The Biggest Match since Kasparov v Deep Blue?

[michiguel]

Let me make the moves for HIARCS instead of a GM doing it. I won't charge nearly as much.
Peter

Peter+Hiarcs+Hardware+CB x GM+Hiarcs+Hardware+CB.

I think the second entity will have no difficulties to win a match.
The middlegame and the endgame will be the key to that.
And I suppose that even the opening can make some difference.
Obviously Peter can not have a high rating.
A GM is dedicated to chess since childhood, he is a professional. He has the
experience and knowledge needed to evaluate much better than an amateur,
certain positions that the engines do not understand.
Today in my profession, a software is very important. I see engineers not specialized
in calculation of structures using a software for calculation of structure with
bad results.

I believe that Rybka is the underdog if the GM is good at handling chess software. Still, Rybka will be difficult to beat. A predict a close match in which the GM won't lose.

Miguel

[michiguel]

Let me make the moves for HIARCS instead of a GM doing it. I won't charge nearly as much.
Peter

Good point....
Dr.D

Actually i think it would be interesting to somehow keep a record of how many times the GM played moves different then the recommended best move by Hiarcs(once the game was out of book)

but i guess that might be hard to implement?
a simple way to achieve that would be perhaps to ask the
GM to simply mark his score sheet every time he played a move which differed from the one Hiarcs would have played
in a time scramble this might not work but then i imagine the GM will be blitizing moves on his own (not having the time to check with Hiarcs)


my guess would be that in the middle game 75%-90%
of moves recommended by Hiarcs will be played but in the endgame..perhaps 50%?

of course even just one move where the GM diverges can make the difference between the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat

Pensive Regards
Steve

The GM cannot do it because I guess that even in the middle game he is going to do something different than giving hiarcs to analyze the root position for all the time.

The GM can use hiarcs to analyze some plan that he has and simply not give hiarcs enough time to know the move that hiarcs suggests.

Uri

That is exactly how the GM should do it. The GM should set the plan and check some key leaf positions. Obeying hiarcs root moves is a sure path to defeat against a stronger engine.

Miguel

[PauloSoare]

Let me make the moves for HIARCS instead of a GM doing it. I won't charge nearly as much.
Peter

Peter+Hiarcs+Hardware+CB x GM+Hiarcs+Hardware+CB.

I think the second entity will have no difficulties to win a match.
The middlegame and the endgame will be the key to that.
And I suppose that even the opening can make some difference.
Obviously Peter can not have a high rating.
A GM is dedicated to chess since childhood, he is a professional. He has the
experience and knowledge needed to evaluate much better than an amateur,
certain positions that the engines do not understand.
Today in my profession, a software is very important. I see engineers not specialized
in calculation of structures using a software for calculation of structure with
bad results.

I believe that Rybka is the underdog if the GM is good at handling chess software. Still, Rybka will be difficult to beat. A predict a close match in which the GM won't lose.

Miguel

I agree with you.

[Spock]

I believe that Rybka is the underdog if the GM is good at handling chess software. Still, Rybka will be difficult to beat. A predict a close match in which the GM won't lose.

Miguel

Yes - and in that case, the Hiarcs publicity machine will spring into action yet again, you can see it now

"in a match assisted by a single machine that you can run at home, running HiarcsMP which is available for just £50 , the GM was undefeated against Rybka running a monster 52-core cluster"

[Uri Blass]

After this match Hiarcs should play Rybka again but without a gm. Lets see if Hiarcs does better with the gm or without the gm?
Mark

I do not like this idea because it seems obvious that hiarcs cannot do better without the gm.

Other similiar ideas(that I also do not support):
1)After this match the GM should play Rybka against but without hiarcs.
Lets see if the GM does better with software or without a software.

2)After this match Rybka should play again the same match but without a cluster.
Lets see if Rybka does better with Cluster or without a cluster.

[Graham Banks]

I believe that Rybka is the underdog if the GM is good at handling chess software. Still, Rybka will be difficult to beat. A predict a close match in which the GM won't lose.

Miguel

Yes - and in that case, the Hiarcs publicity machine will spring into action yet again, you can see it now

"in a match assisted by a single machine that you can run at home, running HiarcsMP which is available for just £50 , the GM was undefeated against Rybka running a monster 52-core cluster"

I don't really care about all that stuff. It will be a great spectacle and I think that Harvey and the Hiarcs team should be applauded for trying to organise such an event.

[Father]

Harvey.
I hope to watch and studying these interesting chess games in future slowly over my desk on a board and chess soldiers of wood, doing move per move, and trying to understand and learning.
Congratullations,
Pablo

[mschribr]

After this match Hiarcs should play Rybka again but without a gm. Lets see if Hiarcs does better with the gm or without the gm?
Mark

I do not like this idea because it seems obvious that hiarcs cannot do better without the gm.

Hiarcs will do better without the gm. The gm has the overriding say what the move will be. The 2750 gm will not see things the 3000 Hiarcs sees. A comparison match without the gm would be useful.

Other similiar ideas(that I also do not support):
1)After this match the GM should play Rybka against but without hiarcs.
Lets see if the GM does better with software or without a software.

This would be a waste because of course the gm will do worse without hiarcs.

2)After this match Rybka should play again the same match but without a cluster.
Lets see if Rybka does better with Cluster or without a cluster.

This would also be a waste because Of course Rybka will do better with a cluster.

[Uri]

I think a Top GM like Milov Vadim, Topalov or Gashimov can still outplay Rybka 3 and win the match even without the help of a strong engine. I believe the human mind is still superior to any computer in some way. I haven't lost my faith in humans yet.

It just depends on which GM will play because clearly not all GMs are equally strong against chess programs. Some GMs play an anti-computer positional style which could prove quite hard for Rybka like playing for a space advantage or a slow kingside attack and squeezing the computer slowly. I think the Top GM with the engine has a high chance of winning the match.

[Uri]

Other similiar ideas (that I also do not support):

1)After this match the GM should play Rybka against but without hiarcs.
Lets see if the GM does better with software or without a software.

Computers are linear entities, they improve linearly. This means that Rybka or any other engine for that matter will clearly play better the more hardware you add to it. Of course you could design a God-like hardware and Rybka would very probably win the match easily.

On the contrary, human thinking is non-linear and is more complex. A strong engine could actually confuse a top GM and make him play worse moves in some positions because clearly humans even a top GM can sometimes play a not so good move in a certain position and then he can play a best move in another position in the game. So humans play non-linearly and they don't always play moves of the same quality unlike the computer which always plays the same moves unless there is some learning algorithm involved or new input from the programmer.