Komodo vs Hikaru

[sovaz1997]

-------------------
Ok, I see, It's old article. Komodo and Nakamura played before. Sorry

[JJJ]

OMG, 3 draw ! I did it again !

[lkaufman]

Yes, 3 draws with the MCTS match. Regarding the levels match, it turns out their level x is our level x-1, so Hikaru actually lost to level 19 and never even played full strength Komodo. So Komodo really scored half a point more than I guessed in each of the two matches.

[lkaufman]

Yes, 3 draws with the MCTS match. Regarding the levels match, it turns out their level x is our level x-1, so Hikaru actually lost to level 19 and never even played full strength Komodo. So Komodo really scored half a point more than I guessed in each of the two matches.

It seems now that the info I was given above was not correct, and that in fact level 20 was full-strength Komodo although just on one thread. So Hikaru did quite well after all.

[JJJ]

And you found the right handicap for top GM at least.

[Jhoravi]

I think that a full piece handicap would be a fair match against a GM these days.

[Sesse]

I really missed having the engine's evals available during this match.

[lkaufman]

I think that a full piece handicap would be a fair match against a GM these days.

Full knight odds at 5' + 5" is about even for me or my son Raymond (IM) vs. Komodo, but although I am a GM I don't play at GM level at age 70, and my son is a rather low rated IM. That's why we thought knight for pawn (third knight on f7) might be reasonable, and it was. Another handicap we could try against average GM is knight for tempo, where White removes a knight but starts with 1e4 played and still White to move. If we can ever win a match at knight odds from a 2500 plus GM at a non-blitz tc, that would be amazing. Perhaps if Komodo gets draw odds in each game it might be an achievable goal in the future.

[Nordlandia]

Game 2: Knight for pawn

At move 30...

Nakamura said he was worried for little time on the clock, i understand his concern.

Shouldn't it be possible to teach Komodo to take opponents time into consideration for human odds matches.

Realistically Komodo should have continued playing on, Naka may have blundered in the time scramble.

Even if the position was worse. Naka's low time on clock make it probably equal. Approximately "Equilibrium" state of matter.

Position was better for Nakamura but time trouble seriously increase blunder ratio. Komodo may have avoided threefold repetition by exploiting Naka's bad time management.

[Sesse]

Given finite resources, why optimize for man-versus-human matches? That battle was won with Deep Blue many years ago. These days, people buy chess engines for analysis, not for getting trounced with material odds.