Author: Anthony Bailey
Date: 15:00:31 10/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 1999 at 14:27:25, Jonathan Lee wrote: >Yes, that looked "fishy" (on move 59?), when Kasparov's queen was g1 and check, >there was a grand total of 4 legal moves (not 3). Of course, 2 out of the 4 >are very bad. One gives away the queen (queen to e1). What do you mean by "fishy"? If you mean that it looks as if some votes were disregarded, you certainly aren't mistaken! (c: There is no argument about how the voting (raw data, known to include many "stuffed" votes where one individual votes several times under different ids, but also many legitimate votes) on move 59 went. The Gaming Zone removed all votes for Qe1 before giving the result for this move (and said they had done so.) They forgot to disable the automatic vote result section of their daily news e-mail to all interested subscribers though, and that went out showing that the move that they ignored had actually won by miles, with around 66% of the vote. Of course much of that total was as a result of "stuffed" votes. This wasn't the first time that votes had been stuffed; it was simply the first time that the Zone didn't like the results and so chose to do something about it. Nothing can be proved, since the Zone keep everything but the vote percentages secret, but it is very plausible that several previous close votes were decided by vote-stuffing; certainly individuals have claimed to have stuffed the winning moves enough for it to have made the difference. To bring this back on-topic... have Guy Haworth and John Tamplin given any news on this board about how their attempt to generate the specialised KQPKQP tablebases needed to solve the ending that featured in this game is going? - Anthony.
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.