Donald Trump Is an “Idiot” and a “Liar”

The headline reads:

Donald Trump Is an “Idiot” and a “Liar,” Americans Say in New Poll

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-quinnipiac-poll-idiot-liar-incompetent-745890?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=yahoo_news&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=/rss/yahoous/news

That was yesterday. It has gotten worse, much worse…

When Putin’s TrumPet won the election most sane Americans had a reaction similar to this:

As time went on and the Trumpster continued acting insane the reaction changed to something like this:

And this:

That is the Presidential motorcade with the anything but Presidential POTUS, to whom the woman on the bike is giving the finger, speaking truth to power in her own way.

More people are now feeling free to express themselves:

Even youngsters and little children:

Today the USA Today newspaper came out with an editorial titled:

Will Trump’s lows ever hit rock bottom?

In which it is written: “A president who’d all but call a senator a whore is unfit to clean toilets in Obama’s presidential library or to shine George W. Bush’s shoes: Our view”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/12/12/trump-lows-ever-hit-rock-bottom-editorials-debates/945947001/

“But even the President of the United States
Sometimes must have to stand naked”

http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/its-alright-ma-im-only-bleeding/

Advertisements

Talking to Death

The Girl Who Circumnavigated Fairyland in a Ship of Her Own Making:

There is a passing mention of go on page 149 of The Girl Who Circumnavigated Fairyland in a Ship of Her Own Making by Catherynne M. Valente. It occurs when the main character, September, is talking to Death.
“Death, I don’t know what to do.”
“It’s very brave of you to admit that. Most knightly folk I happen by bluster and force me to play chess with them. I don’t even like chess! For strategy Wrackglummer and even Go are much superior.”
– Willard Haynes

http://www.usgo.org/news/2017/12/go-miscellany-year-end-edition-3-of-3/

The App That Reminds You You’re Going to Die

It helped Bianca Bosker find inner peace.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/when-death-pings/546587/

Country Joe McDonald The “Fish” Cheer/I-Feel-Like-I’m-Fixin’-to-Die Rag Woodstock

Chess in Less Than a Minute

The above can be found at the United States Chess Federation youtube page.
(https://www.youtube.com/user/USChessFederation)

It was found after reading an article at the American Go E-Journal earlier this month:

AGA YouTube channel hits 10,000 subscribers

The American Go Association’s YouTube Channel hit the 10,000 subscriber mark this week. “This is an awesome number to hit for a channel,” said the AGA’s Steve Colburn. “We are reaching almost every country on the globe,” added AGA president Andy Okun.
(http://www.usgo.org/news/2017/12/aga-youtube-channel-hits-10000-subscribers/)

The USCF proudly boasts “1,147 subscribers.”

There have been, though, 26,308 views of a video, Chess in Less Than a Minute, posted on Sep 28, 2011 by Jennifer Shahade.

Houdini Wins TCEC Championship

Houdini, a computer Chess program with the third highest rating, surprised the computer Chess world by making the TCEC Super Final against the favorite Komodo, then astounded the computer Chess world when it convincingly beat the Dragon. Houdini becomes the engine with most titles in the decade history of TCEC.

In an interview Robert Houdart, author of the champion engine Houdini, said, “It is a great feeling to win the Top Chess Engine Championship and be the engine with the highest number of titles. I’ve worked non-stop for the past two years to bring Houdini back to the top level, and I’m really happy that this has resulted in a new TCEC title, which is the equivalent of “world champion” status. Before the tournament I expected a close contest between Houdini, Komodo and Stockfish, and that’s exactly what we’ve got.” (http://www.chessdom.com/interview-with-robert-houdart-author-of-the-champion-engine-houdini/)

For those who can afford and simply must have the new new thing, the new and obviously improved version of the Escape Artist is already available for purchase at the official website. (http://www.cruxis.com/chess/houdini.htm)

Unfortunately for Houdini this could prove to be a Pyrrhic victory what with the announcement near the end of the tournament of AlphaZero’s devastating victory over Stockfish, winner of last year’s season nine TCEC tournament. AlphaGo’s ‘machine learning’ is already being incorporated into some Go programs for sale and it is only a matter of time until that same technique will be incorporated into future versions of Chess programs, which will destroy the current big three Chess engines unless they also do what Google’s Deep Mind has done. (https://deepmind.com/) For example, consider this exchange from the aforementioned interview:

Alpha Zero just defeated last year’s champion Stockfish 8. Your opinion on the paper published and the match that took place?

It’s fascinating and amazing, and at the same time very much expected!… We even discussed this during the interview with Nelson and the Komodo authors. It opens entirely new, astonishing possibilities for chess engines! I do hope Google will publish more details about their approach, so that the chess world in general and the computer chess world in particular can benefit from their achievement.

Season 11 is starting after the rapid and blitz. TCEC is becoming a league and Houdini starts in the Premier division. Do you expect more competition besides Komodo and Stockfish for the top spots?

The gap between the top 3 and the rest is quite big, I don’t expect any other engine to bridge it soon. Then again, 16 months ago everybody was talking about the “top 2” and the rest, nobody expected Houdini to make a comeback. Anything can happen, Season 11 should be fascinating!

https://yogarecords.bandcamp.com/album/computer-chess-original-motion-picture-soundtrack

https://www.spin.com/2013/07/collie-ryan-its-gonna-rain-computer-chess-andrew-bujalski-stream/

Garry Kasparov Cheated Judit Polgar

At the 1994 Linares Chess tournament World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov “…brought down shame” on himself, and the Royal game, when he cheated GM Judit Polgar by violating the touch move rule.

Please watch this before reading further:

Because Kasparov cheated Judit he altered Chess history. Imagine the headlines if he had been true to the game, as so many golf professionals have historically been, and Judit, the highest ranking woman player ever in the game of Chess, had been victorious. Imagine what it could have done for the Royal game with the interest of females piqued. Imagine what it would have done for Kasparov’s reputation if he had acted honorably. If he had done so he would have been applauded and there would not have been a black cloud hovering above him for almost a quarter of a century.

https://www.chess.com/blog/love_romance13/is-garry-kasparov-cheater

Garry said he did not do it but no one ever really believed him. Now modern science has proven the World Chess Champion cheated a seventeen year old GIRL!

Consider a recently released paper in Neuron:

Neural Basis of Cognitive Control over Movement Inhibition: Human fMRI and Primate Electrophysiology Evidence

Summary

Executive control involves the ability to flexibly inhibit or change an action when it is contextually inappropriate. Using the complimentary techniques of human fMRI and monkey electrophysiology in a context-dependent stop signal task, we found a functional double dissociation between the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (rVLPFC) and the bi-lateral frontal eye field (FEF). Different regions of rVLPFC were associated with context-based signal meaning versus intention to inhibit a response, while FEF activity corresponded to success or failure of the response inhibition regardless of the stimulus response mapping or the context. These results were validated by electrophysiological recordings in rVLPFC and FEF from one monkey. Inhibition of a planned behavior is therefore likely not governed by a single brain system as had been previously proposed, but instead depends on two distinct neural processes involving different sub-regions of the rVLPFC and their interactions with other motor-related brain regions.

http://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(17)31063-2?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0896627317310632%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

An article at Medical Express puts it into words somewhat more understandable words:

Why we can’t always stop what we’ve started


The three key brain areas involved in stopping what you’ve started are circled. Credit: Johns Hopkins University

When we try to stop a body movement at the last second, perhaps to keep ourselves from stepping on what we just realized was ice, we can’t always do it—and Johns Hopkins University neuroscientists have figured out why.

Stopping a planned behavior requires extremely fast choreography between several distinct areas of the brain, the researchers found. If we change our mind about taking that step even a few milliseconds after the original “go” message has been sent to our muscles, we simply can’t stop our feet.

“We have to process all of these pieces of information quickly,” said senior author Susan Courtney, a professor of psychological and brain sciences. “The question is: When we do succeed, how do we do that? What needs to happen in order for us to stop in time?”

These findings, which will appear Dec. 20 in the journal Neuron, map the neural basis for inhibiting movement. They help explain what’s going wrong in the brain when people fall more as they age and when addicts can’t stop binge behavior.

Scientists had believed only one brain region was active when people changed plans. But the findings of Courtney’s team suggest it takes a lightning-fast interaction between two areas in the prefrontal cortex and another in the pre-motor cortex to stop, reverse or otherwise change a plan already in progress.

There is even another brain area, Courtney says, that continues to process what we should have done if we are unable to stop. She jokingly calls it the “oops” area.

In addition to all three areas of the brain communicating successfully, the key to being able to stop, the researchers found, is timing.

Suppose you’re driving and approaching an intersection when the light turns yellow. You decide to accelerate and speed though. But just after you send that decision to the part of the brain that will move your foot to hit the gas, you notice a police car and change your mind.

“Which plan is going to win?” said first author Kitty Z. Xu, a former Johns Hopkins graduate student who is now a researcher at Pinterest. “The sooner you see the police car after deciding to go through the light, the better your chance of being able to move your foot to the break instead.”

And by soon, Xu means milliseconds.

If you attempt to change your mind after 100 milliseconds or less, you most likely can. If it takes you 200 milliseconds or more—that’s less than a quarter of a second—you’re still going through with the original plan. That’s because the original signal is already on its way to the muscles by then—past the point of no return.

“If you’re already executing the plan when you see the police car,” Xu said, “you’re going to go through the light.”

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-12-weve.html

If we change our mind about taking that step even a few milliseconds after the original “go” message has been sent to our muscles, we simply can’t stop our feet.

Or our fingers.

“In one famous instance, Garry Kasparov changed his move against Judit Polgár in 1994 after momentarily letting go of a piece. Kasparov went on to win the game. The tournament officials had video records proving that his hand left the piece, but refused to release the evidence. A factor counting against Polgár was that she waited a whole day before complaining, and such claims must be made during the game. The videotape revealed that Kasparov did let go of the piece for one quarter of a second. Cognitive psychologist Robert Solso stated that it is too short a time to make a conscious decision.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_chess)

https://en.chessbase.com/post/judit-polgar-the-greatest-prodigy-ever

http://www.controltheweb.com/polgar/video.htm

Judit Polgar BEATS Garry Kasparov – Sensational Game!!

Uriah Heep-Cheater

Garry Kasparov’s Shallow Thinking

“As I said, true champions are mentally exceptional. They can stick to their goals even in the most trying of conditions. It is easy to find ways to lose. The hard thing is to keep your mind fixed on winning, even when the pressure is at its most intense.”

The above is the culminating paragraph of the first chapter from, Knowing the Score: What Sports Can Teach Us About Philosophy (And What Philosophy Can Teach Us About Sports), by David Papineau.

World human Chess Champion Garry Kasparov

infamously lost the match played against the computer program known as Deep Blue and two decades later has written a book, his mea culpa, hopefully the last, explaining how, and why, he lost the match. From what he and his co-author Mig Greengard wrote it is evident how difficult it was for Kasparov to keep his mind fixed on winning because he found a way to lose.

Garry let us in on his thinking

when he hedged his bet from the first match, where the $500,000 purse was to be split 4-1. The purse for the second match “…would more than double, to $1,100,000, with $700,000 going to the winner.” Would Bobby Fischer have hedged his bet, or would he have gone ALL IN!?

“I underestimated that with so much on the line, IBM wasn’t only building a chess machine to beat me at the board, but a machine to beat me, period”

“Our contacts with IBM in the run-up to the match revealed one last flaw in my estimation of my chances. Gone was the friendly and open attitude that had been on display around the Philadelphia match run by ACM. With IBM in charge from top to bottom, this chumminess had been replaced by a policy of obstruction and even hostility.”

“In August, Deep Blue project manager C.J. Tan had told the New York Times quite bluntly that “we’re not conducting a scientific experiment anymore. This time we’re just going to play chess.”

This translates to, “We are here to win.”

This disabused Kasparov of the notion that he was some sort of collaborator in a joint intellectual and scientific effort. Now Garry was a gladiator in an arena where it was every man, and machine, for itself. It is written, “This gets back to the biggest reason I agreed to a prize fund that was less than everyone thought I could demand (especially my agent): I believed IBM’s promises of future collaboration. During my visit to their offices in 1996. I met with a senior vice president who assured me that IBM would step in as a sponsor to revive the Grand Prix circuit of the Professional Chess Asscociation.”

This brings to mind a quote: “My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it till now.” — (Comment made 10 April 1962 in reaction to news that U.S. Steel was raising prices by $6 per ton, right after the unions negotiated a modest new contract under pressure from JFK to keep inflation down.)
John F. Kennedy, 35th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 – 1963), “A Thousand Days,” by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. [1965]

Kasparov had nothing in writing, only a wink and a promise. Garry was in for a rude awakening.

The first game was an epic struggle won by Kasparov. At one point GM Maurice Ashley famously said, “The board is in flames!” In place of the game notation the games are described with words so people with little or no knowledge of Chess are able to understand without having a board and pieces in front of them. It is written, “As Prussian field marshal Helmuth von Moltke said, no battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy. My plan for a quiet fact-finding mission in game one had been blown to hell by the aggressive machine. I was pinning my hopes on my superior evaluation ability.”

Kasparov resigned to the humans operating the machine to end the second game. A lengthy paragraph details the scene when Kasparov was informed THE NEXT DAY that he had resigned in a drawn position. Garry writes: “To psychoanalyze just this once, with twenty years to cycle through the stages (of grief), this was also me saying to myself, “My god, how could “I” miss something so simple?” When you are the World Champion, the world number one, any defeat can be viewed as self-inflicted. This is not exactly fair to my opponents, many of whom could count their victories over me as the pinnacle of their careers, but after such an incredible revelation I wasn’t in the mood to be fair to anyone.”

If Kasparov is being truthful then it is obvious he “let go of the rope.” He simply gave up. He lost his belief in his “superior evaluation ability.” He came to believe the program was omnipotent. He saw only opening books and endgame table bases. Which begs the question: Why were opening books and endgame table bases allowed? Garry could not use them. Why should the machine be allowed to use them? Garry was the HUMAN World Champ; he could have played against a program that would have had to “think” on its own, just as the human. It was his title wanted by IBM. He could have dictated terms. He laments not having enough time between games to rest, something the machine did not need. Garry agreed to the format.

The Go program, AlphaGo, uses no table bases whatsoever, and because of that it has caused a revolution in the opening stage of Go. Someone could have written in the program all the known openings of the greatest Go players from the past 2500 years, but did not. The authors write, “…AlphaGo defeated the world’s top Go player, Lee Sedol.” He was not the world’s top Go player at the time he played the match, but he had previously been the top player. AlphaGo later beat the top human Go player, Ke Jie, then “retired.”

Just as he wrote about the inevitability of losing his World Championship title after his lost match to Vladimir Kramnik, Garry’s hand-picked opponent, he viewed it as inevitable machines would eventually supersede humans at the game of Chess.

About the final game they write: “When asked about remarks by Illescas that I was afraid of Deep Blue, I was again candid. “I’m not afraid to admit I am afraid! And I’m not afraid to say why I’m afraid. It definitely goes beyond any known program in the world.” At the end, Ashley asked me if I was going to try and win the final game with the black pieces and I replied, “I’ll try to make the best moves.” Bobby Fischer famously said, “I don’t believe in psychology, I believe in good moves.”

“The match was tied , 2.5-2.5. Should I play it safe and aim for a draw or should I risk everything and play for a win with black? With no rest day, I knew I would have no energy for another long fight of the sort that resulted from my anti-computer lines. My play was already shaky. I knew my nervous system very well from two decades of competition, and it would not withstand the strain of another four or five hours of tension against the machine. But I had to try something, didn’t I?”

Kasparov then went to the board and played an awful move allowing a Knight sacrifice because he thought the program would not play the Knight move. He did this even after saying, “It definitely goes beyond any known program in the world.” The Knight move is such a ripper that most class D players would make it. If you do not believe me then play 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ng5 Ngf6 6.Bd3 e6 7.N1f3 h6

and watch their eyes blaze before playing 8.Nxe6 Qe7 9.0-0 fxe6 10.Bg6+ Kd8 11.Bf4 b5 12.a4 Bb7 13.Re1 Nd5 14.Bg3 Kc8 15.axb5 cxb5 16.Qd3 Bc6 17.Bf5 exf5 18.Rxe7 Bxe7 19.c4 1–0

Garry Kasparov has been called the best Chess player of all time by many. He lost to a computer program in under twenty moves. The game was over long before he resigned. It is called a “miniature,” among Chess players, and that is not good. Garry lost like a beginner. How can he be considered the “greatest of all time?” There was only one Greatest of All Time, and that was Muhammad Ali.

Did IBM cheat? “I have been asked, “Did Deep Blue cheat?” more times than I could possibly count, and my honest answer has always been, “I don’t know.” After twenty years of soul-searching, revelations, and analysis, my answer is now “no.” As for IBM, the lengths they went to to win were a betrayal of fair competition, but the real victim of this betrayal was science.”

I am having much trouble understanding what is written because Kasparov goes to great pains to prove IBM cheated when he quotes a 2009 New In Chess interview with GM Miguel Illescas, who was on the IBM “team,” along with many other Grandmasters too numerous to mention. “Every morning we had meetings with all the team, the engineers, communication people, everybody. A professional approach such as I never saw in my life. All details were taken into account. I will tell you something which was very secret. Well, it’s more of an anecdote, because it’s not that important. One day I said, Kasparov speaks to Dokhoian after the games. I would like to know what they say. Can we change the security guard, and replace him by someone that speaks Russian? The next day they changed the guy, so I knew what they spoke about after the game.”

If that is not cheating, what is cheating? It is written, “I make the point because after Enron, people stopped telling me that “a big American corporation like IBM would never do anything unethical.” Especially after they found out how much IBM’s stock price went up after the match.”

There it is, just Show Me the Money! In a capitalist monetary system everything devolves to Where is the Money? Or, Who has the Money? Or, How Can I Get the Money?” Kasparov mentions the IBM program known as “Watson,” which “won” a tournament of champions on the TV show “Jeopardy.” The person, or thing, that gets to answer the most questions wins, and “Watson” was, shall we say, REALLY quick on the trigger. Former Chess player Big Al Hamilton’s philosophy of life was, “Everything is rigged.”

After allowing the devastating Knight sacrifice in the final game one legendary Chess player erupted with, “Garry took a DIVE! Playing this way is his signal to us that the fix was in!” I replied, “Wonder if IBM was holding Garry’s wife and children hostage?” After several moments of cogitation, the legendary one, at least in his own mind, replied, “Where were Kasparov’s wife and children during the match?” If anyone questions this I suggest they read, The Fix Is In: The Showbiz Manipulations of the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL and NASCAR, by Brian Tuohy.

Now that computer programs play a level or two better than the best human players what Kasparov accomplished in his Chess career is meaningless. To history he will only be known as the human who lost a match to a machine. Kasparov knows this and it eats at him. For example, it is written, “Looking back, I was the last world champion to win a match against a computer. Why don’t those This Day in History calendars have a page for that?”

Google’s AlphaZero destroys Chess

The headline of the American Go E-Journal reads:

Google’s AlphaZero destroys highest-rated chess engine in 100-game match

Thursday December 7, 2017

Chess changed forever today. And maybe the rest of the world did, too.

Chris Garlock writes the AGEJ and this is his take on the development:

“A little more than a year after AlphaGo sensationally won against the top Go player, the artificial-intelligence program AlphaZero has obliterated the highest-rated chess engine.

Stockfish, which for most top players is their go-to preparation tool, and which won the 2016 TCEC Championship and the 2017 Chess.com Computer Chess Championship, didn’t stand a chance. AlphaZero won the closed-door, 100-game match with 28 wins, 72 draws, and zero losses.

Oh, and it took AlphaZero only four hours to “learn” chess. Sorry humans, you had a good run.

That’s right — the programmers of AlphaZero, housed within the DeepMind division of Google (https://deepmind.com/), had it use a type of “machine learning,” specifically reinforcement learning. Put more plainly, AlphaZero was not “taught” the game in the traditional sense. That means no opening book, no endgame tables, and apparently no complicated algorithms dissecting minute differences between center pawns and side pawns.

This would be akin to a robot being given access to thousands of metal bits and parts, but no knowledge of a combustion engine, then it experiments numerous times with every combination possible until it builds a Ferrari. That’s all in less time that it takes to watch the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. The program had four hours to play itself many, many times, thereby becoming its own teacher.”

The article (http://www.usgo.org/news/2017/12/googles-alphazero-destroys-highest-rated-chess-engine-in-100-game-match/) continues with a comment from the ‘Deep Thinking’ Garry Kasparov from an article by Mike Klein at another website.

Thomas Magar posted a comment on the USCF forum under the thread, AlphaZero – first true AI in chess? (http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=23721&start=15), which gets right down to it; cuts to the chase, or gets to the heart of the matter. No matter how one puts it, this is the $64,000 Question (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_$64,000_Question):

“Think of the endless possibilities for silicon based cheating. It is going to be a challenge for the anti-cheating committees to compare games and catch someone who is using a new algorithm based on AlphaZero. The unique and paradoxical moves may not be comparable to known move selection by present programs. If the chips are small enough, virtually anything could become the device that can be used to generate moves quietly, stealthily, and effectively.”

Could this be the end of Chess?