*Deep Thinking*

The author is Gary Kasparov and the subtitle is Where Machine Intelligence Ends and Human Creativity Begins.  I am honored to have had the chance to write a blurb for this book.  It is everything I wanted from this author and title, and it also contains the inside scoop — with some truly interesting and deep revelations — about the match with Deep Blue.

Self-recommending, and interesting throughout!


'about the match with Deep Blue'

Which was more than two decades ago, back when Windows 95 and IE4 started to win the contest of who would rule the Internet, at least for the next few years.

And when Amazon was less than 5 years old, and right around the time google was founded.

An interest in the past (see the madrigals post and comments) is distinctly a sign of advancing age, especially when one is reaching the mid-50s. One can hope that a leading economist is self-aware enough to recognize this reality of the human condition, particularly when seemingly not highlighting why Kasparov remains an important figure - or is this just another sneaky attempt to make another anti-Trump dig? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov#Politics.

Tyler is a chess fan. The brief reviews on Amazon say the book speaks to AI and what it means for humans.

You're the one bringing up politics, for no good reason.

Hey, at least the politics aspect was better than the "You're old!!!!!1 LOL" aspect.

I guess you missed the reference to the madrigal comments - those being mine, not Prof. Cowen's.

I realize that not almost no one (most definitely including myself) reads every comment at this web site.

Essentially, Prof. Cowen and I are the same age, not to mention being the same graduating class in the humanties at GMU (though to the best of my knowledge, I have never had any dealings with Prof. Cowen, neither as a GMU student nor as a GMU or GMU Foundation employee).

If you want the benefit of the doubt in how your comments are interpreted, then stop being such a jerk.

I don't want the benefit of any doubt (which wasn't given, anyways), being a notably disloyal reader - it was merely an explanation.

To put it differently - there are any number of reasons to mock Prof. Cowen (and at least when it comes to his older econ dept. colleagues, that mockery has a long, long tradition among GMU faculty and staff), but at least from my side, his age isn't one of them, unless it includes more than a mere dollop of self-mockery.

If you believe Kasparov is not to be respected for his politics, well, I guess a Trumpism is in order - SAD.

The following comment is approved by someone in the Russian government, I'm sure. Though sadly, the check seems to have gotten lost in the mail.

And really, even the most disloyal reader of this web site is aware of any number of chess facts regarding NJ's apparently most prodigal chess playing son.

However, sort of Kasparov news is much more relevant than his chess playing past - 'Garry Kasparov: Oh, I hate saying, I told you so. I remember when I submitted my book to the publisher—they liked the title, they liked the book, but they were not sure about the subtitle: “Why Vladimir Putin and Enemies of the Free World Must Be Stopped.” They thought it would be too provocative and probably not substantiated.

Me and many of my colleagues, like the late Boris Nemtsov, have been telling people around the world that Vladimir Putin was our problem but, eventually, will be everybody’s problem because, as with every dictator, he will look for a global stage to boost his grip on power domestically. It was very natural for him to look at the United States as the ultimate prize for his dictator’s pride, to demonstrate that he’s so powerful, so invincible that he would defy the most powerful nation in the world.' http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/12/garry_kasparov_on_why_vladimir_putin_hates_chess.html

Damn - 'preceding' not 'following.' What follows is most definitely not approved by the Russian government, and probably explains why I haven't received my check.

The Germans pay you to, alternately, post about your own posts and troll Tyler's website? Fascinating. It must have stupendously strong labor laws.

Divert from thinking about Russians while appealing to indoctrination that workers should not represent their interests?

The Germans pay you to, alternately, post about your own posts and troll Tyler's website? Fascinating. It must have stupendously strong labor laws.

I suspect that the Germans pay him to not post on German boards. Thus decreasing the noise to signal ratio.

I'm still unclear on "self-recommending". At first, I thought it was interchangeable with "looks interesting," because Tyler had used it to describe new things he hadn't read yet. But he has read this book, so why wouldn't the comment simply be "recommended" or "I recommend it"?

Self-recommending is a way to remove praise from the person offering that praise and place it onto the work itself.

Because if there is one term to describe the chairman and general manager of the Mercatus Center, undoubtedly it is selfless.

Ingrate. He's selfless enough to provide us with an interesting, thought provoking, free blog.

Kind of in line with prior approval, but I think it is a way of avoiding responsibility for recommending something. "I recommend it" means I think it is good, and puts my reputation and status on the line if you think it sucks. "Self-recommending" says that by its nature, it may be good or interesting, but I am not willing to vouch for it.

I am not sure if this is Tyler's intention, but I tend to take "self-recommending" as a less-positive statement than Tyler's actually recommending or speaking positively about it. It's like giving the "self-recommending" work 3.5 stars.

That's how I read it. "Sounds interesting" would be a paraphrase.

I think Tyler sometimes uses "self-recommending" literally and ironically. If he is in the target (even as a blurb?) he is recommending himself. Certainly yesterday's podcast was "self-recommending."

More on topic, I tried Googling for Kasparov's AI work, came up pretty empty. I see him giving talks but no video or write-up. Anyone have good links?

Kasparov is optimist with technological advance. I share his optimism but I'm not sure if recounting "the history of machine intelligence through the microcosm of chess" is an interesting story.

One of the most interesting episodes in machine intelligence story for me it's not Deep Blue beating Kasparov, but the moment the word computer stopped being used to describe a human and started to be used to name a machine. There are countless anecdotes of human computers, this one from the WIki: "A visionary application to meteorology can be found in the scientific work of Lewis Fry Richardson who, in 1922, estimated that 64,000 humans could forecast the weather for the whole globe by solving the attending differential equations numerically."

There was a time when solving differential equations took hundreds of people, I can do that today in my office. Kasparov's defeat looks like a marketing issue instead of a practical one.

I remember as a child in the 1970s reading decade-old books in the library about computers. There would usually be some comparison of the output of a particular machine with what a stadium full of scientists could perform. It wasn't until I was much older and learned how massive computational tasks were handled prior to computers and understood 1) how literal the comparison had been, and 2) that the scientists in the comparison were simply people doing arithmetic with pencil and paper, not geniuses with special math powers multiplying together 5-digit numbers in their heads.

Does Kasparov still endorse wacky Fomenko's "New Chronology?"

How do you know it is not right?

Fomenko appears to be a carbon dating denier. Among many, many problems, Fomenko would not be able to account for the ancient papyrus scrolls that were very well preserved after being buried under volcanic ash from Mt. Vesuvius in the eruption of 79 AD.

While I agree in carbon dating, that is not just dating a human being but also the science of C14, I recall a while ago that they were recalibrating C14 atoms (or thinking to) to make the carbon dating more precise. Don't recall the details however...ah, here they are: recalibration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Calibration So radioactive carbon dating is an exact science but will not give you an exact date like 79 AD, just a range.

https://www.quora.com/Chess-Has-anybody-ever-independently-confirmed-that-Deep-Blues-logs-were-legitimate-in-its-victory-against-Kasparov# - a good "pro-Kasparov" thread

Carbon dating may have problems. But Fomenko claims that English kings and Byzantine emperors were the same people and that "London" was merely one of the names for Constantinople. And that's not even the wackiest claim.

"with some truly interesting and deep revelations — about the match with Deep Blue"

***Spoiler Alert***: Gary Kasparov was sexually assaulted by Deep Blue during their match.

Yes, true, 'morally assaulted'. I wonder if Kasparov will get into the allegation that GM Joel Benjamin intervened in the Deep(er) Blue computer to change the book opening to make it more anti-Kasparov, and/or the computer logs were not provided in time, which would have yielded info such as the alleged computer bug that irrationally panicked Kasparov and affected his performance, and/or some allegations that the IBM team rebooted Deep(er) Blue to keep it from losing, see more here: https://www.quora.com/Was-Kasparov-cheated-by-IBM-when-he-lost-his-chess-match-against-Deep-Blue

Not to mention Deep Blue wanted to use the little girls' bathroom between games. And the organizers were, like, nah uh. And IBM were, like, can to! Very distracting.


Good pro-Kasparov thread. SMFS, do you follow chess? Your post can be viewed as a reference to the famous "Topalov - Kramnik Toiletgate" incident, or, just a crude attempt at humor, hard to tell. ;-)

It’s really interesting to read this article; I believe we definitely need to take valid points out of these things. We need to be sharp in anything we do. As a trader, I always work with careful approach, it works nicely for me with broker like OctaFX, as they are awesome with having low spreads from 0.1 pips for all major pairs to high leverage up to 1.500 while there are over 70 instruments to pick from, and it’s all pretty cool!

BrittanyB Seattle Sounders Milfordxb
HesterMak Frankrike DominicWo
MellisaFl Leicester City LuigiCoug
MalindaDr Liverpool JaymeHoly
WillisHfd Roma JodiFeez
LucieHere Slovakien HugoPennr
AltaGresh BVB Borussia Dortmund ValarieNe
MadelineB Real Madrid DamienDel
WallyToom Paris Saint Germain TabithaZi
EthelGuer Olympique Lyonnais AlvaroBoo

Se você tem mesmo problema ou tem seu relacionamento em
risco devido disso quero que você veja este vídeo (supra)
até final que vou te revelar toda a origem desse problema. https://asiacoal83.Wordpress.com/2017/01/31/%ef%bb%bfsegredos-da-erecao/


Comments for this post are closed