Author: Howard Exner
Date: 11:42:52 10/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 1999 at 12:01:27, odell hall wrote: >On October 03, 1999 at 11:52:43, Howard Exner wrote: > >>On October 03, 1999 at 09:17:38, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: >> >>>The game against Hoffmann should _of course_ be counted. Say what happens if I >>>play a game with a cold in a tourniament ? >> >> >>This is not quite the analogy that comes to mind. A computer that shorts out, or >>has a power failer is more like a person having a total stroke or blackout >>during the game - or maybe having someone bonk you over the head causing an >>unconscious state. >> >>Or course if you are concerned about the game score then of course even >>someone dying at the chess table will not matter. But in the GM challenge >>the point is seeing how a computer program plays vs a human. Otherwise we may >>find ourselves with a rash of posts, "I beat Crafty in 10 moves!" When asked >>by the enquiring minds here on CCC, "How did you do that?", you could >>simply reply, "The power went out in my house, it refused to move so it >>lost on time! Yipee my rating just shot up!" >> >>>Will the game be ignored if I loose ? >>>The same applies to computers. If the hardware isn't stable ... bad luck. > > > > Very well said Howard!! I wanted to respond with a similiar thought, but >unfortunately could not think up the proper analogy! Good Job Ed's goal for this GM challenge is stated on his page. Something like people missing events like Aegon and so offering up Rebel to the wolves (Gms) at 40/2 time control. It's a fun event whether one watches live or replays the game later on. On the Rebel-Hoffmann encounter it is very unfortunate that the computer continually crashed. To equate this to a common cold or tummy ache misses the severity of the condition. The malfuncuntioning computer (consciousness blackout in human terms) in effect voided the 40/2 protocol. Rebel played by giving time odds. Time lost during both actual thinking time and pondering while the opponent was moving. Very unfortunate as the game could have sparked some nice discussions on what moves were good or bad, or the strategy employed by Hoffmann's opening. That was all missing here since we could not determine the real moves made by Rebel in an uninterrupted 40/2 game. The point made however by the "let's include this game" side seems valid when strictly adhering to human-human chess protocol. It gives us little however in terms of making any sort of valid assessment of Rebel's strength. Spassky beating Fischer in game two back in 1972 was of course counted. No one discusses the moves of the game or derives any information on the playing strength of either player based on that game.
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.