Author: chandler yergin
Date: 08:40:50 04/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2005 at 10:19:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 24, 2005 at 04:29:52, chandler yergin wrote: > >>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. >> > >There is no "rightfully needed an explanation" in chess. Last time I looked at >the official rules of chess, there was no limit on the time for a single move, >nor was there any requirement to explain myself should I take longer on one move >than on another. Human players do this _all_ the time. When playing against humans yes. When a Computer deviates from the norm by a significant amount, it's reasonable and logical to ask "why". > >It was crap. Your obvious Bias is showing again. > > > > >> >>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. > > > >Actually I was referring to you. You are going on about something you don't >have a clue about. > > > > >>> >>>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? > > >Sorry but several of us looked at the logs within a week of the question being >raised. You can find a post by Amir Ban with his interpretation... You can >find my response which even included a near-identical entry from a Crafty log >from ICC play. > > > >> >>You understand the 'panic' time, he didn't. > >So? Where in the rules does it say that one player must explain his "thinking" >to another player, including why he took more time, etc. If you can show me >that in any rule used for the match, or in any rule in "The official FIDE rules >of chess" then you have a point. Otherwise, no. BTW he had advisors that >understood this. He had played Fritz many practice games. Fritz certainly does >it. > > > >> >>He was under a Hell of a lot of pressure, you were not. > >And that has what to do with anything? > > > > >> >> >>> >>>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. > >Sorry but I was a Kasparov fan for _years_. And am still a fan of his chess, >but after 1997 "Kasparov the man" is a pretty poor example of humanity.
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.