain that Kasparov and his helpers studied the games between each round to try to uncover weaknesses. Was THIS cheating???

Father
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Colombia
Full name: Pablo Ignacio Restrepo

Re: Father versus Deepblue in the ocean. September 04/2019.. Open letter to Garry Kasparov

Post by Father » Wed Sep 11, 2019 10:33 pm

" Yes. The evaluation parameters was changed between games. If that is the question. And this action was allowed by the rules of the match. This was a chess match. GM Kasparov was very ignorant of computer chess. And to think Deep Blue would play as a typical desktop chess engine of the day. With the same weaknesses in closed positions, and other computer chess weaknesses of the day.
[/quote]

mwyoung,

I did not know that chess computer chess program paremeters could be changed... What a sad news!!
[/quote]

So a human learns NOTHING by playing a game of chess? He is EXACTLY the same after the game ends as he was before the game started? This is a pretty ridiculous line of reasoning. There are rules that both sides agreed to before the match started. One was no changes or human interference while the game was in progress. Anything was allowed between games. I know for certain that Kasparov and his helpers studied the games between each round to try to uncover weaknesses. Was THIS cheating???
[/quote]

Bob,

In my humble opinion, except for a better concept, what I want to express it is that a computer that is not autonomous in its own decisions and application, it is an entity product of the sum of "human and machine."

A simple example: It is enough to instruct for a will of human being, that Komodo calculate greater appreciation to my pawns; so that, the game will be open and the tactical power of the computer will be wining. But if Komodo in his factory standard settings does not have the ability to calculate thatit e is facing a player with a much lower.

If in a match the parameters of the computer are modified by the will of the human being who controls the machine, it results in the presence of a human being with his/her will versus the machine and the will of the other human being. To my knowledge and understanding, that is an ambush.

With much intelligence Bob, you state that on Kasparov's side the team of analysts also studied the weaknesses of the computer; In this regard Bob I answer that this reinforces my arguments, in the sense that the match really was between " a man assisted by analysts versus a machine assisted by analysts." But it was not a fight between an autonomous man against an autonomous machine.

In other terms, the match was between "human wills and intelligences" against "calculator and human wills." But not "man against autonomous machines."

The mathematical problem that I have been proposing to computer chess programmers is very simple: "A computer will be a powerful invensible machine, only as long as the computer has the ability and intelligence to decide autonomously without human will which valuation codes it should use, and to the extent that you have the ability to distinguish whether you play against a "Grand-Father or against Magnus Carsen and thus implement the appropriate mathematical technique.

In my knowledge and understanding, it will be very complex to avoid "the strategic head to which I have submitted and I propose to apply against chess computers; I would believe that if a great book is made, I would imagine a new one below and so on, book by book , to fill a library.


Finally I would like to participate in a simple philosophical appreciation: "As I observe the extraordinary power of the computer to calculate, I have devised an antidote that I call: The strategic ladder, which consists of looking at 50 successive moves that overflow the ability to observe the horizon that the computer possesses."

These words Bob, are my simple opinion, just that.

With the greatest respect,

Pablo
I am thinking chess is in a coin.Human beings for ever playing in one face.Now I am playing in the other face:"Antichess". Computers are as a fortres where owner forgot to close a little door behind. You must enter across this door.Forget the front.

User avatar
Ovyron
Posts: 2508
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:30 am

Re: Father versus Deepblue in the ocean. September 04/2019.. Open letter to Garry Kasparov

Post by Ovyron » Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:21 am

Father wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 10:33 pm
But it was not a fight between an autonomous man against an autonomous machine.
This puts the machine in an unfair disadvantage, as we're not yet in the age of the artificial intelligence that improves itself, the machine depends on us. It's not going to stand up and analyze its game and come to conclusions that will help it improve. Even the most recent machine learning we've came up with is only relevant if the same positions arise on the game, and then it already knows previous analysis, or depending of the game result, it may discourage some moves over others, or avoid an opening entirely. But otherwise, it's the same program.

To make this fair, the human would need to forget about the game that she just played. Or, anyway, the human might need to play against the machine in a simultaneous exhibition, where all the games happen at the same time, so the human can't learn from games that haven't happened yet. But this is unfair the other way, as a machine has no problem playing many games simultaneously, but the human has a drastic reduction in strength.

So the simplest solution is to let other humans improve the machine between games, and then, just like the machine mimics humanity for playing the game (let's be honest, if the machine could choose, it's unlikely it'd choose to play chess), changes can be made so it mimics learning about the game just played.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.

Post Reply