Author: Sarah Bird
Date: 11:27:19 07/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 1999 at 13:47:11, KarinsDad wrote: >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. > Is it alledged to be the object of the tournament having either software or hardware available to the everyday person in the commercial marketplace. Even if that were the case and it was written for and played on a PII 450 not everyone can afford a PII 450. The hardware it is being used on therefore is available (if you can afford it). The same goes for the software if you have enough money you could buy it regardless of experimental or not. >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? > As noted above, the hardware is available it is purly and simply a money issue what is a lot to some, may not be a lot to someone else. I believe the computer should be able to make use of any processing power available, including custom built. >Where do you draw the line? Why draw a line, computers playing in these tournaments will improve software possibly hardware to a point where better products will be available to the mass marketplace. > >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. > I welcome that point in time. I see nothing wrong with having the best chessplayers in the world being made from silicon. As i see this as a natural evolution anyway. Your statement reads like "let's not help them", they need no help. It will happen one day it is purely a matter of time before chess is solved. Also once that day were reached it don't mean the end of chess, the human mental capacity wouldn't be able to remember the endless variations available. However it will help human play a better game. >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. > Isn't that the purpose, ultimately isn't that what we all want. >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). > Totally disagee. Naive !! are not new variations of opening played year after year, have not computers already taught us more about the endgame. Did I say by how much he/she could improve their performance, no. Anyone would readily agree that study will prove beneficial by how much is a seperate issue. >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). > I hope by next year Fritz will be 150 elo better, but again I see nothing wrong with it. >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. > I would say I generally agree with that. The object for me is to produce programs capable of beating humans at any time control. See above for my opinions on the hardware and software implications and/or effect there of. >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. > So, it will be a different Kasparov and different Anand I don't see the deal with it being a different program, who cares and why. Would anyone really be that interested in whether Fritz 6 is able to beat Kasparov next year when chessbase are sitting on Fritz 7 who isn't allowed to play. Let's for argument sake say last year Fritz 5.0 qualified to play in this years event. With Fritz 5.32 known to be better (commercial) and other programs being tested would we be that interested in the results. >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.". No, steroids are dangerous to human health. There is a big difference to the life of a person than a computer frying. > >I guess you and I just have a different idea of fairness. This is what it boilsdown too, since I don't see fairness as an issue. > >KarinsDad :) Sarah :-)
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.