Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:44:32 04/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2005 at 10:19:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. > >It was crap. It might surprise you but that show event wasn't about just "chess". It was a challenge if the machine was already stronger that the best human player. And matter of fact is that Hsu and his IBM team couldn't show any valid result to that question because they preferred to play dirty on Kasparov and misused his naive confidence. They treated him unfriendly and then he was offended and couldn't play his normal chess. If you say that doesn't interest, then this is your good right to have an opinion, but this opinion is isolated in the WorldChess scene. > > > > >> >>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. In another message I showed why your fixation on rules is flawed. You also didn't comment on my answer what rule the team should have violated. I told you: "The basic rule in science, do not test Y if you wanted to know about X when you can't get control over Y!" - You never came back to that point. X here is computer strength in chess while Y is psycho war against a human chessplayer. I dont see where the two factors have anything in common in computerchess! Like Chandler I question your belief in human chess when here it's about machine vs human chess. > > > >> >>He was under a Hell of a lot of pressure, you were not. > >And that has what to do with anything? With the whole event in 1997. The pressure wasn't because of the mere chess of the machine, but the playing ugly by the team members. In special Campbell, Benjamin, Hsu. > > > > >> >> >>> >>>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. I still see him with lengths above Hsu and team since 1997.
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.