M ANSARI wrote:At the moment, matching a strong hardwared Rybka 3 against the strongest GM in the world is like doing 10 race runs of 100 meters by the fastest human against a F1 car ... yes the F1 car might crash or have technical difficulties in a race or two ... but in 10 races ... the human will have no chance.
Yes because the human gets tired but when a top player like Anand, Topalov or Ivanchuk plays his best chess and has enough time to think he can beat the computer.
Vadim Milov won a match against Rybka 3 running on 8 cores but he had a pawn odd in the first game he won and the exchange odd in the second game he won.
M ANSARI wrote:At the moment, matching a strong hardwared Rybka 3 against the strongest GM in the world is like doing 10 race runs of 100 meters by the fastest human against a F1 car ... yes the F1 car might crash or have technical difficulties in a race or two ... but in 10 races ... the human will have no chance.
Yes because the human gets tired but when a top player like Anand, Topalov or Ivanchuk plays his best chess and has enough time to think he can beat the computer.
Vadim Milov won a match against Rybka 3 running on 8 cores but he had a pawn odd in the first game he won and the exchange odd in the second game he won.
Definitely no,maybe he can beat it once or twice,but winning a match of let say 12 games is impossible....
As for Vadim,he played only the white pieces and under odd conditions,so nothing to prove here....
The computer dominates the chess world regards,
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Since the machine has a database why not give the human a database also. Classical time controls and a day of rest between games would make for a fairer contest. The human is still gonna be toast but it will be a more even fight.
Chess Computers are too strong in nowadays, "playing
Chess, but they are not enough strong teaching chess."
With all humility, I would like to say, that there is an
Important new target in chess computers software’s,
A kind of development as less as important as is to be the
Best computer chess player:
“We need more a top chess computer professor
That teach t us steep by steep, lesson
For lesson, how could we be a really strong chess
Player. This is more important now that everything
In chess."
But is absolutely impossible to search this we level in the
Chess development, without the very important hands o the GMs
We need to be helped for the GMs. With a big patience,
We need that they write a very long book, with games,
Puzzles, matches, a perfect organization, where we be
Growing lesson for lesson. It is necessary too, that they
Will be very kindness with the human being race.
We need for the GMs secrets.
But only they could help us. Now we need the help of the
GMs; yes, the help of human beings, the better human
Beings. For me all GMs are really heros. They are where they
are, for their strong work, patience, and intelligence of course.
A Gm is different that a specialist in chess. They are in superior
Position, and is time to work close to them.
They have the key, to open a door, that we most cruse.
Then in this days, everybody will be in superior position, a
1600 elo will be as a 2500 elo of new days, and in the top of
The knowledge, will be leaving, GMs again, and top computers.
I am really happy to see the wall that Rybka 3 teams have done. I am resting and suffering now with many rooks over me, that were in the wall of the
antichess.
And this is a situation that gives me happiness, because of, the science is now better, and science, could be apply in good ways.
I hope someday exist a machine where will be not possible for us take a draw. This is a dream now. But there are a long way to pass for chess computer human beings programmers. for us, hobby players, ad human beings GMS, I.M. F.M. and experts.
Chess is alive. I would like to work hard to be as good as a GM is.
But the time is ending
Wat best respetc,
Pablo Ignacio
I am thinking chess is in a coin.Human beings for ever playing in one face.Now I am playing in the other face:"Antichess". Computers are as a fortres where owner forgot to close a little door behind. You must enter across this door.Forget the front.
M ANSARI wrote:At the moment, matching a strong hardwared Rybka 3 against the strongest GM in the world is like doing 10 race runs of 100 meters by the fastest human against a F1 car ... yes the F1 car might crash or have technical difficulties in a race or two ... but in 10 races ... the human will have no chance.
Yes because the human gets tired but when a top player like Anand, Topalov or Ivanchuk plays his best chess and has enough time to think he can beat the computer.
Vadim Milov won a match against Rybka 3 running on 8 cores but he had a pawn odd in the first game he won and the exchange odd in the second game he won.
i notice you left out kramnik?/ is it because of his lost to deep fritz 10 a program 200 points weaker then rybka? Btw the match was at 40/2 so the human had plenty of time
bigo wrote:i notice you left out kramnik?/ is it because of his lost to deep fritz 10 a program 200 points weaker then rybka? Btw the match was at 40/2 so the human had plenty of time
Kramnik is no longer in the top 5 but yes I believe he can still beat Rybka.
Think about it. Even with using alpha-beta pruning, a computer still needs to go through (or check) every move in the tree which can take a lot of time. Alpha-beta pruning also weakens the engine in some tactical positions. The computer might miss a tactical move which is actually the best one (see this thread)
A top GM doesn't need to go through every possible move because he knows by memory and experience which of these 47 moves is the best one without having to go through every move in the tree.
The human mind is incredibly parallel and computers havn't reached that level of parallelism yet. It will still take a lot of time under they do.
Uri wrote:Alpha-beta pruning also weakens the engine in some tactical positions. The computer might miss a tactical move which is actually the best one
Alpha-beta doesn't miss anything. It only removes provably bad lines (out to the depth searched). There are lots of other prunings and reductions being used by modern engines, like null move, that can cause tactics to be missed, at least in the time alloted for the search.
M ANSARI wrote:At the moment, matching a strong hardwared Rybka 3 against the strongest GM in the world is like doing 10 race runs of 100 meters by the fastest human against a F1 car ... yes the F1 car might crash or have technical difficulties in a race or two ... but in 10 races ... the human will have no chance.
Yes because the human gets tired but when a top player like Anand, Topalov or Ivanchuk plays his best chess and has enough time to think he can beat the computer.
Vadim Milov won a match against Rybka 3 running on 8 cores but he had a pawn odd in the first game he won and the exchange odd in the second game he won.
Definitely no,maybe he can beat it once or twice,but winning a match of let say 12 games is impossible....
...
If we agree on the usual semantics which means 'impossible = close to 0%' it is not impossible in a match with 8 games. Even if we follow simple statistics and assume a top player with around 2800 elo and assume Rybka on an 8 core has 3200 elo(which no one really knows) the diff. is 400 elo and that is far from impossible it is just not too likely.
bigo wrote:i notice you left out kramnik?/ is it because of his lost to deep fritz 10 a program 200 points weaker then rybka? Btw the match was at 40/2 so the human had plenty of time
Kramnik is no longer in the top 5 but yes I believe he can still beat Rybka.
Think about it. Even with using alpha-beta pruning, a computer still needs to go through (or check) every move in the tree which can take a lot of time. Alpha-beta pruning also weakens the engine in some tactical positions. The computer might miss a tactical move which is actually the best one (see this thread)
A top GM doesn't need to go through every possible move because he knows by memory and experience which of these 47 moves is the best one without having to go through every move in the tree.
The human mind is incredibly parallel and computers havn't reached that level of parallelism yet. It will still take a lot of time under they do.
_No,definitely no,he can't beat even Rybka 2.3.2 running on a quad let alone Rybka 3 running on a 40 cores cluster....
_Human mind is incredibly parallel you say,eh
So why this incredible mind is getting kicked out every time it plays the machine
I know,tactics,but this answer isn't funny anymore....
Golden regards ,
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
M ANSARI wrote:At the moment, matching a strong hardwared Rybka 3 against the strongest GM in the world is like doing 10 race runs of 100 meters by the fastest human against a F1 car ... yes the F1 car might crash or have technical difficulties in a race or two ... but in 10 races ... the human will have no chance.
Yes because the human gets tired but when a top player like Anand, Topalov or Ivanchuk plays his best chess and has enough time to think he can beat the computer.
Vadim Milov won a match against Rybka 3 running on 8 cores but he had a pawn odd in the first game he won and the exchange odd in the second game he won.
Definitely no,maybe he can beat it once or twice,but winning a match of let say 12 games is impossible....
...
If we agree on the usual semantics which means 'impossible = close to 0%' it is not impossible in a match with 8 games. Even if we follow simple statistics and assume a top player with around 2800 elo and assume Rybka on an 8 core has 3200 elo(which no one really knows) the diff. is 400 elo and that is far from impossible it is just not too likely.
Guenther
Sounds good to me,yes....
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
,