Author: KarinsDad
Date: 10:47:11 07/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 1999 at 12:48:55, Sarah Bird wrote: >On July 02, 1999 at 12:31:08, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On July 02, 1999 at 12:14:17, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>>On July 02, 1999 at 12:10:47, Marc Plum wrote: >>> >>>>I see that by winning the Frankfurt Masters event, Fritz has qualified for the >>>>Giants section next year. >>>> >>>>Which makes me wonder, will ChessBase be required to use the same software and >>>>hardware that were used this year, or will Fritz 7, say, be there? >>>> >>>>Marc >>> >>>It will be Fritz 7. If Polgar were to qualify would she be banned from learning >>>and improving over the course of the year? >>> >>> Albert Silver >> >>An interesting question. >> >>My take: >> >>Fritz 6 qualified, not Fritz 7. That means to me that any "learning" that Fritz >>6 can do in the next year should be allowed (even this is questionable since the >>opening book is getting modified), but program changes should not be allowed. >>Otherwise, you are using different but similar software (i.e. not the software >>that qualified). >> >>Fritz 6 should also run on the same hardware. Polgar would not be able to >>improve HER hardware, so neither should Fritz. >> >>In today's world of better and faster, fairness will probably not come into play >>and the powers that be will most likely run Fritz 7. But to be totally fair, the >>superGMs will not get THAT much better (in fact, they will be getting older, so >>some of them may get slightly worse), so upgrading Fritz does seem unfair. >> >>Now, this does not mean that Fritz 7 on different hardware should not be allowed >>to compete in the Master's section. It just means that it should not be allowed >>to compete in the Giant's section since Fritz 7 did not qualify (unless of >>course Fritz 7 wins the Master's section next year in which case it could >>compete in the Giant's section in 2001). >> >>But the world does not revolve around fairness, but rather money. >> >>KarinsDad :) > >I think that's poppycock they should be allowed whatever changes they choose. >The same as the GM can improve his/her opening/middlegame/endgame knowledge. >Some of the GM's can still get very much better from an age point of view. >In theory Fritz 7 did qualify since it will naturally be an improved version of >Fritz 6. >Sarah I think that poppycock is a fairly strong word. Fritz 6 running on a multi-processor OS is much more than just a slightly improved version of Fritz 5. So, assuming that Fritz 7 is just a slightly improved version of Fritz 6 and not a major rewrite is incorrect. The consumers have no idea how many changes and to what extent there are between one version and the next, so they have no idea how much is different. Why do you think that Fritz 7 should be allowed to play on a 256 processor system where for it, next year's tournament is equivalent to about G800 (13+ hours for his side to move) when compared to Fritz 6's current 8 processors at G25? Where do you draw the line? It really is starting to get similar to having a human racing a motorcycle now that multi-processing systems are being used. Within 5 years, computers will not be competing in any human tournaments anymore, even 40/2 1 tournaments. So, yes, Chessbase will be able to build a better mousetrap by next year and probably win the Giants section of the tournament. Big deal. It only proves that man is ingenious enough to build a machine to do something that only humans could previously do. That's been done before. Your comment of "The same as the GM can improve his/her opening/ middlegame/ endgame knowledge" is somewhat naive. After studying for many months for a major tournament and a lot of hard individual work, superGMs may pick up 10-20 elo rating ability (not actual points). But improvements on a program could consist of setting up automatic tests, putting it on better hardware, and minor programmng tweaks which leverage the work of many many people and may not really consist of a lot of hard work from one individual. But, the program can improve 40 to 80 elo within a year by doing this (granted, major improvements such as going to a multi-processor system do take a lot of hard work). So, once again, comparing chess improvement between people and programs does not take into account the effort involved, but rather just the results. As long as we can get a program to beat the superGMs, that is all that matters, not the method in which we do it. Fritz 7 running on a new set of hardware is NOT Fritz 6 running on the current hardware (or would you like to dispute the results of the SSDF for the last 10 years). So, only Fritz 6 qualified. You could run Junior 18 and say, "Oh well, it's running the same GUI, so Junior really qualified.". Again, where do you draw the line? One change or a thousand changes, it's still a different program. Upgrading Fritz 6 to Fritz 7 is like putting an athlete on steroids and saying "Well, it's the same person, it doesn't matter if we boosted his performance. It's only the results that count.". I guess you and I just have a different idea of fairness. KarinsDad :)
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.