Talk:Poole versus HAL 9000

message: I have an interesting theory. I believe HAL's apparent errors in the chess analysis are in fact intentional and are a subtle means of testing Frank's awareness and state of mind, as HAL could very well be working up Frank's "crew psychology report." The adjacent scene with Dave seems to strongly support this. If the chess incident were excused as a psychological experiment, the precise moment that HAL first commits an error is the misdiagnosis of the AE-35 unit. Just before that moment, it would be HAL's turn to compose his own "crew psychology report." I wonder if the subroutines that were responsible for analyzing HAL's own "psychological state" were the same ones that prevented HAL from lying to the crew members or making certain logical errors; if those subroutines became stuck in an infinite loop during HAL's self-assessment, it would explain HAL's subsequent behavior quite nicely. And doesn't it sound EXACTLY like the beginning of some kind of infinite loop when HAL says, "Just a moment... Just a moment..."?
Well, that's my theory. Any reason it could not be true?
Xylune (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: An alternate explanation

message: I just stumbled across this, from this webpage:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/7378/kubrick.htm
I'm not intimately familiar with the film, but I thought it was mighty interesting that not only was a chess game depicted but that there a dialog mistake related to it.
Sailorlula 08:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chess-related mistake in earlier Kubrick flm 

message: I see the gamescore is in algebraic long-hand ("1. e2-e4"). Does anyone object if I convert all moves to abbreviated algebraic ("1. e4")?  (I've never seen long-hand in any WP article before, this is first one!)  
Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone did that in the Feb 19, 2011 edit.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thx for pointing out.  I'm reverting back to short-hand, I think if Scholar's mate and Fool's mate and other beginner articles use short-hand, then it's appropriate also in this article.  Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Algebraic long-hand 

message: Or so they are called in the article. But while Schlage is one, Roesch does not appear too often in literature (understatement). Any suggestions for an alternative phrasing? --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How about changing the sentence simply to: "The actual game seems to come from the tournament game Roesch–Schlage, Hamburg 1910." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Done. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two lesser known masters 

message: English wikipedia is full, for some reason with useless articles like this one. Who cares about the chess mach between 2 charecters in a book/film? I love the film 2001 and Ive read all 4 books, but why would anybody write about just a little chess match that took just a few seconds in the movie and in the book it was even less important? I recoment delating this article as well as every one of thease useles articles. --91.200.65.138 (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dont you have anything to do? 

message: I think this article should be renamed to Poole versus HAL 9000 chess game or Poole versus HAL 9000 (chess).  The current title is probably not clear to many readers. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I prefer the latter: Poole versus HAL 9000 (chess). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:   Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: This article seems to have quite a few "issues".  It is supported by a single reference, which does not appear to be a particularly authoritative source, and which does not support most of the claims made in the article.  This makes the article look very much like original research - and perhaps not very well argued OR at that.
In particular, it is claimed in the article, that Kubrick was a passionate chess player, and therefore the positions and analysis make sense.  However, this is not supported by the reference.  Furthermore, it is later contradicted by some quite clear examples in which the analysis is incorrect, both in it's use of notation, and of the conclusions drawn about the position by HAL.
I realise there has been some extensive debate above about the reasons for this.  I fully admit that the reasons given are at least plausible.  I do not want to re-open this debate, as it's irrelevant.  Regardless of what we (WP editors) think, we need to find external, reliable sources that make these claims.  Our opinions on the matter isn't enough for Wikipedia.
Ideally, we need to find:
* A biographical reference supporting the claim that Kubrick was a passionate chess player.  This at least should be easy.
* A chess book or analysis from a reputable expert supporting the analysis of the game.
* Something from a reputable film expert supporting the idea that the "mistakes" were deliberately made by Kubrick, as clues about HAL's state.
If we can't find these, it seems pretty clear that this article is insufficently noteable and insufficiently referenced, and should therefore either be deleted, or merged into the main article about the film.  (Which saddens me slightly - as a scifi and Chess geek, I this article is interesting to me personally - it just doesn't doesn't belong in Wikipedia)
62.252.237.97 (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one point I'd like to make. Your third-listed  cannot be a requirement, because the article makes no such claim or even innuendo. It only states the facts. (HAL's technically incorrect use of descriptive notation, and HAL's omission of mentioning that White can play a few moves longer before mate.) (The article used to contain those claims or innuendos, but recently ago I removed them. They were clear WP:OR, and for me, didn't even make sense.)Regarding your other point re analysis references, what part of the game analysis do you specifically want to see referenced? (It seems to me the analysis after 13...Bh3 and after 14.Qxa6 might be what you mean. And perhaps also after 12...Qd3. Please be specific though, thanks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of this article