Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:50:53 04/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2005 at 11:40:50, chandler yergin wrote: >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". Please cite your source for defining "the norm". I'll be happy to pick 10 games played by Crafty on ICC, and compute the mean and standard deviation for time used per move to show you that you have no idea what you are talking about. In a game/30 minute situation, I have seen crafty move in 0 seconds, and I have seen it take over 10 minutes, each for a single move. So what is this "mythical norm" you mention and where did you find the definition? My programs have varied their time per move wildly since 1976 at the first ACM event I played in. So does _everyone_ else's program. You really need to learn more about what you are talking about before trying to argue... >> >>It was crap. > >Your obvious Bias is showing again. > OK. My bias is showing. Your ignorance is showing. Even?? > >> >> >> >> >>> >>>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.