so what is a fair GM handicap vs Rybka?

[NKOTB]

In NFL football, games are made theoretically even by give one team points. Example, a bad team may be given a 21 point handicap to make the contest even.
.
with similar time controls to the current match, what handicap would the GM need so the match is considered even?

[Harvey Williamson]

In NFL football, games are made theoretically even by give one team points. Example, a bad team may be given a 21 point handicap to make the contest even.
.
with similar time controls to the current match, what handicap would the GM need so the match is considered even?

Maybe none of the above. Give the engine a time handicap and then we get a real game of Chess.

[mschribr]

Maybe none of the above. Give the engine a time handicap and then we get a real game of Chess.

I agree. The best handicap is to cut the computer’s time in 1/2 or maybe 1/4.

[Uri Blass]

Maybe none of the above. Give the engine a time handicap and then we get a real game of Chess.

I agree. The best handicap is to cut the computer’s time in 1/2 or maybe 1/4.

I disagree.

I am even not sure if this is a handicap for the computer because the human can think less on the computer time.

rybka with 1/4 of the time beat easily chess programs that performed at 2700 level or better in tournaments.

I remember that old tiger and old shredder already got performance of more than 2700 some years ago.

Uri

[Harvey Williamson]

Maybe none of the above. Give the engine a time handicap and then we get a real game of Chess.

I agree. The best handicap is to cut the computer’s time in 1/2 or maybe 1/4.

I disagree.

I am even not sure if this is a handicap for the computer because the human can think less on the computer time.

rybka with 1/4 of the time beat easily chess programs that performed at 2700 level or better in tournaments.

I remember that old tiger and old shredder already got performance of more than 2700 some years ago.

Uri

Hi Uri,

Good point.

Another way might be to make the engines play on old weak hardware?!

Harvey

[Uri Blass]

Maybe none of the above. Give the engine a time handicap and then we get a real game of Chess.

I agree. The best handicap is to cut the computer’s time in 1/2 or maybe 1/4.

I disagree.

I am even not sure if this is a handicap for the computer because the human can think less on the computer time.

rybka with 1/4 of the time beat easily chess programs that performed at 2700 level or better in tournaments.

I remember that old tiger and old shredder already got performance of more than 2700 some years ago.

Uri

Hi Uri,

Good point.

Another way might be to make the engines play on old weak hardware?!

Harvey

It is possible but my guess is that even the hardware of 1994 may be too fast for the GM's.

You may need to go back to 1990 in order to find hardware that is slow enough to make the match even.

[JonP01]

That first game was a bit of a massacre wasn't it? I agree that I think in the future, "even" matches will be possible by handicapping the hardware. Soon enough there will be "vintage" PC enthusiasts running chess engines, since running them on such vintage hardware will be the only way we humans can have any comprehension of the moves they are making!

Time handicaps are really pointless these days. Apart from giving the human opponent no respite between moves, even on my slow computer, CM10 (much weaker than Rybka of course) still would play around the same level at blitz as a 2500 player would at classical time controls.

Larry Kaufman has already pointed out that if Rybka was playing at fast blitz speed it would still be superior to all humans thinking at slow time controls bar Super GMs.

[Mike S.]

I think, the normal concept of fairness cannot be applied to odds games or to clock handicap games, anyway. Also, I dislike the idea of "old" hardware... The "Chess: Man vs. Machine" topic adresses people interested in chess, up-to-date chess software and up-to-date computers.

Another idea would be a search depth limit for the (main) depths, or whatever it's called by the programmers. Nominal depth? I am aware that an engine A's search to depth x will of course be different to an engine B's search to the same depth (not talking of evals etc.). Nevertheless, it would be a hardware independant setting. For example, as a first rough idea, I can imagine depth 14 until the endgame, and depth 16 or 18 with 8 pieces or less on the board (and ponder off).

Considering the search extensions, I am sure 14 plies are strong enough for interesting matches. If an engine has a somewhat riskier pruning and reaches this depth more quickly than another engine, in return the human opponent will have less time to think while it's the computer to move - and vice versa.

I have only randomly chosen 14 as an example... I suggest it should be a depth which most good and latest engines on typical computers reach in ~20 seconds (being aware that there may be big differences between the time consumption of different engines for that depth).

By that, off-the-shelf computers will be sufficient and the total time requirement will be kept small(er), but at the same time I think strong chess is guaranteed and it would be challenging for any GM. Also, there could be competition between different engines in the sense of: Which one scores best against GMs, at depth x?

But I'm not sure if it's any better than the other proposals...

[mschribr]

Maybe none of the above. Give the engine a time handicap and then we get a real game of Chess.

I agree. The best handicap is to cut the computer’s time in 1/2 or maybe 1/4.

I disagree.

I am even not sure if this is a handicap for the computer because the human can think less on the computer time.

rybka with 1/4 of the time beat easily chess programs that performed at 2700 level or better in tournaments.

I remember that old tiger and old shredder already got performance of more than 2700 some years ago.

Uri

Which tournament did rybka win with 1/4 of the time?
Computer vs computer is not the same as man vs computer.
The old tiger and old shredder performance of more than 2700 were not at handicap time.
Has there been man vs computer with time handicap?
Before we write off time handicap, lets have a man vs computer at ¼ the time and see what happens.
Mark

[ologist]

In my opinion, I think there needs to be several matches with different engines vs GMs with these same pawn handicaps before we determine what 'Rybka' handicap is needed. I am sure H11, DF10, etc. would be crushed by a GM with these pawn handicaps, right ... especially if they are specially programmed versions to deal with such handicaps?