Norm Pollock wrote:Back in Fischer's day, why wasn't the "40 move adjournment" rule considered cheating?
Because cheating is only what you consider to be cheating.
Using chess programs to help you is also not cheating in free style tournaments.
I think that it was better not to change the adjournment rules.
The excuse of computers is not convincing.
The opposite.
Today conditions are closer to be equal because everybody can use
almost the same software during the adjournment(there may be some hardware difference but not very big difference).
In the past conditions were less equal because some people could use significantly better advisors during the adjournment.
Norm Pollock wrote:Back in Fischer's day, why wasn't the "40 move adjournment" rule considered cheating?
Simple, no computers.
When Fischer played Spassky, Spassky had a whole team of Soviet GMs doing his analysis during the 40th move break. Fischer had 1 or 2 GMs. I would take a team of 24 Soviet GMs over Komodo/SF to analyze for me anytime, and it was considered legal.
24 soviet grandmasters isn't even an insect on the shoulder of Komodo or Stockfish.
I would rather have 24 GM analyzing the game while I sleep rather than SF running. Anyway, adjournments were great for chess for many reasons, particularly at the amateur level.
Miguel
PS: Fischer could not out-analyzed Najdorf in one Olympic game. Najdorf found a way to draw and RJF threw all pieces off the board in disgust. Nice entertainment
Norm Pollock wrote:Back in Fischer's day, why wasn't the "40 move adjournment" rule considered cheating?
Simple, no computers.
When Fischer played Spassky, Spassky had a whole team of Soviet GMs doing his analysis during the 40th move break. Fischer had 1 or 2 GMs. I would take a team of 24 Soviet GMs over Komodo/SF to analyze for me anytime, and it was considered legal.
24 soviet grandmasters isn't even an insect on the shoulder of Komodo or Stockfish.
I would rather have 24 GM analyzing the game while I sleep rather than SF running. Anyway, adjournments were great for chess for many reasons, particularly at the amateur level.
Miguel
PS: Fischer could not out-analyzed Najdorf in one Olympic game. Najdorf found a way to draw and RJF threw all pieces off the board in disgust. Nice entertainment
Most prodigies have an insatiable drive to win and sometimes in disgust of their own play react in proportion angrily
Nevertheless it's that obsessive attitude that aids them to achieve near perfection in their chess.
Fischer could have possibly won a match against an opponent as strong as Stockfish or Komodo at his peak.
Norm Pollock wrote:Back in Fischer's day, why wasn't the "40 move adjournment" rule considered cheating?
Because it was part of the game. Both sides were allowed to prepare for the next moves with whatever means it takes, be it chess books, seconds, computer databases or chess programs.
I don't think the reason it was abolished has anything to do with the rise of chess programs.
Wikipedia wrote:In chess, the practice of adjournment was common until the 1990s, but has since largely been abandoned, due to a trend towards shorter time controls and the advent of strong chess computers.
This does mention chess computers, but the trend towards shorter time controls / "faster = more fun (for the uninitiated)" seems a more likely reason.
