TalkChess.com

A fair handicap is whatever the GM agrees upon.

A handicap giving equal chances? I think that is exactly what Larry Kaufman is trying to find out.

Of course, all this is only interesting if we match humans with state of the art AI. We are measuring how much stronger engines are than humans. At some point we will reach a limit. For example, it will never be possible for engines to give GMs queen-odds.

So this match is measuring not only engines, but also humans. This is what makes it so interesting. If it turns out that Rybka can successfully give pawn-odds to any human on the planet, then that would be an extremely interesting (and, to many, surprising) result.

Alkelele wrote: it will never be possible for engines to give GMs queen-odds.

Never say never. It sounds like opinions from the past, like

"Chess computers will never reach club player level."

After that has turned out wrong:

"But a chess program will never beat an IM..." (etc.)

Imagine somebody would have predicted in 1987, "a computer will give pawn odds to Ehlvest and win 3 games in a row!" Imagine the responses he might have got.

mschribr wrote:

Uri Blass wrote:

mschribr wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote: Maybe none of the above. Give the engine a time handicap and then we get a real game of Chess.

I agree. The best handicap is to cut the computer’s time in 1/2 or maybe 1/4.

I disagree.

I am even not sure if this is a handicap for the computer because the human can think less on the computer time.

rybka with 1/4 of the time beat easily chess programs that performed at 2700 level or better in tournaments.

I remember that old tiger and old shredder already got performance of more than 2700 some years ago.

Uri

Which tournament did rybka win with 1/4 of the time?
Computer vs computer is not the same as man vs computer.
The old tiger and old shredder performance of more than 2700 were not at handicap time.
Has there been man vs computer with time handicap?
Before we write off time handicap, lets have a man vs computer at ¼ the time and see what happens.
Mark

These tournaments were at relatively slower hardware than the hardware that rybka is using(tiger used only one processor) and I have no reason to think that computer vs computer is different than computer vs human.

If rybka with 1/4 of the time can beat tiger when both use one processor then I have no reason to think that the situation is going to be different against humans and that tiger is going to perform better against them.

Uri

Mike S. wrote:

Alkelele wrote: it will never be possible for engines to give GMs queen-odds.

Never say never. It sounds like opinions from the past, like

"Chess computers will never reach club player level."

After that has turned out wrong:

"But a chess program will never beat an IM..." (etc.)

Imagine somebody would have predicted in 1987, "a computer will give pawn odds to Ehlvest and win 3 games in a row!" Imagine the responses he might have got.

This is clearly different.
I never thought that chess computer will never reach club player level and it was always obvious for me that computers can get higher level than humans in every field.

people who claimed that computers will never reach club player level simply did not understand computers

People who claim that it may be possible that computers can give GM queen odd and still win or draw simply do not understand chess.

My opinion is that it is even impossible to do it without a knight and when you talk about a queen I am simply sure about it.

Uri

Uri Blass wrote: My opinion is that it is even impossible to do it without a knight and when you talk about a queen I am simply sure about it.

You have seen all these predictions, or claims of the past to turn out wrong, sooner or later. It isn't logical to make another claim of the same type.

I didn't claim that it will be possible for comps to give odds of a queen to a GM (or to any titled player) and still draw or win. Of course it seems unlikely, but if you would say "impossible!" it only proves that you don't have much phantasy. Don't forget, humans can be very strong, but not entirely perfect.

I just recommend "never say never" if you get this... That's what I learned from all these wrong claims of the past. The "limit of the impossible" was stupidly set higher again and again, whenever the next line had been crossed. My conclusion: It's better to consider that almost everything may be possible, sometimes in the future.

Your approach is pessimistic...

Mike S. wrote:

Uri Blass wrote: My opinion is that it is even impossible to do it without a knight and when you talk about a queen I am simply sure about it.

You have seen all these predictions, or claims of the past to turn out wrong, sooner or later. It isn't logical to make another claim of the same type.

I didn't claim that it will be possible for comps to give odds of a queen to a GM (or to any titled player) and still draw or win. Of course it seems unlikely, but if you would say "impossible!" it only proves that you don't have much phantasy. Don't forget, humans can be very strong, but not entirely perfect.

I just recommend "never say never" if you get this... That's what I learned from all these wrong claims of the past. The "limit of the impossible" was stupidly set higher again and again, whenever the next line had been crossed. My conclusion: It's better to consider that almost everything may be possible, sometimes in the future.

Your approach is pessimistic...

It is clearly logical that computers will play every game better than humans so claims like computer will never beat an IM do not make sense in the first place.

I do not think my approach is passimistic.
A queen is a lot and common sense tells me that it is simply impossible to beat strong humans without a queen.

Uri

Harvey Williamson wrote:

NKOTB wrote:In NFL football, games are made theoretically even by give one team points. Example, a bad team may be given a 21 point handicap to make the contest even.
.
with similar time controls to the current match, what handicap would the GM need so the match is considered even?

Maybe none of the above. Give the engine a time handicap and then we get a real game of Chess.

I agree too. Pawns and material are complicated issues. A piece is too much, even if one day we may see such exhibition challenges. In the case here of a pawn, I think the 'advantage' given is nothing like what was suggested. Remember that it is common to give a pawn in gambits in exchange for superior development. If I was to start a pawn less, then I would prefer it be the h-pawn or the g-pawn.

The h-pawn obviously is rarely a constructive pawn during the middlegame except as a battering ram for the attack. It is quite common for white to be looking for ways to get rid of it to free the way for the rook, so now instead of creating the situation and then eliminating the pawn, we eliminate the pawn and create the situation to justify it.

I'd like to see that same challenge with one of the central pawns missing. The engine might have open lines, but there would be a definite tradeoff.

Albert

you will see it. As Rybka is scheduled to play without each of his pawns.

for me personally odds games hold no interest

a victory against a computer with the human player receiving odds is a hollow victory at best and a circus exhibition at worst

it is like having a race with an automobile and a horse
how far ahead should the horse be allowed to start the race in order for it to have a chance at victory??

the underlying assumption of course is that the automobile is already faster on equal terms so lets see how bad it really is

rather then engage in more circus acts like this in the future
..if we are already conceding that the Engines are better then even our strongest GM's (by virtue of a match like this)..lets just separate the competition ..humans VS humans and Comps Vs Comps

if we as humans are now on the threshold of conceding defeat to the silicon monsters..lets leave the field of battle with dignity,,rather then like this..kicking and screaming and finding bizarre and unusual ways to say in the race

Pride in Defeat Regards
Steve

So far, I disagree with 57% of polsters who say that pawn and move will make the match even. Not because Rybka is up 3-0, but because how easily Rybka one these games. Just giving the Elhvest white, does not logically seem like enough. two pawns, or two pawns and move seem more like an even match.