From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: I will accept DMC's challenge!!
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:20:00 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1ia0a1INN1p2@meaddata.meaddata.com>, kcy@meaddata.com (Cheong Yu) writes:
> In article <1993Jan3.112801.794@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> |> In article <1i5r59INNn0u@meaddata.meaddata.com>, kcy@meaddata.com (Cheong Yu) writes:
> |> > 
> |> > [Discussion about offer to play DMC deleted]
> |> >
> |> > So how about it, DMC?  I would save you a plane ticket because I would
> |> > be willing to drive to Toledo.  Do you want to play?
> |> 
> |> Sure, but there has to be a down side to SOMEONE! Christ, these people have
> |> been crying to find out my skills for a long time, as if somehow my skills on
> |> the chessboard would influence the validity of my posts here. (No one has yet
> |> explained the reasoning behind that view, but the (il)logic still runs
> |> rampant.)
> 
> I didn't follow every article on the relevant threads, but I thought
> the intention was to show your knowledge about the game of chess.  I
> thought the discussion was about whether GM Benjamin's article about
> Fischer's playing ability was accurate and unbiased.  I don't believe
> I have the chess abilities to find inaccuracies in Benjamin's
> analysis, so I can't judge whether his article was biased or unbiased.

Um, yes and no. My intent was to prove to one Doubting Thomas that his
insistance I could not play was flat out wrong.

As to Benjamins article, and my critique of it, that can be summed up with:

1. Benjamin did not perform ENOUGH analysis
2. There was not enough material for him to claim Fischer had slipped
3. His admitted bias against Fischer cast more doubt into its validity.

Those positions are what got everybody here riled.

> 
> In my opinion, if another person cannot find inaccuracies or errors of
> omission in Benjamin's analysis, then I think that person should not
> claim that the article was biased (or unbiased.)  So if I didn't even
> know how the pieces moved, I would hardly be fitting to judge a GM's
> analysis.

Cheong, you sell yourself short, and give too much weight to Benjamin's rank.
Everytime that a doctor is found liable for malpractice, a jury of people who
know nothing about medicine pass judgment on his work. You don't have to know
how to how to remove a spleen to know when instructons in a Acme do-it-yourself
spleen removal kit are poorly written. 

After all, do you need to know how to repair a photocopier to be able to
tell when the copier repairman is not doing the job right?

No, we bring our own common sense into the equation. We look at the analysis.
We look at how few examples were given. Is it enough to be proof positive?

For you, it was, which is fine.

Sadly, howeer, most of the people posting on here were saying little more than:

"Fischer is worse 'cause Benjamin said so!"

Such keen minds...


> 
> |> 
> |> So, if you can come up with a fitting wager...
> |> 
> |> I have it!
> |> 
> |> Bruce, since YOU are the one who 'expertly' reasoned I can't play,
> |> IF I win this challenge, you get a bad haircut--a mohawk! If I don't know how
> |> to play and loose, I get the mohawk. If I play well enough, so that an
> |> IMPARTIAL judge decides that I have some playing skill, thus proving how wrong
> |> you reasoning was, but still loose as my opponent is a better player, I don't
> |> get a mohawk as I proved you wrong, while you don't have to get one as your
> |> champion prevailed.
> |> 
> |> I like it!
> |> 
> |> Cheong, if he'll agree to these terms, you got a mini-tournamment!
> |> 
> 
> I'm not sure why Bruce would have to be involved in this challenge.  I
> thought the match was supposed to be against you and me.  My offer was
> to play a three-game match, and the winner will post the games here
> with accompanying analysis, annotations, etc.  The games can be
> critiqued by the rest of the world, so that we can all discuss chess.

Right, but the ONLY reason I want to play is to prove just how piss-poor
Harper's 'expert-opinion' was. 

> 
> I think Bruce has put you in his kill file, or has made a New Year's
> resolution to not follow-up to your posts.  If I were him, I wouldn't
> wager on a Class B player.  Heck, I surely wouldn't wager my own hair
> on my chess ability.  :-)

I'd get it is a New Years resolution.

Which is why I keep needling him.

Besides, he 'believes' I am a non-class player, so you should trounce me.

> 
> |> >>
> |> >>If you, or anyone else can answer me two things, I'll gladly play ANYONE on
> |> >>ICS:
> |> >>
> |> >>1. How is a modem/fiber linkup going to 'prove' I know how to play chess? How
> |> >>can ANY of you assure I just won't be dialed in on my 386 while my 486 runs a
> |> >>chess program at max skill??? (Use your brains people, you can't.) So, even if
> |> >>I win, people like YOU and SVEN and BRUCE will STILL claim I don't know how to
> |> >>play.
> |> >>
> |> > 
> |> > ** Obligatory chess discussion follows **
> |> > 
> |> > A person can "prove" that he/she knows how to play chess by playing a
> |> > game against another person/machine and then provide analysis,
> |> > annotations, commentaries, etc. so others can critique them.  (I think
> |> > GM Benjiman can "prove" that he knows how to play.)
> |> > 
> |> > I think that the original challenge made by Bruce was to play via this
> |> > newsgroup in a correspondence game.  I'm not sure how up-to-date you
> |> > are with computer chess development, but it's a known fact that
> |> > computers are *weakest* when playing at correspondence chess time
> |> > limits.  This was proven when IM Mike Valvo soundly beat Deep Thought
> |> > in a correspondence match.  So Bruce didn't have to worry that he was
> |> > playing against a computer.
> |> 
> |> I wasn't aware of this testing. Could you supply some cite material so I can
> |> study more? If this holds universally true, then the AI people should be
> |> pissed. (At least, one camp will be, the other one will be doing backflips as
> |> it helps validate their beliefs!)
> |> 
> 
> ** Obligatory chess discussion begins *
> 
> After re-reading my post, I'm sorry if I may have mislead some people
> with the above paragraph about computers being weak at postal chess.

Shit. That would have been an interesting fact.

> 
> Obviously, a chess program will be stronger if more time is given for
> it to search and evaluate more positions.  This fact is cited in
> various literature and is often mis-interprented when people read the
> (in)famous Scientific American (Oct 1990) article on Deep Thought II.
> That article said something like: given the data collected *in the
> past*, the playing strength of a computer has been shown to increase
> linearly when the depth of its searching has increased.  It postulates
> that *if the trend continues*, theoretically, Deep Thought II could
> have a rating of 3400.  But the article makes *no claim* that the
> increase in rating will continue to grow linearly with the increased
> speed.  My opinion is that the growth rate has to tail off sooner or
> later.
> 
> Back to my original statement: what I meant to say was that computers
> are at the greatest *disadvantage* when playing humans at postal chess
> time limits.  The computers will continue to get stronger if given
> more time, but the humans can make better use of the extra time, so
> the gap between the human and the computer becomes greater in the
> human's favor.  I have no specific cited material to back this up, but
> it is generally accepted among the computer chess community.

That would make for the interesting info for the AI community. It would mean
that the Human has processes which can function in parallel, but there is a
specific time overhead they must deal with. After that has been breached, the
processes begin to worm their way through more valid permitations that the
computer can. 

In short, computers can go faster, but we go longer. 


> 
> The Valvo vs. DT match I was referring to is in Chess Life (Oct 1990,
> Nov 1990).  Valvo won 2-0, so it wasn't as impressive as I thought it
> was.  Valvo is an IM and his USCF rating was 2400+ at that time.  I
> don't know what DT's rating was at the time, but I think it's
> currently around 2500+.
> 
> There are several instances of this phenomonon.  I think that Robert
> Hyatt, of Cray Blitz fame, has posted here that Cray Blitz plays its
> best at speed chess, defeating several GMs.  If you looked at all the
> games that machines have won over IMs and GMs, you'll find that the
> faster the time limit, the more likely the machine will win.
> Furthermore, a group of Usenet users (whose average rating was under
> 2200) beat MChess, and the 2nd game is still in progress (check MChess
> vs. Users).  DT evaluates 100,000s of position per *second*, and
> Kasparov still trounced it at regular tournaments time limits.

Possibly because we don't have the definitive program written yet for chess,
like we have for checkers. (No human can beat the programs that are out there
right now for checkers.)

> 
> Computers are very strong, but the average person overestimates its
> actual strength.
> 
> ** Obligatory chess discussion ends *
> 
> |> > 
> |> > However, on ICS at tournament time limits, a computer can beat a
> |> > Master, but a computer is very weak at providing analysis and
> |> > annotations other than spitting out a bunch of variations and
> |> > assigning it a numerical rating.
> |> 
> |> Why would I analyze a game? My overall philosophy is you won or you lost, and
> |> you learn from your own mistakes, not those of others.
> |> 
> 
> In my opinion, "a win is a win" philosophy only applies to sports and
> other trivial games. :-) Chess is a combination of science, sport, and
> art.  Reducing chess to wins and losses would be reducing it to "99%
> mathematics".  And how would someone learn from their own mistakes if
> they don't have someone point them out to them?

Yes, you learn from your OWN mistakes, and possibly those of others.

I guess for me the 'art' of it is like Zen. Do it enough times and let the
brain worry about the work.


> 
> Besides, if someone analyzed a game, then another can better judge the
> abilities of the analyzer.  For example, I can claim that a move I
> made was extremely strong, but then someone can point out that it was
> a blunder because I left my Queen unprotected.  I would have to either
> agree that it was a blunder or try to convince him that it was really
> a sacrifice (yeah, that's the ticket).

If you won, it was a gambit/sacrifice. If you lost, it was a blunder.

> 
> |> > 
> |> >>2. What does my ability to play have to ANYTHING with the issues I raise? Are
> |> >>you 'people' so damned egotistic that you believe only a GM or IM can have a
> |> >>valid opinion on an issue??? No wonder you bought Benjie's article
> |> >>wholesale--you are too wrapped up in titles to, just for one second, realize
> |> >>that a GM is only an expert at ONE thing. And that one thing is playing chess.
> |> >         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |> >>NOT commenting on other GMs games. NOT international politics. NOT the law. NOT
> |> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |> >>ANYTHING except playing chess. Suppose Bruce trounces me wholesale? So what?
> |> >>Does that prove I don't know how to play? Does it mean the issues on policies
> |> >>and law I raised are invalid? If I beat Benjamin Himself, would that make his
> |> >>views wrong and mine right?
> |> > 
> |> > Didn't someone bring up the analogy that an artist can give a better
> |> > opinion about art than an art critic could?  So couldn't a GM can give
> |> > a better opinion about chess than someone like me?  Since I can't play
> |> > chess as well as GM Benjiman, I don't think I could find faults in his
> |> > "art" or his analysis.
> |> 
> |> Perhaps. While it is true he would be better than you or I in the analysis,
> |> that still leaves a gap when he is critiquing at his own, or a higher level.
> |> Part of this is the 'personal baggage' he brings into the game. He has his own
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |> notions of what work best. These MUST be flawed as he is human. Another human
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |> will have different opinions, and there are only two things which can give a
> |> relaible answer:
> |> 
> |> 1. God comes down with his opinion.
> |> 2. Winner wins and that is it.
> |> 
> |> Not very escoteric, I admit, but it is practical.
> |> 
> 
> I'm not quite convinced that a GM's analysis must be flawed because he
> is human, and how that would translates into bias.  If a GM's analysis
> if flawed, how can I prove it?  I don't even have the chess abilities
> to find any inaccuracies or omissions in his analysis.  Is Einstein's
> notion of physics flawed because he is human?  If they were flawed,
> how can I show it?

By showing it reduces down to a division by zero.

Which is prohibited.

You don't have to be an architect to know building made out of stone is
probably better than one made out of straw...

> 
> But we are beginning to digress. :-)
> 
> So, DMC, are we going to play a three-game match?  The winner gets to
> post the games with accompanying analysis for everyone to scrutinize.
> I guess the loser can get to post counter-analysis, or try to show
> that the analysis is biased or unbiased. :-)

The problem is that I have nothing to gain, and possible losses if there is no
wager.

If I lose horribly, Harper, and all of the other flunkies, get to jump up and
say, "See, I know he couldn't play chess. Everything he said is wrong!!!"

If I win big time, all of the flunkies get to say, "Oh. Look at THIS move! What
a horrible move! Proves he doesn't know what he was talking about!!!"

No, there MUST be some kind of downside, either for Harper or Sven.


> 
> Cheong
> 
> [P.S. I hope I only include one copy of my .signature this time.]
> 
> -- 
> Cheong Yu             |                        |        (513) 865-7048
> Mead Data Central     |                        |   Fax: (513) 865-1755
> P.O. Box 933          |                        |      kcy@meaddata.com
> Dayton, Ohio  45401   |                        |    uunet!meaddata!kcy