[Scarabin]

One of my critics has accused me of taking cheap shots at GIB, and its creator, Matthew Ginsberg. This may be correct but I'd like to float a topic to set the record straight and seek other pollsters confirmation or correction of my views.

First, I have never met Ginsberg or Culbertson but they seem to me to be similar: men of towering intellect, with great talents in several fields, but pre-eminently in self promotion. On the downside, they speak of themselves and their achievements in superlatives. Briefly, they are renaissance men of the twentieth century.

A further point in common is that they are both innovatiors who have changed worldwide trends in minor fields. My experience of all innovators is that their initial work is exceptional, "out of this world!", but ultimately becomes superceded.

I admire such men immensely but I prefer quiet, more modest achievers. In case you think I am overcome by hubris, my prime example of the latter is Fred Gitelman.

Slainte,

Ian

[dwar0123]

I am not sure I see any point to this thread that isn't self-serving and not a little bitter.

You concede that you have been taking cheap shots at gib and its creator.

Yet you want to float a topic that you think someone you have never met is super smart and also a hyperbolic self-promoter, the latter trait something you personally find off-putting.

Ok, you find it off-putting, as you have never met the man this shouldn't really be a big deal for you. Move on.

If you really want to have this conversation about renaissance men, you shouldn't use as examples individuals with which you have a contentious history.

[barmar]

Most "renaissance men" are not self-designated, they're given the moniker by others in recognition of their bodies of work.

And what's wrong with a renaissance man's work being superceded? Leonardo da Vinci is the archetype, but how many of his inventions are we actually using? Are Newton's Laws of Motion diminished by having been superceded by Einstein's Theories of Relativity?

[kenberg]

I have led a fortunate life in that I have, for the most part, been able to avoid people who I don't much care to be around. And I prefer people to robots, just on general principles. I'm not really getting what the problem is here. Culbertson died in 1955, I looked it up. I imagine if you tell Ginsberg you would rather not go out with him for a drink he will not insist.

Seems like an easily solvable problem to me.

[Scarabin]

Surely there must be someone out there who speaks the same language as me and understands what I am saying? I did not concede I had been taking cheap shots at GIB or Ginsberg. In fact I do not think I have ever done this.

It is natural for innovations to be superceded: all I wanted to say is that I can admire the original GIB and still believe it has been overtaken by other programs.

The point of my original post was to canvass other opinions, particularly from anyone who actually knows Ginsberg, even if they tell me I am mistaken.

My original post was not intended to be bitter and neither is this.

[dwar0123]

Your post seems to have two main thrusts.

1. Has gib been surpassed. No one will argue that the work of innovators can't be surpassed and this is the wrong forum to discuss if it has been surpassed.

2. Is Ginsberg a shameless self promoter. Discussing this probably violates the terms of services and as he doesn't post here and thus can't defend himself, seems tawdry and pointless.

[Scarabin]

My post has 2 main points:

First: That I have no animus against Matthew Ginsberg, but actually admire him.

Second: A statement that it is possible to recognise GIB as ahead of its time when first introduced but to think that it has now fallen behind the competition.

These are followed by a warning of possible bias because I grew up in an era when modesty was prized as a virtue.

I still think my post made these clear.

Slainte

Ian

[Antrax]

I don't understand why Mr. Ginsberg's personality has any bearing on the product he developed. Surely GIB reached its status not due to any amount of (self) promotion, but due to its Bridge merits.
It's sometimes annoying to have to grudgingly admit that a person you find despicable achieved something impressive, but seeing as you have no issue with GIB's creator, I don't see why his character even comes into play.

[Scarabin]

Please,please,please I really do not find Mr Ginsberg despicable, quite the opposite, he is charismatic, witty and amusing. That given he is also larger than life and what in Australia we would call a "stirrer".

May I suggest you Google "jeremy+claptrap+hoogli"? At the very least you may find it amusing. To further explain my attitude, as far as I can judge Mr Ginsberg may be less than fair to Mr Levy who seems to have acted with admirable restraint, It's easy to criticise the terms of the computer championship: they certainly favour the status quo but they have been reached by concensus.

Slainte

Ian

[Antrax]

I don't think I've explained myself very well. You're saying two things:
a) It's possible GIB-like isn't the best approach towards a Bridge-playing program.
b) Beware (a) above as I may be biased due to my perception of GIB's creator.

I was saying that (b) (and your perception) are irrelevant, so you could have just omitted them. It doesn't matter who created GIB. GIB exists now, and is doing very well. There's a strong motivation for people to outdo GIB, so the fact they all try it with a simulation-based approach is a strong hint, for me, that this is the best approach with today's computing power and the state of the AI field.
Not to say a single-dummy solver isn't an interesting project or one that has merits that GIB lacks, I just don't think it would play Bridge better than GIB.

[kenberg]

You say that you have not taken cheap shots at Ginsberg, you say that his talent lies pre-eminently in self promotion. I suppose it depends on what you mean by a cheap shot. Even if I had knowledge of Ginsberg, and I don't, I would not be comfortable engaging in a public discussion of whether he is or is not pre-eminently a self promoter. Probably the description applies to Donald Trump, but except when he declares himself to be a presidential candidate, I don't much think about it. The Donald may be a fine person for all I know. Or care.


I don't know Ginsberg, and I strongly suspect that those who do will not be going on line to say yes he is or no he is not a self-promoter. I would hope not anyway.

The bottom line is that you will have to decide for yourself.

[hrothgar]

I find it remarkable that you could

1. Create a post like this one which seems deliberately designed to have people attack you
2. Do so by creating a post that accuses others of self promotion

If this is deliberate trolling, it is remarkably elegant...
If this was accidental, then the hypocrisy is astounding...

[barmar]

Scarabin, on 2012-October-08, 23:46, said:

I did not concede I had been taking cheap shots at GIB or Ginsberg. In fact I do not think I have ever done this.

You wrote "One of my critics has accused me of taking cheap shots at GIB, and its creator, Matthew Ginsberg. This may be correct but".

That was apparently interpreted as conceding the possibility.

[barmar]

Scarabin, on 2012-October-08, 23:46, said:

It is natural for innovations to be superceded: all I wanted to say is that I can admire the original GIB and still believe it has been overtaken by other programs.

Has anyone ever argued otherwise? Is anyone claiming that GIB is currently one of the best computer bridge programs? Is Ginsberg? He hasn't had anything to do with GIB since he sold it to BBO.

You seem to be reacting to some claims that the rest of us apparently aren't familiar with. I don't read any AI publications or blogs, so if Matt is still talking about GIB I wouldn't even know it.

There was a time when he thought GIB was so superior to other bridge programs that he stopped entering it in competitions, saying it it wasn't a fair contest. That was many years ago and they've caught up since then.

[jonottawa]

Strange thread.

I'm pretty sure I met Matt when I lived in Eugene in 1993-1994 and he didn't make much of an impression on me. Certainly not a 'larger than life' figure (or I'd remember him.)

I have nothing against someone trying to promote a product they created.

If your argument is that GIB was a superior product when Ginsberg was developing it and has gradually become an inferior product now that BBO owns (and is developing) it, I fail to see how that reflects badly on Ginsberg.

[Stephen Tu]

barmar, on 2012-October-09, 09:01, said:

There was a time when he thought GIB was so superior to other bridge programs that he stopped entering it in competitions, saying it it wasn't a fair contest.

Really? I don't really ever recall him saying that. I thought it was more a personal beef with Levy, the guy running the competitions, and certain conditions of contest he strongly disagreed with.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, here's my recollections about the GIB project.

Ginsberg was working on multiple fronts.

One front was developing a program that was able to play bridge very well
His success on this front was dramatic.
He produced a BOT that was head and shoulder's better than anything that came before
The techniques that he introduced revolutionized the way that folks approach the problem space

Ginsberg was also attempting to use his bridge bot to automatically generate a bidding system.
As I recall, these efforts failed pretty spectacularly.

Ginsberg didn't strike me as particularly self aggrandizing...
(Certainly not compared to the average academic)

[Scarabin]

hrothgar, on 2012-October-09, 07:54, said:

I find it remarkable that you could

1. Create a post like this one which seems deliberately designed to have people attack you
2. Do so by creating a post that accuses others of self promotion

If this is deliberate trolling, it is remarkably elegant...
If this was accidental, then the hypocrisy is astounding...

I like it, but I will plead guilty to a third alternative: I was remarkably stupid to start this Topic. OK?

[Scarabin]

Thanks, you have allowed me to state, and helped me to clarify my statement, that my SOA Topics are not designed as an attack on GIB or Mr Ginsberg.

May I close this aspect of the Topic with a quotation from Longfellow (to all those inarticulate souls out there who feel I have dedicated my life to killing their sacred cows, this does not imply an attack on your favourite poet!):

"Lives of great men all remind us, we can make our lives sublime, and departing, leave behind us, footprints on the sands of time."

With your agreement I would like to explore a second aspect: the colourfull history of GIB in the world bridge computer championship - not because I have a secret agenda but because I find it interesting.

GIB first entered the championship in 1997 but did not win.

It won the championship in 1998 and 1999. I think it introduced Moscito in 1999 and I remember reading Mr Ginsberg's witty account of GIB confusing signoffs with relays and his wondering if the rules covered play at the eighth level. I think GIB was saved by an opponent doubling its seventh level contract.

GIB did not enter in 2000 and 2001. However Meadowlark won in 2000 and I think Mr Ginsberg said it used the GIB play engine.

A new program called Hoogli was entered in 2001, by Jeremy Claptrap, who described himself as a refugee form the Mossad hiding in New Zealand but was subsequently found to be Mr Ginsberg.

An account of this episode can be found in the Great Bridge Links archives, written by Stephen Smith of Bridge Baron and by Mr Ginsberg himself. It can be found by Googleing Jeremy Claptrap Hoogli. I am sure Mr Ginsberg was happy to reveal this incident to the world and he would not resent my mentioning it.

Now fairly harsh words have been said about this deception and it has similarities to entering a ringer in a race but I prefer to see it as a joke, even if not in the best of taste, and perhaps without due regard for the other participants.

Let me repeat I am not trying to sell you anything but if you are able to add anything further to my account I would be interested. I do believe Yves Costel wrote about it on Claire Bridge.

Slainte,

Ian

[Scarabin]

Not to try to resurrect this but are there no anecdotes on Ginsberg or Culbertson?

I glanced at Culbertson's Blue Book, written in the 1930's, the other day and was amazed to find it could serve as a very good template for a computer play engine.