Author: Jay Rinde
Date: 20:00:34 08/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 11, 2001 at 22:14:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 11, 2001 at 13:56:37, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 11, 2001 at 08:40:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 11, 2001 at 03:43:37, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>On August 10, 2001 at 17:45:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 10, 2001 at 14:18:15, Theo van der Storm wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 10, 2001 at 13:25:10, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>>>>>On August 10, 2001 at 02:57:51, Peter Berger wrote: >>>>>>... >>>>>>>>I don't think many reporters were really thinking of this Hongkong game. More >>>>>>>>likely they were confused by the qualifier against Deep Junior. >>>>>> >>>>>>On the other hand here's what journalists world-wide use >>>>>>as a reference to the history of computer-chess: >>>>>>http://www.braingames.net/index.php?f=chess_center/events&p=mvm_history >>>>>>Evidently the list has been carefully designed with regard to >>>>>>the information that has been left out. >>>>> >>>>>It is also wrong in at least one place. Cray Blitz never had "one processor >>>>>per square". That was HiTech, but some incompetent got it wrong. And then >>>>>they have Fritz beating Deep Blue in 1995, before it existed. That was deep >>>>>thought. >>>> >>>>It was reported at the time in Chess Life, or Inside chess that Deep Thought had >>>>some kind of hardware problem. This problem slowed down the search speed of Deep >>>>Thought. Do you know if that report was accurate? If I remember correctly Deep >>>>thought played one bad move caused by this problem, which cost Deep Thought the >>>>game. It was reported that a correctly running Deep Thought was able to play the >>>>correct and saving move in a matter of seconds. >>> >>> >>>What happened was that Deep Thought's communication link was broken. Which >>>killed the program. It was pondering correctly and it had found a reasonable >>>move that would have avoided the instant loss. They reconnected, and then >>>restarted the program and it moved much quicker than it should have because >>>it was started "cold" and the time was set which lost a good bit of time. >>> >>>If not for the comm failure, the game most likely would have ended differently, >>>but things happen. >> >>It means that the Deep thought made a bad job in explaining the problems >>after the game. >> >>I read in the israeli chess newspaper after the game that the Deep thought >>team explained after the game that Fritz3 surprised them in the opening. >>They said nothing about the comm failure that is a more convincing excuse. > >I don't know what you read/heard, but the comm failure was reported when the >game was over. That's when I first heard about it. I believe that the DB >team has also mentioned this in several of their talks. Most likely the >reporter that wrote the story you read simply didn't ask the right people, >or else reported based on incomplete or inaccurate quotes... Happens all the >time in the press... > > > > >> >>I also agree that without c4 the result could be different(I know that >>at least it was the case in genius3-genius3 game >>and I did not check the new programs) >> >> They lost a game at the last ACM event due to a monster >>>thunderstorm knocking out power to the Watson phone system. Deep Thought was >>>on a huge UPS in the lab, but the phones were dead and after two hours, the >>>game was given up as unplayable so the next round could be paired. They _still_ >>>won the event cleanly (no need of tie-breaks). >> >>I think that the rules should be changed and if >>there is an objective problem of phone connection or internet connection >>the game should be delayed. >> >>Uri > > >The rule says that if there is a network/communication problem, the clock >can be stopped. But there are limits. It became obvious that if the game >was attempted later, pairings for round 2 (round 1 was at something like 1 or >2pm in the afternoon, round 2 was set for 7 pm that evening if I recall >correctly) would be impossible to complete. After a lot of discussion with >the participants, it was decided by the TD (with the ACM computer chess >committee involved as well as all the participants) that a forfeit was the >only possible result. The normal phone system didn't go dead. The PBX at >IBM Watson was the problem. Deep Thought was still running as it had a big >battery backup available. The normal phone system was up (we were using a >phone link to Minneapolis to access our Cray C90. Private hardware failures >are really not well covered by the rules, which say that if it is not a comm >failure, you can stop your clock no more than twice, for a total of 40 minutes >total time. The general consensus was that the rule fit and was applied. None >of us liked it, and it was a nice result that DT won the event in spite of that >forfeit... I don't have my copies of the Chess Reports from ICD anymore. But there was quite a bit about the Fritz3/Deep Thought game in them. It seemed that every one thought the Fritz win was a fluke, Fritz cheated, or it had some kind of a killer book. As I remember it had something to do with Deep Thoughts 10th move. I read nothing from all the reports that claimed a comm failure. I'm not saying it didn't happen. Just that this is the first I've heard about it. Jay
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.