Man vs chess engines,the endless issue....

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Hi all,
Please take a look here:

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 09&start=0

Now,do you think that the 2600 Elo rated GM did well or this is another proof that the machines had surpassed the humans by several light years already

Please drop your opinion if interested in this thread

[Albert Silver]

Hi all,
Please take a look here:

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 09&start=0

Now,do you think that the 2600 Elo rated GM did well or this is another proof that the machines had surpassed the humans by several light years already

Please drop your opinion if interested in this thread

Yeah. Gee. Wow. Who would believe a GM could lose to a computer? Completely agree this is an endless issue. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

[Matthias Gemuh]

Hi all,
Please take a look here:

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 09&start=0

Now,do you think that the 2600 Elo rated GM did well or this is another proof that the machines had surpassed the humans by several light years already

Please drop your opinion if interested in this thread

People who still claim that strongest humans are better at chess than strongest engines on QuadCore (or better), are just too embarassed to admit that that they are totally wrong !
Why deny facts ?

Matthias.

[Tony Thomas]

Hi all,
Please take a look here:

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 09&start=0

Now,do you think that the 2600 Elo rated GM did well or this is another proof that the machines had surpassed the humans by several light years already

Please drop your opinion if interested in this thread

People who still claim that strongest humans are better at chess than strongest engines on QuadCore (or better), are just too embarassed to admit that that they are totally wrong !
Why deny facts ?

Matthias.

I happen to agree that there are times when programs look over things. Romi has been beaten online by merely 2000 rated humans 3 times in about 40 or so games humans Played against Romi. I however have my doubts as to if they can beat a program such as Rybka consistently without advantages.

[Uri]

It depends. Some GMs know how to exploit computer weaknesses better than others and so are better against computers. It's really difficult to say who is better. GMs are very strong strategically, computers are very strong tactically especially in open positions so in a 1 till 5 minute games computers have the upper hand but in a 90m+30s game, the GM has the upper hand over the computer i think.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Thanks for your comments so far,I still believe that the strtegically weaker chess engines are still stronger than the tactically weaker humans

[Gandalf]

I think that the effect of faster hardware is overrated when it comes to how well a top engine performs against humans. After all, engines are vastly better than humans in tactics either way, and in the rare situations where humans prevail it is because of strategy and not tactics. Would Kasparov have noticed a difference between a 12 and 16 ply searcher? On the other hand, would he have noticed the difference between Rybka 1.0's eval and Rybka 2.3.2a's eval?

[Michael Sherwin]

I think that the effect of faster hardware is overrated when it comes to how well a top engine performs against humans. After all, engines are vastly better than humans in tactics either way, and in the rare situations where humans prevail it is because of strategy and not tactics. Would Kasparov have noticed a difference between a 12 and 16 ply searcher? On the other hand, would he have noticed the difference between Rybka 1.0's eval and Rybka 2.3.2a's eval?

When you say, "12 and 16", I assume that you are refering to Kasparov vs Deep Blue. If that is true then Kasparov would have 'easily' won the match if Deep Blue was only searching 12 ply. If you are strictly refering to Rybka then no, because compared to Deep Blue, Rybka is a strategical monster. A 12 ply Rybka would probably win a match against a 16 ply Deep Blue (JMO). I have played alot of games against free Rybka and Rybka shuts down any 'strategical' plan that I have ever had, mostly before I can get it going.

[Kurt Utzinger]

Hi all,
Please take a look here:

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 09&start=0

Now,do you think that the 2600 Elo rated GM did well or this is another
proof that the machines had surpassed the humans by several light years
already

Please drop your opinion if interested in this thread

Why was the GM willing to play at (for human absolutely hopeless) time
control of 15m+10s ?? No other comments are needed for this useless match.
Kurt

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Hi all,
Please take a look here:

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 09&start=0

Now,do you think that the 2600 Elo rated GM did well or this is another
proof that the machines had surpassed the humans by several light years
already

Please drop your opinion if interested in this thread

Why was the GM willing to play at (for human absolutely hopeless) time
control of 15m+10s ?? No other comments are needed for this useless match.
Kurt

But he is 2600 rated professional GM,he can play blitz chess games against stronger humans at 3 minutes + ?? increment,so what's the problem by playing with 15m+10s

Note that he was playing against amateur chess engines,strong but still....

My personal opinion is that even if he was playing using one hour and the engines using the current time control,the outcome won't be much different,maybe another half point....

Again,he's a 2600 rated GM for God sake....