Author: Peter Hegger
Date: 07:23:00 07/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 03, 1999 at 12:17:19, KarinsDad wrote: >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. 3) Correspondence chess will become obsolete. Just look at the USCF correspondence rating list for confirmation that it is slowly happening already. >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. Consider this. It matters to alot of human pro sports players too. I wouldn't like it if I were a pitcher for the L.A. Dodgers and I found out that the team I was about to pitch to acquired Ken Griffey Jr. and Sammy Sosa last night. However, gripe as I might I would still have to face them. >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. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I suppose for me it's a matter of wanting to see the best player fielded among all the contenders. In 5 or 10 years from now of course this will be irrelevent as computers will be mopping the floor with the best humans. But for now its still close though and I think a souped up Fritz would still have its hands full at next years Frankfurt giants. >KarinsDad :) Peter
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.