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.
1)It is funny that rybka3 finds Ne5 in the relevant thread but a single case when rybka cannot find the best move can prove nothing.
2)A top GM does not know by memory and experience what is the best move(otherwise top GM's could avoid mistakes and they cannot do it).
3)Rybka is using other pruning methods except alpha-beta
4)Computers are clearly parallel and I doubt if the human mind is.
Try a simple exercise that is similiar to using 4 cores.
Ask 4 humans to talk at the same time about 4 different subjects and try to understand what everyone is saying.
Can you do it?
Computers probably will have no problem to do it assuming that they can understand what one person say.
They may be inferior to humans in subjects like understanding human voice but as soon as they get it they will have no problem to understand many human voices at the same time.
Uri Blass wrote:
1)It is funny that rybka3 finds Ne5 in the relevant thread but a single case when rybka cannot find the best move can prove nothing.
I really don't know why "my" Rybka doesn't find it. I have an old 1 core computer so maybe on a 4 core computer with more hash it finds it immediately.
Uri Blass wrote:
4)Computers are clearly parallel and I doubt if the human mind is.
The human brain (some say we are more than our brain but anyway) is a neural network. So is it not parallel?
Anyway the human brain has another interesting property which the computer doesn't: consciousness. Computer don't have consciousness and they cannot see or perceive. They can only work with numbers of 1 and 0 and follow the instructions which the human programmed into them. Deep down, computers are just human. The match is basically human vs. human.
Uri Blass wrote:
1)It is funny that rybka3 finds Ne5 in the relevant thread but a single case when rybka cannot find the best move can prove nothing.
I really don't know why "my" Rybka doesn't find it. I have an old 1 core computer so maybe on a 4 core computer with more hash it finds it immediately.
Uri Blass wrote:
4)Computers are clearly parallel and I doubt if the human mind is.
The human brain (some say we are more than our brain but anyway) is a neural network. So is it not parallel?
Anyway the human brain has another interesting property which the computer doesn't: consciousness. Computer don't have consciousness and they cannot see or perceive. They can only work with numbers of 1 and 0 and follow the instructions which the human programmed into them. Deep down, computers are just human. The match is basically human vs. human.
With all due respect,this is a pure sample of speculation
_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….
Only (human beings) playing against machines, would be us learning about machines. I hope to see many, "many games" in man versus machine, GMS, IMS, FM, EXPERTS, HOBBY CHESS PLAYERS.
This is a really beutifull war.
I hope to se HYDRA AGAIN, RYBKA, HIARCS, SHREDDER, JUNIOR, FRITZ, CRAFTY, TIGER, PLAYING AGAINST humans.
I hope to learn too how to draw and beat Rybka 4 and many other furure softwares,
Best,
Pablo
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.
Only (human beings) playing against machines, would be us learning about machines. I hope to see many, "many games" in man versus machine, GMS, IMS, FM, EXPERTS, HOBBY CHESS PLAYERS.
This is a really beutifull war.
I hope to se HYDRA AGAIN, RYBKA, HIARCS, SHREDDER, JUNIOR, FRITZ, CRAFTY, TIGER, PLAYING AGAINST humans.
I hope to learn too how to draw and beat Rybka 4 and many other furure softwares,
Best,
Pablo
Playing machines and recording your moves is a very good teacher.
Do you play the machine using the same opening time and again
to learn moves that will lead to the draw.
You haven't posted any of your games lately.
I have been tryining watching games to the machine against machine, seeing my Fritz 11 against my Rybka 3. Trying to understand something about this high chess level. I have been playing some hanicaping games too as human.
About my games against chess machines, I would like to wait some time until Rybka 4 Fritz 12, and others softwares.
Best tou you Gerold.
Pablo
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.
Uri Blass wrote:
1)It is funny that rybka3 finds Ne5 in the relevant thread but a single case when rybka cannot find the best move can prove nothing.
I really don't know why "my" Rybka doesn't find it. I have an old 1 core computer so maybe on a 4 core computer with more hash it finds it immediately.
Uri Blass wrote:
4)Computers are clearly parallel and I doubt if the human mind is.
The human brain (some say we are more than our brain but anyway) is a neural network. So is it not parallel?
Anyway the human brain has another interesting property which the computer doesn't: consciousness. Computer don't have consciousness and they cannot see or perceive. They can only work with numbers of 1 and 0 and follow the instructions which the human programmed into them. Deep down, computers are just human. The match is basically human vs. human.
With all due respect,this is a pure sample of speculation
Interesting...I think of man vs. machine in the context that the computer is really an armored human, and the GM is the unarmored human.
I will concede the fact that computers are better at calculating than the GM's are. This is evident and clear. However, humans are still more creative and intuitive than Rybka 3, Fritz, Junior, and Shredder.
The only reason that computers can beat humans now is that the hardware has increased significantly in the last 10 years....Kasparov would have crushed Rybka 10 years ago.
Uri Blass wrote:
1)It is funny that rybka3 finds Ne5 in the relevant thread but a single case when rybka cannot find the best move can prove nothing.
I really don't know why "my" Rybka doesn't find it. I have an old 1 core computer so maybe on a 4 core computer with more hash it finds it immediately.
Uri Blass wrote:
4)Computers are clearly parallel and I doubt if the human mind is.
The human brain (some say we are more than our brain but anyway) is a neural network. So is it not parallel?
Anyway the human brain has another interesting property which the computer doesn't: consciousness. Computer don't have consciousness and they cannot see or perceive. They can only work with numbers of 1 and 0 and follow the instructions which the human programmed into them. Deep down, computers are just human. The match is basically human vs. human.
With all due respect,this is a pure sample of speculation
Interesting...I think of man vs. machine in the context that the computer is really an armored human, and the GM is the unarmored human.
I will concede the fact that computers are better at calculating than the GM's are. This is evident and clear. However, humans are still more creative and intuitive than Rybka 3, Fritz, Junior, and Shredder.
The only reason that computers can beat humans now is that the hardware has increased significantly in the last 10 years....Kasparov would have crushed Rybka 10 years ago.
So,the bottom line is that:No top human GM can crush Rybka 3+,which is coming soon by the way,running even on an octal machine let alone a 40 cores cluster machine....
_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….
Uri Blass wrote:
1)It is funny that rybka3 finds Ne5 in the relevant thread but a single case when rybka cannot find the best move can prove nothing.
I really don't know why "my" Rybka doesn't find it. I have an old 1 core computer so maybe on a 4 core computer with more hash it finds it immediately.
Uri Blass wrote:
4)Computers are clearly parallel and I doubt if the human mind is.
The human brain (some say we are more than our brain but anyway) is a neural network. So is it not parallel?
Anyway the human brain has another interesting property which the computer doesn't: consciousness. Computer don't have consciousness and they cannot see or perceive. They can only work with numbers of 1 and 0 and follow the instructions which the human programmed into them. Deep down, computers are just human. The match is basically human vs. human.
With all due respect,this is a pure sample of speculation
Interesting...I think of man vs. machine in the context that the computer is really an armored human, and the GM is the unarmored human.
I will concede the fact that computers are better at calculating than the GM's are. This is evident and clear. However, humans are still more creative and intuitive than Rybka 3, Fritz, Junior, and Shredder.
The only reason that computers can beat humans now is that the hardware has increased significantly in the last 10 years....Kasparov would have crushed Rybka 10 years ago.
So,the bottom line is that:No top human GM can crush Rybka 3+,which is coming soon by the way,running even on an octal machine let alone a 40 cores cluster machine....
I think that the best that they can do is draw a match with Rybka. Possibly only Kasparov would even have a chance to do it.
Uri Blass wrote:
1)It is funny that rybka3 finds Ne5 in the relevant thread but a single case when rybka cannot find the best move can prove nothing.
I really don't know why "my" Rybka doesn't find it. I have an old 1 core computer so maybe on a 4 core computer with more hash it finds it immediately.
Uri Blass wrote:
4)Computers are clearly parallel and I doubt if the human mind is.
The human brain (some say we are more than our brain but anyway) is a neural network. So is it not parallel?
Anyway the human brain has another interesting property which the computer doesn't: consciousness. Computer don't have consciousness and they cannot see or perceive. They can only work with numbers of 1 and 0 and follow the instructions which the human programmed into them. Deep down, computers are just human. The match is basically human vs. human.
With all due respect,this is a pure sample of speculation
Interesting...I think of man vs. machine in the context that the computer is really an armored human, and the GM is the unarmored human.
I will concede the fact that computers are better at calculating than the GM's are. This is evident and clear. However, humans are still more creative and intuitive than Rybka 3, Fritz, Junior, and Shredder.
The only reason that computers can beat humans now is that the hardware has increased significantly in the last 10 years....Kasparov would have crushed Rybka 10 years ago.
It is totally unclear and we do not know it.
People can also say that the only reason that computer can beat humans is better software by the same logic because kasparov could beat every software of 1998 on hardware of today(I also do not know if this is correct).
