Author: chandler yergin
Date: 01:29:52 04/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2005 at 23:52:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 23, 2005 at 20:41:53, chandler yergin wrote: > >>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? > > >No, because no computer uses 3 minutes per move. I said 'average'. You weren't playing the game, Kasparov was. He thought it pondered too long, and rightfully needed an explanation. you do They vary significantly >because of pondering, failing low as happened in that game, etc. > >If you make poor assumptions, you reach poor conclusions... You do that a lot. > >Several of us have looked at the logs for the games, and game 2 looked perfectly >normal and the program even reported a fail low and "panic time" where it >searched longer than normal because of the fail low. Yes.. way after the fact you looked at the Logs; why were they not given to Garry when he requested them? You understand the 'panic' time, he didn't. He was under a Hell of a lot of pressure, you were not. > >This is a red herring and crap. No, you have to understand the time, place & circumstance; but your overwhelming dislike and bias against Kasparov blinds you to the truth.
This page took 0.01 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.