Main
Date: 29 Apr 2005 07:42:18
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: I just kicked the SHIT out of Crafty (2600 strength)
This was a three-minute game, where these machines are *supposed* to be
strong enough to hold a draw as White. I even made it RESIGN!

The machine thought it was winning several times:

1. g3 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nxd4 c5 5. Nb3 c4 6. Nd4 Nf6 7. Bg2 Nc6 8.
O-O Bc5 9. Nxc6 bxc6 10. Nc3 O-O 11. Bf4 Bf5 12. e3 Bg4 13. f3 Bf5 14. Na4
Bb6 15. Nxb6 axb6 16. g4 Bg6 17. Qe2 h5 18. b3 hxg4 19. fxg4 cxb3 20. cxb3
Re8 21.
Rac1 Ne4 22. Rxc6 Qh4 23. Bxe4 Bxe4 24. Rxb6 Rac8 25. Bg3 Qh3 26. Rd1 Rc2
27. Qxc2 Bxc2 28. Rd4 Be4 29. Rxe4 dxe4 30. Rb4 Rd8 31. Rd4 Rxd4 32. exd4
Qxg4 33. Kf2 Qf3+ 34. Ke1 Qe3+ 35. Kf1 Qxd4 36. a4 Qb4 37. a5 Qxa5 38. b4
Qxb4 39. Ke2 f5 40. Kf1 {White resigns} 0-1

--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.






 
Date: 09 May 2005 07:36:07
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Kasparov claims about Deep Blue

Bugsy wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > Kasparov has some history of making loose, irresponsible
accusations
> > of this sort. His charge of human collaboration in the second Deep
Blue
> > match smacks of sour-grapes excuse-making and should be regarded
> > skeptically. It has been categorically denied by one of DB's chief
> > designers, Feng-Hsiung Hsu, in his book "Behind Deep Blue"
(Princeton
> > University Press, 2002), a very interesting read.
> > I am not aware that any "strong evidence" has ever been offered
to
> > support Kasparov's claim. To what, exactly, do you refer?
>
> Buy the recently release Kaspavov versus DB - DVD - Kasparov explains

> and supports his arguments in the video.

I don't care for chess videos and never buy them. Can you sumize
his arguments, or point me to another source?



 
Date: 09 May 2005 06:50:42
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Kasparov claims about Deep Blue

Adrian MacNair wrote:
> "k" <[email protected]*nospam*.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > Tell that to Kasporov when he played the non-thinking machine "deep
blue".
> > http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/
>
> We'll never know who or what Kasparov played since IBM destroyed it.
There
> is strong evidence to suggest Kasparov played the first match of Man
versus
> Machine+Man

Kasparov has some history of making loose, irresponsible accusations
of this sort. His charge of human collaboration in the second Deep Blue
match smacks of sour-grapes excuse-making and should be regarded
skeptically. It has been categorically denied by one of DB's chief
designers, Feng-Hsiung Hsu, in his book "Behind Deep Blue" (Princeton
University Press, 2002), a very interesting read.
I am not aware that any "strong evidence" has ever been offered to
support Kasparov's claim. To what, exactly, do you refer?



  
Date: 09 May 2005 10:06:45
From: Bugsy
Subject: Re: Kasparov claims about Deep Blue
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Adrian MacNair wrote:
>
>>"k" <[email protected]*nospam*.com> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]
>>
>>>Tell that to Kasporov when he played the non-thinking machine "deep
>
> blue".
>
>>>http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/
>>
>>We'll never know who or what Kasparov played since IBM destroyed it.
>
> There
>
>>is strong evidence to suggest Kasparov played the first match of Man
>
> versus
>
>>Machine+Man
>
>
> Kasparov has some history of making loose, irresponsible accusations
> of this sort. His charge of human collaboration in the second Deep Blue
> match smacks of sour-grapes excuse-making and should be regarded
> skeptically. It has been categorically denied by one of DB's chief
> designers, Feng-Hsiung Hsu, in his book "Behind Deep Blue" (Princeton
> University Press, 2002), a very interesting read.
> I am not aware that any "strong evidence" has ever been offered to
> support Kasparov's claim. To what, exactly, do you refer?

Buy the recently release Kaspavov versus DB - DVD - Kasparov explains
and supports his arguments in the video.

Cheers



   
Date: 09 May 2005 12:03:00
From: Paul Rubin
Subject: Re: Kasparov claims about Deep Blue
Bugsy <[email protected] > writes:
> Buy the recently release Kaspavov versus DB - DVD - Kasparov explains
> and supports his arguments in the video.

I haven't seen that video but have seen various other Kasparov claims
about it and they are bogus. Kasparov is like Fischer and just can't
deal with the idea of losing, especially to a box of chips.

Hsu's book "Behind Deep Blue" explains everything very thoroughly
and anyone interested in Deep Blue should read it.


    
Date: 09 May 2005 23:59:33
From: Neil Schemenauer
Subject: Re: Kasparov claims about Deep Blue
[Followup-To header set. We don't need to crosspost this nonsense.]

Paul Rubin <http > wrote:
> Bugsy <[email protected]> writes:
>> Buy the recently release Kaspavov versus DB - DVD - Kasparov explains
>> and supports his arguments in the video.
>
> I haven't seen that video but have seen various other Kasparov claims
> about it and they are bogus. Kasparov is like Fischer and just can't
> deal with the idea of losing, especially to a box of chips.

Yup, he's a cry baby. There has never been any evidence brought
forward of IBM cheating. Meanwhile, Kasparov and supporters have
spouted out nonsense like:

IBM needs to produce the log files.

They did. The logs were reviewed by many qualified people. I
reviewed them myself. There is no sign of monkey business. Also,
given enough time, PC chess engines of the same era would find the
same moves.

Kasparov didn't have access to of DB's previous games. DB had
access to Kasparov's games.

How exactly does that constitute cheating? One could argue that
it's unfar to Kasparov but that's not the same as cheating. Also,
Kasparov knew this before that match. Why did he start complaining
only after he started losing games?

Why didn't IBM give Kasparov a rematch?

If my opponent started wildly accusing me of cheating after I
defeated him I would not be inclined to continue to play him, let
alone pay him for the privilege.

Why did IBM so quickly dismantle the hardware?

You have to understand how DB was built. The custom chess chips
were nothing without the host computer. The host computer was a
very expensive piece of hardware and IBM sold it shortly after the
match. Also, who else were they going to play? For IBM, it was
purely a keting exercise. The public would not be interested in
DB defeating a lower ranked GM. Even another Kasparov match would
draw considerably less interest. Look at the number of people that
watched Apollo 12 vs Apollo 11. It would have been nice to see DB
play more games but it's not surprising that a corporation acts in
its own interests.

Of course, 6 games is not enough to say that DB was is stronger than
Kasparov. They were close enough in strength that many more games
would be necessary. What it did show is that a computer could
defeat Kasparov in a match. I think it reveals some aspect of human
psychology that people have such a hard time accepting this fact.

> Hsu's book "Behind Deep Blue" explains everything very thoroughly
> and anyone interested in Deep Blue should read it.

I highly recommend that book as well. What it shows is that in
addition to being a genius hardware designer, Hsu is a good
engineer. To build a strong chess engine you need to be able to
search lots of nodes quickly and you need to have a lot of
positional knowledge. The first item was taken care of by building
fast, parallel hardware. The second was handled by making it easy
and cheap to add terms to the evaluation. They built software to
automatically tune the evaluation based on a huge database of GM
games. IBM also hired some strong chess players to help with the
evaluation (e.g. GM Joel Benjamin).

It's also interesting that the DB team did a number of things to
avoid bugs. For example, they did not use the "Null move"
heuristic. It can potentially make an engine significantly stronger
but it's also tricky to get 100% correct.

Neil


 
Date: 29 Apr 2005 16:20:54
From: John J.
Subject: Re: I just kicked the SHIT out of Crafty (2600 strength)
22....Bxe4 seems to be a blunder. MAybe a4 or Rxg6 is better?

John
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> This was a three-minute game, where these machines are *supposed* to be
> strong enough to hold a draw as White. I even made it RESIGN!
>
> The machine thought it was winning several times:
>
> 1. g3 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nxd4 c5 5. Nb3 c4 6. Nd4 Nf6 7. Bg2 Nc6
> 8. O-O Bc5 9. Nxc6 bxc6 10. Nc3 O-O 11. Bf4 Bf5 12. e3 Bg4 13. f3 Bf5 14.
> Na4 Bb6 15. Nxb6 axb6 16. g4 Bg6 17. Qe2 h5 18. b3 hxg4 19. fxg4 cxb3 20.
> cxb3 Re8 21.
> Rac1 Ne4 22. Rxc6 Qh4 23. Bxe4 Bxe4 24. Rxb6 Rac8 25. Bg3 Qh3 26. Rd1 Rc2
> 27. Qxc2 Bxc2 28. Rd4 Be4 29. Rxe4 dxe4 30. Rb4 Rd8 31. Rd4 Rxd4 32. exd4
> Qxg4 33. Kf2 Qf3+ 34. Ke1 Qe3+ 35. Kf1 Qxd4 36. a4 Qb4 37. a5 Qxa5 38. b4
> Qxb4 39. Ke2 f5 40. Kf1 {White resigns} 0-1
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, Author
> http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
> Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
> affiliated books!
>
> http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
> The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest
> to get laid.
>
> Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
>




 
Date: 29 Apr 2005 15:00:45
From: John J.
Subject: Re: I just kicked the SHIT out of Crafty (2600 strength)
Impossible!

You may have kicked the bits and bytes out of it, but not the shit. lol


John


"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> This was a three-minute game, where these machines are *supposed* to be
> strong enough to hold a draw as White. I even made it RESIGN!
>
> The machine thought it was winning several times:
>
> 1. g3 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nxd4 c5 5. Nb3 c4 6. Nd4 Nf6 7. Bg2 Nc6
> 8. O-O Bc5 9. Nxc6 bxc6 10. Nc3 O-O 11. Bf4 Bf5 12. e3 Bg4 13. f3 Bf5 14.
> Na4 Bb6 15. Nxb6 axb6 16. g4 Bg6 17. Qe2 h5 18. b3 hxg4 19. fxg4 cxb3 20.
> cxb3 Re8 21.
> Rac1 Ne4 22. Rxc6 Qh4 23. Bxe4 Bxe4 24. Rxb6 Rac8 25. Bg3 Qh3 26. Rd1 Rc2
> 27. Qxc2 Bxc2 28. Rd4 Be4 29. Rxe4 dxe4 30. Rb4 Rd8 31. Rd4 Rxd4 32. exd4
> Qxg4 33. Kf2 Qf3+ 34. Ke1 Qe3+ 35. Kf1 Qxd4 36. a4 Qb4 37. a5 Qxa5 38. b4
> Qxb4 39. Ke2 f5 40. Kf1 {White resigns} 0-1
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, Author
> http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
> Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
> affiliated books!
>
> http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
> The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest
> to get laid.
>
> Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
>




 
Date: 29 Apr 2005 14:49:16
From: Anders Thulin
Subject: Re: I just kicked the SHIT out of Crafty (2600 strength)
Ray Gordon wrote:

> This was a three-minute game, where these machines are *supposed* to be
> strong enough to hold a draw as White. I even made it RESIGN!

But why not tell rec.games.chess.computers about it? That's where the posting
should go -- .analysis and .politics are hardly interested.

--
Anders Thulin ath*algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~ath


 
Date: 29 Apr 2005 09:37:03
From: PeteCasso
Subject: Re: I just kicked the SHIT out of Crafty (2600 strength)
Did you run Crafty on an abacus?


"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> This was a three-minute game, where these machines are *supposed* to be
> strong enough to hold a draw as White. I even made it RESIGN!
>
> The machine thought it was winning several times:
>
> 1. g3 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nxd4 c5 5. Nb3 c4 6. Nd4 Nf6 7. Bg2 Nc6
> 8. O-O Bc5 9. Nxc6 bxc6 10. Nc3 O-O 11. Bf4 Bf5 12. e3 Bg4 13. f3 Bf5 14.
> Na4 Bb6 15. Nxb6 axb6 16. g4 Bg6 17. Qe2 h5 18. b3 hxg4 19. fxg4 cxb3 20.
> cxb3 Re8 21.
> Rac1 Ne4 22. Rxc6 Qh4 23. Bxe4 Bxe4 24. Rxb6 Rac8 25. Bg3 Qh3 26. Rd1 Rc2
> 27. Qxc2 Bxc2 28. Rd4 Be4 29. Rxe4 dxe4 30. Rb4 Rd8 31. Rd4 Rxd4 32. exd4
> Qxg4 33. Kf2 Qf3+ 34. Ke1 Qe3+ 35. Kf1 Qxd4 36. a4 Qb4 37. a5 Qxa5 38. b4
> Qxb4 39. Ke2 f5 40. Kf1 {White resigns} 0-1
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, Author
> http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
> Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
> affiliated books!
>
> http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
> The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest
> to get laid.
>
> Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
>




 
Date: 29 Apr 2005 05:18:50
From: Kiddon
Subject: Re: I just kicked the SHIT out of Crafty (2600 strength)
I know the AAAI would disagree (http://www.aaai.org/), but I wouldn't
put the words "machine" and "thought" together in the same sentence in
this context. Perhaps the "machine calculated," but you are speaking
of it as if it is human.

kiddon
__________________________
Ray Gordon wrote:
> This was a three-minute game, where these machines are *supposed* to
be
> strong enough to hold a draw as White. I even made it RESIGN!
>
> The machine thought it was winning several times:
>
> 1. g3 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nxd4 c5 5. Nb3 c4 6. Nd4 Nf6 7. Bg2
Nc6 8.
> O-O Bc5 9. Nxc6 bxc6 10. Nc3 O-O 11. Bf4 Bf5 12. e3 Bg4 13. f3 Bf5
14. Na4
> Bb6 15. Nxb6 axb6 16. g4 Bg6 17. Qe2 h5 18. b3 hxg4 19. fxg4 cxb3 20.
cxb3
> Re8 21.
> Rac1 Ne4 22. Rxc6 Qh4 23. Bxe4 Bxe4 24. Rxb6 Rac8 25. Bg3 Qh3 26. Rd1
Rc2
> 27. Qxc2 Bxc2 28. Rd4 Be4 29. Rxe4 dxe4 30. Rb4 Rd8 31. Rd4 Rxd4 32.
exd4
> Qxg4 33. Kf2 Qf3+ 34. Ke1 Qe3+ 35. Kf1 Qxd4 36. a4 Qb4 37. a5 Qxa5
38. b4
> Qxb4 39. Ke2 f5 40. Kf1 {White resigns} 0-1
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, Author
> http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
> Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
> affiliated books!
>
> http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
> The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your
quest to
> get laid.
>
> Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech
forum.



  
Date: 29 Apr 2005 19:03:32
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I just kicked the SHIT out of Crafty (2600 strength)
>I know the AAAI would disagree (http://www.aaai.org/), but I wouldn't
> put the words "machine" and "thought" together in the same sentence in
> this context. Perhaps the "machine calculated," but you are speaking
> of it as if it is human.

Which is why I beat it.


--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.




   
Date: 30 Apr 2005 14:23:15
From: mark
Subject: Re: I just kicked the SHIT out of Crafty (2600 strength)
Tell that to Kasporov when he played the non-thinking machine "deep blue".
http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> >I know the AAAI would disagree (http://www.aaai.org/), but I wouldn't
>> put the words "machine" and "thought" together in the same sentence in
>> this context. Perhaps the "machine calculated," but you are speaking
>> of it as if it is human.
>
> Which is why I beat it.
>
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, Author
> http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
> Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
> affiliated books!
>
> http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
> The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest
> to get laid.
>
> Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
>




    
Date: 08 May 2005 06:28:25
From: Adrian MacNair
Subject: Re: I just kicked the SHIT out of Crafty (2600 strength)

"k" <[email protected]*nospam*.com > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Tell that to Kasporov when he played the non-thinking machine "deep blue".
> http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/

We'll never know who or what Kasparov played since IBM destroyed it. There
is strong evidence to suggest Kasparov played the first match of Man versus
Machine+Man




     
Date: 09 May 2005 08:09:42
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: I just kicked the SHIT out of Crafty (2600 strength)
In article <[email protected] >,
"Adrian MacNair" <[email protected] > wrote:

> We'll never know who or what Kasparov played since IBM destroyed it. There
> is strong evidence to suggest Kasparov played the first match of Man versus
> Machine+Man

Huh? Can you provide a link to support either claim?


--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson


      
Date: 09 May 2005 13:02:50
From: Adrian MacNair
Subject: Re: I just kicked the SHIT out of Crafty (2600 strength)
"Harold Buck" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Adrian MacNair" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > We'll never know who or what Kasparov played since IBM destroyed it.
There
> > is strong evidence to suggest Kasparov played the first match of Man
versus
> > Machine+Man
>
> Huh? Can you provide a link to support either claim?

In Kasparovs retirement he told Chessbase of his beliefs that IBM cheated.
In the same article he promotes the openness of Chessbase and their "Deep"
programs.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2309

" It was a sad day for chess. Scientifically speaking, the match was a fake.
IBM produced no evidence that it wasn't and the burden of evidence was with
them." - Kasparov

" I feel I was beaten by IBM, not by Deep Blue. They dismantled the machine,
the program, everything. If you have something outstanding your share it,
you don't hide it. You apply for a Nobel Prize. Why didn't they?" - Kasparov




    
Date: 01 May 2005 00:17:31
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I just kicked the SHIT out of Crafty (2600 strength)
> Tell that to Kasporov when he played the non-thinking machine "deep blue".
> http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/

Why would I bother?

I'm just some former expert who beats masters online at blitz semi-regularly
now, and who beat a GM-strength computer at a three-minute time control (the
machine had fewer than 50 losses against 8,000+ wins). I mean, *any* player
can do that, right?

I know I'm too old and slow or whatever to get to GM, or so they say, but I
like to play chess a lot and I'm trained to practice and study a certain
way, plus I have about 50-55 hours a week to kill, so what the hell.

I'm sure the victory was an accident.

--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.




     
Date: 30 Apr 2005 23:24:56
From: mark
Subject: Re: I just kicked the SHIT out of Crafty (2600 strength)

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> >I know the AAAI would disagree (http://www.aaai.org/), but I wouldn't
>> put the words "machine" and "thought" together in the same sentence in
>> this context. Perhaps the "machine calculated," but you are speaking
>> of it as if it is human.

Tell that to Kasporov when he played the non-thinking machine "deep blue".
http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/