Author: chandler yergin
Date: 17:41:53 04/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2005 at 12:07:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. Yes.. the 'time management' software divides up the thinking time for the Computer. If the Time control is 40 moves in 2 hours 120 minutes divided by 40 averages 3 minutes a move. In Game 2 Deep Blue used 6.5 minutes for it's critical move; which is why Kasparov suspected possible human intervention, and wanted a copy of the Log. Logical and justifiable in my opinion. Would you agree?
This page took 0.07 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.