Author: KarinsDad
Date: 09:17:19 07/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 03, 1999 at 03:56:53, Peter Hegger wrote: [snip] > >Imagine, at next years event "256 processor Fritz 7", in the spectator's gallery >giving analysis while it's little brother "Fritz 6" is playing Kasparov. While >the banned computer is glibly refuting moves for both sides, little Fritz is >being crushed. Would that be interesting? Not to me it wouldn't. >I would also be asking why on earth isn't the best machine playing instead of >kibitzing? >To me it makes little sense to hold new technology and improvements back for a >whole year just BECAUSE they are new technologies and improvements. >Regards >Peter I can understand your point of view. However, we are getting to a stage in computer chess development where we have never been before. New ground if you will. Programs have only within the last few years been able to compete successfully with superGMs at G30 type of speeds. The programs are about to pass the threshold, maybe within the next 5 years, of being able to beat anyone on the planet at any speed (with the possible exception of correspondence chess speeds). It is getting to the point that it does make a major difference from one version of a program to the next how well it will do at major tournaments. Hence, for the first time in history, we are coming up on an era where computers will rule the chess playing scene. This will result in a few changes: 1) Advanced chess will be obsolete. 2) Human/computer games, matches, and tournaments will be obsolete. So, with this understanding comes the idea of not doing things the status quo way. It is not an issue of humans being threatened by computers and protecting themselves. It is an issue of looking at the entire computer chess picture and wondering if the status quo still applies. 1) Years ago, having a chess program in a tournament did not matter to the humans, so programs were allowed to play in most every tournament and nobody cared which version played. 2) Today, having a chess program in a tournament matters to a lot of humans, so programs are allowed to play in extremely few tournaments. Now we are at a stage in our computer chess development where the above two statements can be modified to read: 1) Years ago, having a chess program in a superGM tournament did not matter to the humans, so programs were allowed to play in most every tournament (but of course, they had problem qualifying, so they were not allowed) and nobody cared which version played. 2) Today, having a chess program in a superGM tournament matters to a lot of humans, so programs are allowed to play in extremely few superGM tournaments. So, the idea that a given program consists of whatever software and hardware is running at a given point in time and that these elements can change and it is still considered the same program may be in the stages of becoming an obsolete idea as well. I am not saying that this is the way it has to be. I am just throwing out some ideas for other people to think about. And the answer to your question "I would also be asking why on earth isn't the best machine playing instead of kibitzing?" would be: The same reason that Deep Blue is not playing. Although Deep Blue is (was) the best machine on the planet, it did not qualify for the event and neither did Fritz 7. 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.