GM Dzindzichashvili - Rybka, 4-4

[George Tsavdaris]

His point is that this can't be considered chess.

Yes, this isn't Chess!

At Chess there is no rule for example that white or black player should follow the line: "1.Nc3 Nc6 2.Nb5 Nb4 3.Nxa7 Nd5 4.Nb5 Nb4 5.Na3 Na6 6.Nb1 Nb8".
Yet both players, Roman and Rybka, were forced by the rules to follow this line as also other lines in every game of the match.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I personaly think that a GM with the mentioned skills shuold play Rybka a normal chess match and then it will be interesting to see his performance even if it's going to be a little bit worse....

[playjunior]

I still think that a player like Kramnik has quite fair chances against any engine in a classical match. Despite that huge rating difference between todays and 5-year-old engines, the pattern is the same: the engines are much worse on strategy and enourmously better in tactics. Engines are likely to lose many non-tactical endgames that a human should be able to hold. Rybka is notable in this context: without tablebases I think its one of the most clueless in endgame. Then, I think the opening books of the engines should be very restricted (or the humans should have access to the same database).

The problem with such a match is that it is nearly impossible to force a top player to seriously prepare for it. Playing against a computer needs different preparation, and top humans just don't have the time to prepare seriously. Last time Kramnik played Fritz was right after the WC match against Topalov, somewhere in the middle of his honeymoon He blundered mate in 1, then was forced to push in the last game, played an unfamiliar opening and blundered to simple tactics...

All GMs Rybka has played are kind of...retired? I mean Joel Benjamin is even lazy to calculate a little bit when he is doing commentary on ICC, like: "well, you know, the position is complex, its unclear, everything can happen, I am not particularly good in calculating". Do you expect him to win against a computer in a 45 minute or 1 hour match?

And yes, I am biased

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I still think that a player like Kramnik has quite fair chances against any engine in a classical match. Despite that huge rating difference between todays and 5-year-old engines, the pattern is the same: the engines are much worse on strategy and enourmously better in tactics. Engines are likely to lose many non-tactical endgames that a human should be able to hold. Rybka is notable in this context: without tablebases I think its one of the most clueless in endgame. Then, I think the opening books of the engines should be very restricted (or the humans should have access to the same database).

The problem with such a match is that it is nearly impossible to force a top player to seriously prepare for it. Playing against a computer needs different preparation, and top humans just don't have the time to prepare seriously. Last time Kramnik played Fritz was right after the WC match against Topalov, somewhere in the middle of his honeymoon He blundered mate in 1, then was forced to push in the last game, played an unfamiliar opening and blundered to simple tactics...

All GMs Rybka has played are kind of...retired? I mean Joel Benjamin is even lazy to calculate a little bit when he is doing commentary on ICC, like: "well, you know, the position is complex, its unclear, everything can happen, I am not particularly good in calculating". Do you expect him to win against a computer in a 45 minute or 1 hour match?

And yes, I am biased

I like the "retired" issue in your post and by the way,what kind of a grandmaster is this who is not particulary good in calculating

[Uri Blass]

I still think that a player like Kramnik has quite fair chances against any engine in a classical match. Despite that huge rating difference between todays and 5-year-old engines, the pattern is the same: the engines are much worse on strategy and enourmously better in tactics. Engines are likely to lose many non-tactical endgames that a human should be able to hold. Rybka is notable in this context: without tablebases I think its one of the most clueless in endgame.

I disagree.
Public rybka has some bugs that it evaluate unstoppable passed pawn as more than a queen but this bug was probably fixed.

I do not think that rybka is weaker than other engines in endgames and I also do not think that engines are likely to lose many non tactical endgames.

Uri

[smirobth]

I also do not think that engines are likely to lose many non tactical endgames.

Uri

I'm not sure why you say this (other than that most decisive games are decided before the endgame). In this very thread (the "no b7 pawn" game) Rybka lost an easily drawn endgame for reasons that do not seem to have anything to do with tactics. Engines can lose drawn endgames in lots of ways that are non-tactical, for example self demolition of potential fortress positions by pushing pawns when they shouldn't.

[playjunior]

I still think that a player like Kramnik has quite fair chances against any engine in a classical match. Despite that huge rating difference between todays and 5-year-old engines, the pattern is the same: the engines are much worse on strategy and enourmously better in tactics. Engines are likely to lose many non-tactical endgames that a human should be able to hold. Rybka is notable in this context: without tablebases I think its one of the most clueless in endgame.

I disagree.
Public rybka has some bugs that it evaluate unstoppable passed pawn as more than a queen but this bug was probably fixed.

I do not think that rybka is weaker than other engines in endgames and I also do not think that engines are likely to lose many non tactical endgames.

Uri

Then you should analyze super-GM endgames with your favorite engine
Recent example was Rybka evaluating an endgame with a white-colored white bishop, white and black pawns on h-file and black king on h8 as +-4.50-or-something like that. Tablebases might help in this particular case, but you know better than me that they are not a solution-you get a huge speed decrease because of them and it doesn't make real difference in average.

Kramnik-Fritz games from Bahrain match are a thrilling piece of example of misplayed endgames by an engine. I don't think that there has been a remarkable advance in that aspect of play since then.

[Mike S.]

I think the strange move sequences they started with each, to get rid of the pawn, were only a requirement for the transmission (it is possible that the transmission could not start from a setup).

But of course it's chess! I don't understand this polemic against odds of a single pawn. Is chess for you only chess as long as the material is balanced? What about 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4? Or only if it starts with opening theory variations? What if I start with 1.h3?

Anyway, after this draw against a 2542 (although he was top-20 once), I think Rybka could try a 'normal' match against Nakamura who is close to 2700... at least without material odds. Maybe a Chess960 match would be good, to avoid long theory variations. In such a match, we want to see as many Rybka engine moves as possible, no theory battles from memory or book. (Rybka is Chess960 computer world champion, too.)

[George Tsavdaris]

But of course it's chess! I don't understand this polemic against odds of a single pawn. Is chess for you only chess as long as the material is balanced? What about 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4? Or only if it starts with opening theory variations? What if I start with 1.h3?

I think you don't get the point why it is not Chess.

If the line 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 is being played because both 2 players have chosen to play it and not because they are forced by the rules of the match to play it, then it is Chess.

The game of Chess does not have any restricting moves that have to be played in the start of the game. Each player can choose freely what he wants.
In these games Rybka played with Roman, this freedom wasn't there! Obviously a Chess variant.....

[George Tsavdaris]

Then you should analyze super-GM endgames with your favorite engine

I think we a fast machine and a good engine you will be surprised with the results. Yes engines would make mistakes. But not more than what top humans make in endgames.... Perhaps less.

Recent example was Rybka evaluating an endgame with a white-colored white bishop, white and black pawns on h-file and black king on h8 as +-4.50-or-something like that.

Such things happen. But you should see not only the tree but the forest.
I mean you should look at many many positions of how engines do in endgames and how humans do.
I think for about the last 1.5 year we are at the point that search depths of engines make them comparably strong with top humans at endgames.....
The key here is fast and latest hardware. QUAD computers.

Tablebases might help in this particular case, but you know better than me that they are not a solution-you get a huge speed decrease because of them and it doesn't make real difference in average.

I don't think there is a huge decrease in speed.
I also think that there is a noticeable difference from using the endgame tablebases, for some engines anyway.

Kramnik-Fritz games from Bahrain match are a thrilling piece of example of misplayed endgames by an engine. I don't think that there has been a remarkable advance in that aspect of play since then.

5.5 years from then. In these 5.5 years the advance on hardware was very big but the advance of software was also, especially in last 2 years, very big.