Page 2 of 2

Re: The same as 10 years ago

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 4:14 pm
by Carlos777
Have you tried Rybka 3 human or any other "antihuman" version of some commercial engines? Could that be a valid solution for this kind of closed positions against humans? I'd like to know your opinions about this.

Re: The same as 10 years ago

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 4:56 pm
by Dr.Wael Deeb
Carlos777 wrote:Have you tried Rybka 3 human or any other "antihuman" version of some commercial engines? Could that be a valid solution for this kind of closed positions against humans? I'd like to know your opinions about this.
I am sure that he won't have a chance against Chess Tiger 2007.1 with anti human feature switched on......
Dr.D

Re: The same as 10 years ago

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:26 am
by Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:


Hi Ingo.
I do not see what the difference is.
Both are competitive advantages for one or the other side.
When I play against a human, I might get distracted, but my opponent could get too.

Concerning the Shredder games.
If the computer is rated 3400 at playchess, then the 2600-rated opponents are simply too weak. I do not know how this correlates to elo,
but experimental evidence shows that if an opponent is 100 elo points better than you, he can play a pawn down on equal terms. 300 elo difference would mean that the opponent could play on equal terms a minor piece down, etc. Obviously, with an 800 points difference, Shredder could safely sacrifice a queen for a pawn and still win the game.

Best,
Ludmil


I disagree here.
Queen against a pawn is a huge advantage and I expect to win against everybody including players who are 800 elo stronger with that material advantage.

I can add that you cannot translate material to elo difference.

I expect a player with rating 1100 to score more than 50% against
a player with rating 1000 with a pawn handicap.

I expect a player with rating 3100 to score less than 50% against
a player with rating 3000 with a pawn handicap.
You might be right, Uri.
This makes sense as stronger players will have to exploit subtler ways of
gaining advantage.
My point was meant just as an approximation.

Re: The same as 10 years ago

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:47 am
by Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Carlos777 wrote:Have you tried Rybka 3 human or any other "antihuman" version of some commercial engines? Could that be a valid solution for this kind of closed positions against humans? I'd like to know your opinions about this.
Hi Carlos.
I might have played some games against it, but it was weaker than Rybka 3 default anyway.
If I use Ingo's arguments to substantiate my point, in the case of Rybka 3 Human it will have the unfair advantage of presumably knowing whom it is
playing against:) I would not mind, of course, and I think that even when I know that I am going to expect open positions and some sacrifices, I will still score somewhat lower than against Rybka 3 default, or Rybka 3 Human will score better against me than Rybka 3 default, as you like it.
I do not think this could be a cure since the engine will be objectively weaker, and that does not really make sense. Besides, I am at all not certain if Rybka 3 Human will be able to avoid all variations closing the position without compromising too much on quality and exposing itself to some risks. What would be the sense of that?
What I was talking about was real positional weaknesses in engines that damage the overall play and the rating, but this simply would not be traced down by engine-engine play and computer rating lists, because almost all top engines (there might be 1 or 2 exceptions to a certain degree, I am not sure) do not know how to play such positions adequately.

Best regards,
Ludmil