Author: KarinsDad
Date: 15:10:16 07/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 1999 at 17:30:19, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: >>Why? If we use your definition, then Kasparov used a Fritz 5 and 5.32 program to >>improve himself the last few years. Hence, he should be allowed to play advanced >>chess with Fritz 7 at his side in next years Giants tournament since it is the >>Kasparov/Fritz team that helped him qualify for this years Giants tournament. > > Kasparow is not allowed to get exterior help in regular tournament games. >Preparation is different from actual playing. > For the same reason, Fritz or any other program should not receive help from >its team during the games; but of course the team should be allowed to do any >kind of preparation between rounds and between tournaments. Programs get certain types of assistance from operators during the playing of tournaments. If the power fails, they get turned back on. If their clock is confused, the operator can reset the clock at the beginning of each move. If we wanted to be totally fair, we should not allow ANY operator intervention (and use sensory boards) and if the program falls over and stays that way, too bad, it loses on time. If a person gets sick and gets rushed to the hospital, (s)he loses on time. Why should it be different for a computer? And I could write a program that uses 50 computer programs to check my results in the background on other processors and put it in one box and nobody would know the difference. I can add 6 men tablebases (eventually) and nobody would know the difference. The point is that preparation for the computer is virtually unlimited whereas preparation for the human is not. But people think that is is fair to have an exponential improvement in preparation for the program by this time next year. This is similar to how fair it was for Deep Blue to have access to most of Kasparov's games and Kasparov to have access to none of Deep Blue's game. Some people think it was fair. Others like myself did not. > >> It >>all comes down to where you draw the line. Why should the program have a team >>and the individual player not have a team? >> > > Because humans and computers are different. Ah ha! The crux of the matter. > >>> After all, Fritz qualified for this Frakfurt Masters by winning the Ordix Open >>>last year, and surely it was an older version without multi-procesing >>>capabilities. >>> What is important to me is that the program was developed by the same team. >>>I.e. for me, the "team" qualified, not the "program/hardware". >> >>Yes, but the Fritz "team" did not build the 256 processor system that Fritz 7 >>may be running on next year. So you are allowing the Fritz "team" to consist of >>thousands or tens of thousands of people from the electrical company to the >>hardware manufacturers and it is a different set of thousands of people on the >>Fritz "team" than the thousands who were needed to produce Fritz 6 on the >>hardware that it ran on. So, the "team" (especially the part of the team that >>creates the hardware) will be changing, but that is considered fair. Again, it >>is a matter of differences between programs and people where they are being >>considered the same. >> > > I strongly disagree. The hardware Fritz uses is general purpose. The people who >designed it were not thinking in Fritz performance. But they were thinking about computing performance. They were directly assisting the Fritz team, even if that was not their intent (which by the way indirectly it is; they want to sell computers). The Fritz team was able to leverage the work of other people. Kasparov also has that advantage by analyzing other people's games, but not to the level of going from 8 processors to 256 processors. I think it should be clear >who the Fritz team are. > And after all, it is up to the organisers and not to us to decide who is going >to play in the next Frankfurt Giants. Agreed. This is all philosophy. 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.