Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:07:19 04/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2005 at 19:18:55, chandler yergin wrote: > Rule Number 13 is quite revealing.. I never heard about the rule 13 - indeed it's an incredible thing to digest. The team of IBM could interfere, when it was their move, to the hardware, i.e. the hash-relevant parts of the machine IF they saw - with the help of friendly GM contact, that DBII was trying to play a nonsense move where Kasparov could have had certain advantages! My interpretation of that rule is that IBM was allowed to break DBII's thoughtprocess and then continue with a fresh attempt and because of time management reasons they could have forced the machine to play something, the machine normally would never have played. To me now the positions Kasparov had in mind are completely explanable. If there was a human influence on the machine, it was even allowed by the rules, here rule 13! Unbelievable. Now I don't understand why Kasparov complained at all! Because what he suspected was absolutely within the rules.
This page took 0.06 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.