Lev Alburt comments

[Dayffd]

In Chess Life, February, 2011, p.44, GM Lev Alburt writes, "Computers play below the 2600 level, with one very important exception: they never blunder." He continues, "I believe that playing under the old classic regimen )40 moves in 2 1/2 hours, followed by adjourning) Anand and Kramnik should beat Rybka and Fritz."

He then presents a game Richard Moody (USCF 1706 N.Y.; I believe this is the Richard Moody as he is a "B" player and this is the only "B" player on the list of three individuals with this name) played against Fritz 12:

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Richard, Moody"]
[Black "Fritz 12"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B40"]
[PlyCount "82"]
[EventDate "2011.02.09"]
[SourceDate "2011.02.09"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 d6 6. Nc3 Nf6 7. Nc2 Qa5 8. f3
Be7 9. Ne3 O-O 10. Be2 Bd7 11. O-O Qc5 12. Kh1 h5 13. Nc2 h4 14. Be3 Qh5 15. f4
Qg6 16. Bf3 a6 17. a4 h3 18. Rg1 hxg2+ 19. Rxg2 Qh7 20. Qe2 Rfc8 21. Rag1 g6
22. e5 dxe5 23. fxe5 Nxe5 24. Bxb7 Bc6 25. Bxc6 Nxc6 26. Rf1 Nd7 27. Ne4 Nce5
28. b3 a5 29. Nd4 Qh4 30. Rf4 Qh7 31. Nb5 f5 32. Ned6 Rc6 33. Nxf5 exf5 34.
Rxf5 Re8 35. Nd4 Rf6 36. Rh5 Qf7 37. Rh6 Bf8 38. Rh3 Bc5 39. Qh5 Rf1+ 40. Bg1
Qg7 41. Rhg3 Bxd4 0-1


After 5... d6 GM Alburt writes, "...It is strange that Fritz has chosen this line, well known to be inferior unless he is programmed to very his opening widely. The normal 5...Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4 quickly leads to equality.

I suspect:

1. Fritz 12 was not playing at full strength.

2. As GM Alburt commented, Fritz 12 may have had it's opening set to allow a wide variety.

Would anyone care to comment?

[stevenaaus]

In Chess Life, February, 2011, p.44, GM Lev Alburt writes, "Computers play below the 2600 level, with one very important exception: they never blunder."

This is interesting, and could well be true in *some sense*, but as someone who plays squash and chess at a moderate level, i'm quite aware of the importance of endurance (ie - not making mistakes) to winning. Competitive sports between peers are generally determined by not making errors, so while computers may still not create overpowering attacking positions that GMs are capable of, their reliability is overpowering.

He continues, "I believe that playing under the old classic regimen ) 40 moves in 2 1/2 hours, followed by adjourning) Anand and Kramnik should beat Rybka and Fritz."

I'm not sure i agree with this though. Us humans fatigue noticeably playing chess for such a long time.

[LaurenceChen]

In Chess Life, February, 2011, p.44, GM Lev Alburt writes, "Computers play below the 2600 level, with one very important exception: they never blunder." He continues, "I believe that playing under the old classic regimen )40 moves in 2 1/2 hours, followed by adjourning) Anand and Kramnik should beat Rybka and Fritz."

He then presents a game Richard Moody (USCF 1706 N.Y.; I believe this is the Richard Moody as he is a "B" player and this is the only "B" player on the list of three individuals with this name) played against Fritz 12:

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Richard, Moody"]
[Black "Fritz 12"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B40"]
[PlyCount "82"]
[EventDate "2011.02.09"]
[SourceDate "2011.02.09"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 d6 6. Nc3 Nf6 7. Nc2 Qa5 8. f3
Be7 9. Ne3 O-O 10. Be2 Bd7 11. O-O Qc5 12. Kh1 h5 13. Nc2 h4 14. Be3 Qh5 15. f4
Qg6 16. Bf3 a6 17. a4 h3 18. Rg1 hxg2+ 19. Rxg2 Qh7 20. Qe2 Rfc8 21. Rag1 g6
22. e5 dxe5 23. fxe5 Nxe5 24. Bxb7 Bc6 25. Bxc6 Nxc6 26. Rf1 Nd7 27. Ne4 Nce5
28. b3 a5 29. Nd4 Qh4 30. Rf4 Qh7 31. Nb5 f5 32. Ned6 Rc6 33. Nxf5 exf5 34.
Rxf5 Re8 35. Nd4 Rf6 36. Rh5 Qf7 37. Rh6 Bf8 38. Rh3 Bc5 39. Qh5 Rf1+ 40. Bg1
Qg7 41. Rhg3 Bxd4 0-1


After 5... d6 GM Alburt writes, "...It is strange that Fritz has chosen this line, well known to be inferior unless he is programmed to very his opening widely. The normal 5...Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4 quickly leads to equality.

I suspect:

1. Fritz 12 was not playing at full strength.

2. As GM Alburt commented, Fritz 12 may have had it's opening set to allow a wide variety.

Would anyone care to comment?

Larry's comments are not justified. He must have missed the Kasparov vs. Deep Junior match which was played at classical times. The match finished at a draw 3-3. And in the Kramnik vs Deep Fritz also ended with a draw.

[Dayffd]

In Chess Life, February, 2011, p.44, GM Lev Alburt writes, "Computers play below the 2600 level, with one very important exception: they never blunder." He continues, "I believe that playing under the old classic regimen )40 moves in 2 1/2 hours, followed by adjourning) Anand and Kramnik should beat Rybka and Fritz."

He then presents a game Richard Moody (USCF 1706 N.Y.; I believe this is the Richard Moody as he is a "B" player and this is the only "B" player on the list of three individuals with this name) played against Fritz 12:

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Richard, Moody"]
[Black "Fritz 12"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B40"]
[PlyCount "82"]
[EventDate "2011.02.09"]
[SourceDate "2011.02.09"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 d6 6. Nc3 Nf6 7. Nc2 Qa5 8. f3
Be7 9. Ne3 O-O 10. Be2 Bd7 11. O-O Qc5 12. Kh1 h5 13. Nc2 h4 14. Be3 Qh5 15. f4
Qg6 16. Bf3 a6 17. a4 h3 18. Rg1 hxg2+ 19. Rxg2 Qh7 20. Qe2 Rfc8 21. Rag1 g6
22. e5 dxe5 23. fxe5 Nxe5 24. Bxb7 Bc6 25. Bxc6 Nxc6 26. Rf1 Nd7 27. Ne4 Nce5
28. b3 a5 29. Nd4 Qh4 30. Rf4 Qh7 31. Nb5 f5 32. Ned6 Rc6 33. Nxf5 exf5 34.
Rxf5 Re8 35. Nd4 Rf6 36. Rh5 Qf7 37. Rh6 Bf8 38. Rh3 Bc5 39. Qh5 Rf1+ 40. Bg1
Qg7 41. Rhg3 Bxd4 0-1


After 5... d6 GM Alburt writes, "...It is strange that Fritz has chosen this line, well known to be inferior unless he is programmed to very his opening widely. The normal 5...Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4 quickly leads to equality.

I suspect:

1. Fritz 12 was not playing at full strength.

2. As GM Alburt commented, Fritz 12 may have had it's opening set to allow a wide variety.

Would anyone care to comment?

Larry's comments are not justified. He must have missed the Kasparov vs. Deep Junior match which was played at classical times. The match finished at a draw 3-3. And in the Kramnik vs Deep Fritz also ended with a draw.

Not only must Lev have missed those two matches, he also must have missed the match Bareev - Hiarcs X (a version of Hiarcs 8) ending with 4 draws so long ago (later that version was named Hiarcs 8 Bareev I think. At any rate that one is also in my stable.). There were numerous other matches, notably Judit Polgar vs Fritz 5.32 and tournaments such as in Buenos Aires where Chess Tiger and Shredder (I think) played and other tournaments, to the point where some years ago, if I am not mistaken, a number of grandmasters refused to play in tournaments where such as Fritz et al would be allowed to play. The point being I think he is wrong in this, but I also acknowledge he is infinitely better than I am at this game. And not to belittle Fritz by any means, but Fritz apparently is not one of the top (10?) engines any more.

[yanquis1972]

gm lev alburt should not win a single game even against rybka and fritz even with a quick & dirty blunder check assisting him.

[PauloSoare]

It would be interesting to know which computer was used in the game.
It would be a 486 33 processor or maybe a i7 980X?
Regardless, he showed only one game, I wish he would show at least 100 games.

[michiguel]

In Chess Life, February, 2011, p.44, GM Lev Alburt writes, "Computers play below the 2600 level, with one very important exception: they never blunder." He continues, "I believe that playing under the old classic regimen )40 moves in 2 1/2 hours, followed by adjourning) Anand and Kramnik should beat Rybka and Fritz."

He then presents a game Richard Moody (USCF 1706 N.Y.; I believe this is the Richard Moody as he is a "B" player and this is the only "B" player on the list of three individuals with this name) played against Fritz 12:

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Richard, Moody"]
[Black "Fritz 12"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B40"]
[PlyCount "82"]
[EventDate "2011.02.09"]
[SourceDate "2011.02.09"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 d6 6. Nc3 Nf6 7. Nc2 Qa5 8. f3
Be7 9. Ne3 O-O 10. Be2 Bd7 11. O-O Qc5 12. Kh1 h5 13. Nc2 h4 14. Be3 Qh5 15. f4
Qg6 16. Bf3 a6 17. a4 h3 18. Rg1 hxg2+ 19. Rxg2 Qh7 20. Qe2 Rfc8 21. Rag1 g6
22. e5 dxe5 23. fxe5 Nxe5 24. Bxb7 Bc6 25. Bxc6 Nxc6 26. Rf1 Nd7 27. Ne4 Nce5
28. b3 a5 29. Nd4 Qh4 30. Rf4 Qh7 31. Nb5 f5 32. Ned6 Rc6 33. Nxf5 exf5 34.
Rxf5 Re8 35. Nd4 Rf6 36. Rh5 Qf7 37. Rh6 Bf8 38. Rh3 Bc5 39. Qh5 Rf1+ 40. Bg1
Qg7 41. Rhg3 Bxd4 0-1


After 5... d6 GM Alburt writes, "...It is strange that Fritz has chosen this line, well known to be inferior unless he is programmed to very his opening widely. The normal 5...Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4 quickly leads to equality.

I suspect:

1. Fritz 12 was not playing at full strength.

2. As GM Alburt commented, Fritz 12 may have had it's opening set to allow a wide variety.

Would anyone care to comment?

Larry's comments are not justified. He must have missed the Kasparov vs. Deep Junior match which was played at classical times. The match finished at a draw 3-3. And in the Kramnik vs Deep Fritz also ended with a draw.

Not only must Lev have missed those two matches, he also must have missed the match Bareev - Hiarcs X (a version of Hiarcs 8) ending with 4 draws so long ago (later that version was named Hiarcs 8 Bareev I think. At any rate that one is also in my stable.). There were numerous other matches, notably Judit Polgar vs Fritz 5.32 and tournaments such as in Buenos Aires where Chess Tiger and Shredder (I think) played and other tournaments, to the point where some years ago, if I am not mistaken, a number of grandmasters refused to play in tournaments where such as Fritz et al would be allowed to play. The point being I think he is wrong in this, but I also acknowledge he is infinitely better than I am at this game. And not to belittle Fritz by any means, but Fritz apparently is not one of the top (10?) engines any more.

Just for the record, in none of those mentioned matches, the old traditional time control was used.

Miguel

[Richard Allbert]

I agree.

In man vs machine, the machine has the advantage of tactical computing power.

The man has the advantage of feel, talent, and knowledge.

Why computers are then allowed to use books and tablebases in man vs machine has always puzzled me. Why shouldn't the man then be given an engine to refer to to check tactics?

Let an engine start from scratch, and the play is not normally very good.

imho, of course

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I agree.

In man vs machine, the machine has the advantage of tactical computing power.

The man has the advantage of feel, talent, and knowledge.

Why computers are then allowed to use books and tablebases in man vs machine has always puzzled me. Why shouldn't the man then be given an engine to refer to to check tactics?

Let an engine start from scratch, and the play is not normally very good.

imho, of course

I dare to differ here....

The right approach would be to let the human use an opening book to a certin depth as the engine and then carry on with the game....

Letting another engine to check for tactical blunders is gonna ruin the whole concept of the competiton...it's gonna be the so called advanced chess which is not my cup of tea by the way....

Shutting off the tablebases is a good idea though which will bring the competition another step close to fair play....

Dr.D

[Dann Corbit]

In Chess Life, February, 2011, p.44, GM Lev Alburt writes, "Computers play below the 2600 level, with one very important exception: they never blunder." He continues, "I believe that playing under the old classic regimen )40 moves in 2 1/2 hours, followed by adjourning) Anand and Kramnik should beat Rybka and Fritz."

He then presents a game Richard Moody (USCF 1706 N.Y.; I believe this is the Richard Moody as he is a "B" player and this is the only "B" player on the list of three individuals with this name) played against Fritz 12:

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Richard, Moody"]
[Black "Fritz 12"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B40"]
[PlyCount "82"]
[EventDate "2011.02.09"]
[SourceDate "2011.02.09"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 d6 6. Nc3 Nf6 7. Nc2 Qa5 8. f3
Be7 9. Ne3 O-O 10. Be2 Bd7 11. O-O Qc5 12. Kh1 h5 13. Nc2 h4 14. Be3 Qh5 15. f4
Qg6 16. Bf3 a6 17. a4 h3 18. Rg1 hxg2+ 19. Rxg2 Qh7 20. Qe2 Rfc8 21. Rag1 g6
22. e5 dxe5 23. fxe5 Nxe5 24. Bxb7 Bc6 25. Bxc6 Nxc6 26. Rf1 Nd7 27. Ne4 Nce5
28. b3 a5 29. Nd4 Qh4 30. Rf4 Qh7 31. Nb5 f5 32. Ned6 Rc6 33. Nxf5 exf5 34.
Rxf5 Re8 35. Nd4 Rf6 36. Rh5 Qf7 37. Rh6 Bf8 38. Rh3 Bc5 39. Qh5 Rf1+ 40. Bg1
Qg7 41. Rhg3 Bxd4 0-1


After 5... d6 GM Alburt writes, "...It is strange that Fritz has chosen this line, well known to be inferior unless he is programmed to very his opening widely. The normal 5...Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4 quickly leads to equality.

I suspect:

1. Fritz 12 was not playing at full strength.

2. As GM Alburt commented, Fritz 12 may have had it's opening set to allow a wide variety.

Would anyone care to comment?

Larry's comments are not justified. He must have missed the Kasparov vs. Deep Junior match which was played at classical times. The match finished at a draw 3-3. And in the Kramnik vs Deep Fritz also ended with a draw.

Not only must Lev have missed those two matches, he also must have missed the match Bareev - Hiarcs X (a version of Hiarcs 8) ending with 4 draws so long ago (later that version was named Hiarcs 8 Bareev I think. At any rate that one is also in my stable.). There were numerous other matches, notably Judit Polgar vs Fritz 5.32 and tournaments such as in Buenos Aires where Chess Tiger and Shredder (I think) played and other tournaments, to the point where some years ago, if I am not mistaken, a number of grandmasters refused to play in tournaments where such as Fritz et al would be allowed to play. The point being I think he is wrong in this, but I also acknowledge he is infinitely better than I am at this game. And not to belittle Fritz by any means, but Fritz apparently is not one of the top (10?) engines any more.

Just for the record, in none of those mentioned matches, the old traditional time control was used.

Miguel

For humans, it seems clear that "the slower the better."

I suspect that even at correspondence chess, the best engines on the best hardware are formidable. They also have the advantage of exponential increase in compute power (I remember when a chess engine that did tens of thousands of NPS was awesome).

Be that as it may, I suspect that if the top correspondence GMs carefully studied anticomputer tactics they could hold their own against the best programs for a few years to come. Eventually, even that barrier must fall as compute power marches ever forward.