S.Taylor wrote:
Martin,
Are you allowed to change details after you say you will do something? If so, can i say what _I_ would vote for?
That is, that IF by game 12, Rybka has earned a +5 score, then the outcome is certain enough, and you need not show us how well Rybka crushes SF... unless that was what interests us.
IF SF has won one game, and you want to see it happen again, in order to observe things a bit more, then I would give it to the very most, till game 24.
Next match?
If new Houdini is out by July 15, and seems to be a clear improvement over Houdini 1.02, then that can go vs. Rybka. If not, do other things (Hiarcs/SF?) and leave Rybka for later.
The point of these matches are not outcome X or Y. They will run all the way from game 1 through 48. Of course it might not always be equally matched participants, but that is not the point either.
I will await Houdini 1.03 and see how it fares, if it's a major improvement it might go vs Rybka else it will go vs Stockfish.
Best Regards,
Martin
Maybe i have to understand what constitutes "entertainment", and what does not.
I would think that hearing/reading the result tables, is considered seeing who is rated what. But that entertalnment, is watching it happen.
If it is "purely entertainment", so why not see computer play itself, on same settings? After all it's nothing to do with which is stronger or not.
Well I'm not GM only FM. Your comments are very interesting and show good understanding of chess in general:).
I think that those engines are of course stronger than GM's in competition play but only because the GM's will make one time or another an inaccuracy, miscalculation or other weak move that can be punished immediately by the brute power of the computer. But certainly also no computer has yet the equivalent of a GM understanding of a position.
Computers have a rating corresponding to their results and based on a big numbers of games this rating is a god measure of their real strenght. But a GM in most cases has a rating lower than his real strenght as so many elements influence negatively his results in tournaments .
Maybe the future is open to "centaur" tournaments .
S.Taylor wrote:43.e3e4 (G13), that's a shame (according to my feelings). White may think that it's good to exchange a bad bishop for Blacks good one. But I'm not so sure if in this case, white cannot use it to attack more than black can use his to defend.
Now, It looks to me like Black can more easily defend, and certainly not lose this game.
(Ah! OK, so maybe it WAS a good idea, and will keep the advantage, as the exchange by black will also give white a central past pawn which might be useful).
In general, however, I feel happy that Stockfish made such a good recovery and at 12 games was trailing by only one.
It may indeed do better than Houdini did, in the end.
Looking at G13, and the move 43. e4 by SF, there is nothing wrong with this move at all. Actually it is a good move. It closes the position and stops any pawn breaks by Black. White's Bishop is centalized and it pins Black bishop... So the position is about even.
OK. And now, Game 14, was there any sense in Rybka playing 48.QxQ+? (unless he was a tired human who wanted to simplify). Wouldn't 48.Qd7 have offered better chances of playing for a win?
[Again, if i missed something tactical, then i retract. I really ought to computer check, before posting here].
(((((Except that now when i look back, I suddenly see that it's already next game and that Rybka is considered to have won. So obviously, there was no need for my suggestions. Good lessons to learn from these games! Let me now figure it out!)))))
pacifist wrote:Well I'm not GM only FM. Your comments are very interesting and show good understanding of chess in general:).
I think that those engines are of course stronger than GM's in competition play but only because the GM's will make one time or another an inaccuracy, miscalculation or other weak move that can be punished immediately by the brute power of the computer. But certainly also no computer has yet the equivalent of a GM understanding of a position.
Computers have a rating corresponding to their results and based on a big numbers of games this rating is a god measure of their real strenght. But a GM in most cases has a rating lower than his real strenght as so many elements influence negatively his results in tournaments .
Maybe the future is open to "centaur" tournaments .
Thanks (for all this post). It is very interesting, as well as what I also had basically thought.
Many people seem to have some psychological blockage whenever it comes to admitting that human performance is SO non machine-like. It doesn't let them feel as secure as they like to be in their beliefs and judgements.
OK, so there may still be frequent elementary wrong judgements by the greatest computer programs, which if corrected would make a difference in how many games it wins, and that humans can often guide the computer to do better, if allowed to intervene, during games.
This is advanced chess (Or centaur).
By the way, is your interest in music (according to your profile) Classical? (in my case, it is).
pacifist wrote:Well I'm not GM only FM. Your comments are very interesting and show good understanding of chess in general:).
I think that those engines are of course stronger than GM's in competition play but only because the GM's will make one time or another an inaccuracy, miscalculation or other weak move that can be punished immediately by the brute power of the computer. But certainly also no computer has yet the equivalent of a GM understanding of a position.
Computers have a rating corresponding to their results and based on a big numbers of games this rating is a god measure of their real strenght. But a GM in most cases has a rating lower than his real strenght as so many elements influence negatively his results in tournaments .
Maybe the future is open to "centaur" tournaments .
_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….
Excuse me, but I don't see the point of this link that refers to blitz games on the internet and has nothing to do with what I said. I know that computers crush human players (specially on rapid games). I speak of "understanding" of a position (or the equivalent from a computer since they don't think ). For example a GM will notice a weakness in a position and he will build a plan to profit from that weakness. Make it bigger, create another one, etc,...The problem is that during the process of exploiting that weakness he has to make concrete moves and he has no right to make an error as a single tactical blunder of a depht for example of 12 moves can cost him the game. And that will happen very often. That's all I'm saying.
And in such times it apply what Bolzoni says: computers punish every weak move or miscalculation, very probable from human part at those fast tc.
I bet those GM played HIARCS at slow tc on private (as training for example) with better scores and they give a try on fast public games on those fast tc. In case they loose, the reason is:
Computers punish every weak move or miscalculation, very probable from human part at those fast tc.
LaurenceChen wrote:
Looking at G13, and the move 43. e4 by SF, there is nothing wrong with this move at all. Actually it is a good move. It closes the position and stops any pawn breaks by Black. White's Bishop is centalized and it pins Black bishop... So the position is about even.
Ok, no problem with your opinion but I stand with what I said. On my opinion it's not a bad move but not the best white can do either. Position is not closed, there are possible breaks on queenside and kingside. Later the position was closed on queenside so then white had more chances to break on the kingside but even then R4 cleverly played g6 and Qd7 stopping all breaks. The bishop on d5 pins the other one but cannot exchange it when black unpins it because the weakness of d3 is then too strong. The black bishop has potential to help a kingside attack while the bishop on d5 just stands there, controlling hopefully some critical squares (f7, g8) but apart from that? Well, there is much to say on that position but since then other interesting games have been played so it's hard to stay focused on that one . Much interesting material for later study
Game 18, from move 7.....Be6, is getting RAther entertaining. I don't want to say good or ..... Bad. Whoever looks at it will have his/her own thoughts and intrigue. (Until it boils over, which it might do. I don't know).
(Now move 13, It does not look like this will become new opening theory, for Black!)
.
