So perhaps Kasparov's biggest mistake was being arrogant enough to assume he could beat an opponent without studying its game, just because it was a computer.
Or perhaps his biggest mistake was on more than one occasion to make such assumptions about his opponent's style/ability that he threw games away.
Really, to complain that something wasn't Deep Blue's "style" after only ever having seen it play one game is ridiculous. Humans can also adapt their strategy between individual games in a match, of course.
Or perhaps his biggest mistake was when his hands didn't do what his brain thought they should do.
I just don't see how the game was anything other than completely fair. Just because Kasparov doesn't understand modern chess computers doesn't mean he can cry foul. For instance, computers can be "surprised" (find themselves in a position for which they have less data to perform a heuristic evaluation than they would normally) but they just don't get emotionally involved in that situation. Again, Kasparov knew this when he sat down, but he still thought he would win. And he was wrong. He was beaten. Call it the meta-game if you want, but Deep Blue didn't do it through "intention" to "bust him up" -- Kasparov did that all to himself. His ego lost him the match.
I haven't read Life, The Universe and Everything since before Mostly Harmless came out so I can't properly remember what happened with Thor, and I've never seen The Hustler -- so I might well be missing something here.
I also don't play chess except for casual games, but it seems to me that the battle of wills is very much part of the game.
What, exactly, did Kasparov expect when he entered into this competition? That Deep Blue would reach a stage where it just gave up through fatigue?
No, the most likely explanation for what happened is clearly that Kasparov realised that he was going to lose; he probably felt that he had made a bad move earlier in the game and was frustrated and stressed about that, or perhaps he perceived a weakness in Deep Blue's game which subsequently turned out not to be manipulable.
He lost because he was not able to win -- if he'd have played for the draw, who knows what might have happened, but instead, he played for the toys-out-of-the-pram-defense.
No, that's 201. In 102 they just tell you to leave a variable amount of time between moves.
Then in 301 they tell you that all that crap they told you about all that crap they tell you about online poker just being to get more rake was just to discourageyou from writing poker bots.
Once you've got your PhD they show you that our world is in fact a poker simulation and that you're just a brain in a jar contributing to an enormous statistical calculation used by machines to improve their chances of beating one another at poker.
The question is: if, in a three-handed game of hold'em, two people have gone all-in after fourth street, and the cards shown indicate that you have only one out remaining, what is the reciprocal of your chances of winning?
Your bot which always loses the first few rounds of poker might win the first few tournaments, but then you'd want to start mixing it up with a bot which didn't do that, otherwise your opponents would start capitalising on it. But if you use a strategy to do your mixing, that strategy can be learned. It's all about the balance between maximal and optimal.
What a strange way of looking at the world. You would never exchange cash (very flexible) for goods (less flexible). You would never make any plans (in case you wanted to make others at the last moment). You wouldn't have any children (not scalable from the species' perspective).
P.S. By posting this comment I deny myself the option of moderating your comment -1 (Overrated).
Well, guess what...it WILL touch you if gas keeps going up.
That's exactly why it might be a good idea to start re-thinking the existence of jobs that require a person to drive 60 miles a day. Or tomatoes that are imported from god knows where when they are perfectly capable of being grown locally.
No, your economy is based upon limitless cheap fuel, which is why, although we in Europe are fucked too, we're marginally less fucked than you. See for example http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
You're an idiot. You're such an idiot that in trying to address a load of nonsense that someone else has written, you have actually managed to write a greater amount of nonsense yourself.
Only about 1000 people were killed in those 5 years and that was considered a lot.
Only 1,000 and it was "considered" a lot? Which is it? Only 1,000 or a lot?
Currently, 1000 is considered not very much in comparison with 10,000. At the time, it was considered a lot.
AI and other so called human rights grousp stepped in and pressured the Socialists to stop the offensive an have cese fire
What did AI "step" in? Doggy poo? Cat Poo? What is a "cese fire"?
Get a grip. "What" is not a "cese fire". "What" is a word. Deliberately misunderstanding English does not a point make.
There was a second attempt at a ceasefile last year
What is a "ceasefile"? It sounds like a bunch of lawyers charging you down with tons of documents. As a former U.S.M.C, I can handle being charged down with a weapon, just please don't send a bunch of lawyers after me with a "ceasefile"!
A ceasefile is what we call a typographical error. What has happened is that this guy's muscle memory has caused him to type 'file' rather than 'fire'. Somebody who calls themselves a "Senior Programmer" might understand this, unless what they actually mean is that they are more senior than their Aibo in their company, "Bedroom in my parents' house enterprises, LLC". Presumably USMC stands for "Unsatisfied Stroppy Masturbating Child", in which case I must pick you up on incorrect use of the word "former".
As of today the death toll approaches 10,000.
What day is "today"? Monday? Montag? Lunes? Please explain!
Allow me. When a journal entry is marked "13:36 Wednesday 20 October 2004", the "today" to which it refers is Wednesday, 20th October, 2004. Thank you.
None of this would have happened had a bunch of aging hippies not stepped in.
What in the world did the "aging hippies" step in that caused "all of this"? Please tell me so I can send this information around the world to all "aging hippies" to make sure that none of them ever step in [UNKNOWN] again.
At last you have a chance to attack the outrageously unsubstantiated claim in his argument, and instead you talk about poo. I suppose by now I should have been expecting this.
In the end the people that are getting killed are not the aging hippes or anyone they knew
So "this" all ended? None of the "aging hippes" or people they "knew" died? Well at least it all ended!
No, you idiot, "the end" refers to the end of time. What else could it possibly refer to? Some sort of intermediate point in time? How could it be "the end" then? Not very bright, are you?
Do you think they don't want to check thoroughly before claiming that they have got rid of all the spammers? Or does MAPS only care about a cusrosy inspection? Seems the ISP is guilty of being more thorough than MAPS here, and as a result they're being punished.
The point is that the ISP needs to give MAPS feedback, something like "We're pretty sure we've got rid of the spammers, but we'll let you know when we've satisfied ourselves completely." If there's silence, it's pretty difficult for the likes of MAPS to tell the difference (without expending serious resources -- think scalability) between that and a spam-happy ISP who just doesn't care to respond.
YES!!!! They got into this business. They can just leave if its too much work.
The market says that they're doing the right thing. It's only because people think their blacklist is worth its salt that you're having problems in the first place.
I'm not going to. I know how hard it is, and am not willing to run a semi adequate service that causes a new set of problems on top of spam. I'm also going to be highly critical of people who don't realise their limitations and instead blame others for the problems caused.
And I will remain sceptical of those who claim that a panacea exists without detailing it. Scalability is a serious issue.
They don't seem to make it clear that their list does anything other than block known or likely spam sources. It doesn't say it blocks ISPs that - for whatever reason - are slow to get back to MAPS.
My other point in saying "come back when you've tried it yourself" was that I think it's reasonable to trust their judgement about "likely" spam sources more than yours.
MAPS caused the problem as well. My ISP was speniding time going through logs and verifying that the alleged spammer was actually sending spam.
Hmmm, I thought you said they had already booted the spammer, but didn't let MAPS know? And you think MAPS should have spent their resources chasing your ISP? Come back when you've actually tried running an RBL.
MAPS has a single job to do. Produce an accurate list.
That's exactly what they do. Produce an accurate list of IPs belonging to ISPs who don't respond immediately to reported spamming. Other RBLs might produce lists more to your taste, but the public internet is democratic, and many ISPs see MAPS's zero-tolerance policy actually making a difference. That's what I mean by "If you don't like it, come up with something better yourself."
If MAPS can't do their job then they should give up and try something they can do.
The point is, MAPS are doing their job. You just wish other people didn't want to employ them.
That's how MAPS works. If you don't like it, come up with something better yourself.
Seriously.
Do you think your ISP is going to risk being lackadaisical about responding to MAPS again? No. Would you rather use an ISP who you knew were particularly keen to ensure that this never happened to them? Yes. Therefore MAPS has done exactly what it intends to do.
A thief is a thief, no matter what country they live in.
How amusing. Let me guess: you're an American. Let me educate you: American law is not global law, and you're going to lose your empire finding that out the hard way.
But without copyright, how would it be possible to enforce a system in which I can share my code with the world, but prevent anyone from taking credit for it?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the info.
So perhaps Kasparov's biggest mistake was being arrogant enough to assume he could beat an opponent without studying its game, just because it was a computer.
Or perhaps his biggest mistake was on more than one occasion to make such assumptions about his opponent's style/ability that he threw games away.
Really, to complain that something wasn't Deep Blue's "style" after only ever having seen it play one game is ridiculous. Humans can also adapt their strategy between individual games in a match, of course.
Or perhaps his biggest mistake was when his hands didn't do what his brain thought they should do.
I just don't see how the game was anything other than completely fair. Just because Kasparov doesn't understand modern chess computers doesn't mean he can cry foul. For instance, computers can be "surprised" (find themselves in a position for which they have less data to perform a heuristic evaluation than they would normally) but they just don't get emotionally involved in that situation. Again, Kasparov knew this when he sat down, but he still thought he would win. And he was wrong. He was beaten. Call it the meta-game if you want, but Deep Blue didn't do it through "intention" to "bust him up" -- Kasparov did that all to himself. His ego lost him the match.
I haven't read Life, The Universe and Everything since before Mostly Harmless came out so I can't properly remember what happened with Thor, and I've never seen The Hustler -- so I might well be missing something here.
I also don't play chess except for casual games, but it seems to me that the battle of wills is very much part of the game.
What, exactly, did Kasparov expect when he entered into this competition? That Deep Blue would reach a stage where it just gave up through fatigue?
No, the most likely explanation for what happened is clearly that Kasparov realised that he was going to lose; he probably felt that he had made a bad move earlier in the game and was frustrated and stressed about that, or perhaps he perceived a weakness in Deep Blue's game which subsequently turned out not to be manipulable.
He lost because he was not able to win -- if he'd have played for the draw, who knows what might have happened, but instead, he played for the toys-out-of-the-pram-defense.
No, that's 201. In 102 they just tell you to leave a variable amount of time between moves.
Then in 301 they tell you that all that crap they told you about all that crap they tell you about online poker just being to get more rake was just to discourageyou from writing poker bots.
Once you've got your PhD they show you that our world is in fact a poker simulation and that you're just a brain in a jar contributing to an enormous statistical calculation used by machines to improve their chances of beating one another at poker.
The question is: if, in a three-handed game of hold'em, two people have gone all-in after fourth street, and the cards shown indicate that you have only one out remaining, what is the reciprocal of your chances of winning?
Very true: a person's wealth is tied up in their ability to share. Even this can be interpreted too pecunicentrically.
Your bot which always loses the first few rounds of poker might win the first few tournaments, but then you'd want to start mixing it up with a bot which didn't do that, otherwise your opponents would start capitalising on it. But if you use a strategy to do your mixing, that strategy can be learned. It's all about the balance between maximal and optimal.
My bluffing strategy is never to bluff. Now everyone wants to be the one to catch me bluffing. Only works against human players. ;)
Just wait until you start attending Online Poker 102... it's going to blow your mind
What a strange way of looking at the world. You would never exchange cash (very flexible) for goods (less flexible). You would never make any plans (in case you wanted to make others at the last moment). You wouldn't have any children (not scalable from the species' perspective).
P.S. By posting this comment I deny myself the option of moderating your comment -1 (Overrated).
...sounds familiar.
How did that happen? Jobs can't be very good at firing people?
Yeah, and how exactly is a PVR different from a video recorder?
Sincerely,
Someone who gets it.
Well, guess what...it WILL touch you if gas keeps going up.
That's exactly why it might be a good idea to start re-thinking the existence of jobs that require a person to drive 60 miles a day. Or tomatoes that are imported from god knows where when they are perfectly capable of being grown locally.
No, your economy is based upon limitless cheap fuel, which is why, although we in Europe are fucked too, we're marginally less fucked than you. See for example http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
Do you think they don't want to check thoroughly before claiming that they have got rid of all the spammers? Or does MAPS only care about a cusrosy inspection? Seems the ISP is guilty of being more thorough than MAPS here, and as a result they're being punished.
The point is that the ISP needs to give MAPS feedback, something like "We're pretty sure we've got rid of the spammers, but we'll let you know when we've satisfied ourselves completely." If there's silence, it's pretty difficult for the likes of MAPS to tell the difference (without expending serious resources -- think scalability) between that and a spam-happy ISP who just doesn't care to respond.
YES!!!! They got into this business. They can just leave if its too much work.
The market says that they're doing the right thing. It's only because people think their blacklist is worth its salt that you're having problems in the first place.
I'm not going to. I know how hard it is, and am not willing to run a semi adequate service that causes a new set of problems on top of spam. I'm also going to be highly critical of people who don't realise their limitations and instead blame others for the problems caused.
And I will remain sceptical of those who claim that a panacea exists without detailing it. Scalability is a serious issue.
They don't seem to make it clear that their list does anything other than block known or likely spam sources. It doesn't say it blocks ISPs that - for whatever reason - are slow to get back to MAPS.
My other point in saying "come back when you've tried it yourself" was that I think it's reasonable to trust their judgement about "likely" spam sources more than yours.
Best wishes,
Hamish
MAPS caused the problem as well. My ISP was speniding time going through logs and verifying that the alleged spammer was actually sending spam.
Hmmm, I thought you said they had already booted the spammer, but didn't let MAPS know? And you think MAPS should have spent their resources chasing your ISP? Come back when you've actually tried running an RBL.
MAPS has a single job to do. Produce an accurate list.
That's exactly what they do. Produce an accurate list of IPs belonging to ISPs who don't respond immediately to reported spamming. Other RBLs might produce lists more to your taste, but the public internet is democratic, and many ISPs see MAPS's zero-tolerance policy actually making a difference. That's what I mean by "If you don't like it, come up with something better yourself."
If MAPS can't do their job then they should give up and try something they can do.
The point is, MAPS are doing their job. You just wish other people didn't want to employ them.
That's how MAPS works. If you don't like it, come up with something better yourself.
Seriously.
Do you think your ISP is going to risk being lackadaisical about responding to MAPS again? No. Would you rather use an ISP who you knew were particularly keen to ensure that this never happened to them? Yes. Therefore MAPS has done exactly what it intends to do.
Sounds interesting. Who made this research? I Googled but didn't find anything.
A thief is a thief, no matter what country they live in.
How amusing. Let me guess: you're an American. Let me educate you: American law is not global law, and you're going to lose your empire finding that out the hard way.
Note: while MacOS X has an administrator account, this does not have anything approaching root privileges.
Oh really? Try trying 'sudo su' followed by your admin password.
But without copyright, how would it be possible to enforce a system in which I can share my code with the world, but prevent anyone from taking credit for it?
Yeah but check this out. This is from a friend who doesn't want to be named because he's scared of people calling him naughty words.
From: decsstruth.txt-author
Subject: decsstruth.txt
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0000
HAHAHAHA th0se stup1d 1d10t5 f311 f0r my st00pid tr011!!! HAHAHAHAHA 1 m4d3 it 411 up! 1 am teh r0x0r!
I find the thought processes of most of my peers scary.
Don't worry -- most people in real life are less arrogant and stubborn than those on Slashdot.
There is no limit to 5 daily users and never has been.
Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.