GM says Rybka & Fritz weaker than best GMs in classical

[bob]

Strategy is one of the areas computers are weak at. In 1996, Kasparov crushed Deep Blue in round 6 by demonstrating his superior understanding of pawn play and space advantage. The same was truth about his win against X3D Fritz in this game.

I believe that Kramnik and Kasparov when playing their best chess are stronger than Rybka.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4764

I think that it is the opposite.
Rybka can lose to kasparov or kramnik when she play her worst chess but usually it does not happen.

There are positions that programs do not know what to do but these positions are minority of the positions and usually humans cannot get these positions from the opening positions.

In most positions programs play positionally better than humans and
even if they lose a game against the best players(I do not claim that it is impossible) the game does not contradict my claim.

Uri

"in most positions..." is about the _worst_ statement I have ever seen you write. "In some ..." might be reasonable. But not even "In many..." They will occasionally stumble into a great positional move, but for the most part they do not, and they create weaknesses that would lead to a loss were it not for the human's great tendency to make mistakes.

I think that it is the opposite.
They will occasionally make positional blunders but in most cases they play better than humans positionally.

Your theory was right some years ago and I can say that kasparov got positional advantage against deeper blue that he could not translate to winning the game in some games of the match(for example games 4 and game 5) but today it is not the case that humans get positional advantage against machines and if you watch hydra-adams games you can see that hydra got positional advantage and there was no situation when adams got the advantage that means a situation that hydra had to defend inferior position to get a draw or to win thanks to a tactical mistake.

Uri

Then we are on opposite poles with light-years between us. We also saw Kasparov get good positions against Junior and Fritz and then blow the games. But he did get "good positions". The programs just do not have an evaluation sophisticated enough to compare with a GM's abilities. Unfortunately for the GM, the programs _do_ have tactical skills (partially based on deep search, partially based on consistency) that are more than enough to compensate for the most part. But if you really think that programs understand the minor nuances of pawn structure and such, boy do we disagree...

[bob]

I think that it is the opposite.
They will occasionally make positional blunders but in most cases they play better than humans positionally.

Your theory was right some years ago and I can say that kasparov got positional advantage against deeper blue that he could not translate to winning the game in some games of the match(for example games 4 and game 5) but today it is not the case that humans get positional advantage against machines and if you watch hydra-adams games you can see that hydra got positional advantage and there was no situation when adams got the advantage that means a situation that hydra had to defend inferior position to get a draw or to win thanks to a tactical mistake.

Uri

Thanks for making this point clear, once and for all.
Many people forget that since opensource Fruit 2.1 and drastically improved hardware, engines have gained 200+ points, whiles humans are stagnating with no hope of ever approaching a stable 2900 Elo.

And the engine-human gap is growing _daily_ !
As this gap widens, we can expect some people to delibrately ignore it and claim more energetically that GMs are stronger than engines.

No GM shall ever again achieve better than a loss in an 8-game match at _any_ time control, unless engine starts with less material.
Even memorizing the prefered lines of the engine's match book (as Kramnik was permitted to do against Fritz) will never help the GMs anymore to avoid a loss of the match. They may occasionally draw a game or two, but that's it. The human GM era is now ancient history.

All were are left with are :
- _why_ the humans lose
- _how_ the engines win


Matthias.


.

There's another winner of an idea, humans have no hope of approaching 2900. 100 years ago no one thought they would reach 2700 or 2800. But the human brain is an amazing thing, far more amazing than many are giving credit for...

[Matthias Gemuh]

There's another winner of an idea, humans have no hope of approaching 2900. 100 years ago no one thought they would reach 2700 or 2800. But the human brain is an amazing thing, far more amazing than many are giving credit for...

The only thing that has changed in human playing strength since computers entered the scene is that we now have many more GMs all along till the top.

Otherwise nothing has changed. Bobby Fischer has been surpassed only by Garry Kasparov. Botwinnik's performance remains comparable with that of Anand/Kramnik/Topalov.

The dilemma for humans is that there isn't much left that humans can learn or gain from computers, so humans are doomed to hit a brickwall before Elo 2850. Computers/engines don't have a limit within sight.


Matthias.

.

[Terry McCracken]

There's another winner of an idea, humans have no hope of approaching 2900. 100 years ago no one thought they would reach 2700 or 2800. But the human brain is an amazing thing, far more amazing than many are giving credit for...

The only thing that has changed in human playing strength since computers entered the scene is that we now have many more GMs all along till the top.

Otherwise nothing has changed. Bobby Fischer has been surpassed only by Garry Kasparov. Botwinnik's performance remains comparable with that of Anand/Kramnik/Topalov.

The dilemma for humans is that there isn't much left that humans can learn or gain from computers, so humans are doomed to hit a brickwall before Elo 2850. Computers/engines don't have a limit within sight.


Matthias.

.

Kasparov broke 2850 with 2851 back in 1999. Someone will surpass it.

I expect the 3000 barrier will be broken before the end of the 21st century.

Genetic engineering will play an important role of course.

Humans don't have the limits which you impose upon them.

[Uri Blass]

Strategy is one of the areas computers are weak at. In 1996, Kasparov crushed Deep Blue in round 6 by demonstrating his superior understanding of pawn play and space advantage. The same was truth about his win against X3D Fritz in this game.

I believe that Kramnik and Kasparov when playing their best chess are stronger than Rybka.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4764

I think that it is the opposite.
Rybka can lose to kasparov or kramnik when she play her worst chess but usually it does not happen.

There are positions that programs do not know what to do but these positions are minority of the positions and usually humans cannot get these positions from the opening positions.

In most positions programs play positionally better than humans and
even if they lose a game against the best players(I do not claim that it is impossible) the game does not contradict my claim.

Uri

"in most positions..." is about the _worst_ statement I have ever seen you write. "In some ..." might be reasonable. But not even "In many..." They will occasionally stumble into a great positional move, but for the most part they do not, and they create weaknesses that would lead to a loss were it not for the human's great tendency to make mistakes.

I think that it is the opposite.
They will occasionally make positional blunders but in most cases they play better than humans positionally.

Your theory was right some years ago and I can say that kasparov got positional advantage against deeper blue that he could not translate to winning the game in some games of the match(for example games 4 and game 5) but today it is not the case that humans get positional advantage against machines and if you watch hydra-adams games you can see that hydra got positional advantage and there was no situation when adams got the advantage that means a situation that hydra had to defend inferior position to get a draw or to win thanks to a tactical mistake.

Uri

Then we are on opposite poles with light-years between us. We also saw Kasparov get good positions against Junior and Fritz and then blow the games. But he did get "good positions". The programs just do not have an evaluation sophisticated enough to compare with a GM's abilities. Unfortunately for the GM, the programs _do_ have tactical skills (partially based on deep search, partially based on consistency) that are more than enough to compensate for the most part. But if you really think that programs understand the minor nuances of pawn structure and such, boy do we disagree...

There was a big progress in computer chess since the matches of kasparov with Fritz and Junior.

Kasparov played with programs that are more than 200 elo weaker than rybka2.3.2a

Even if you assume that the only relative advantage of rybka is better search
I doubt if kasparov could do the same against a version of Junior or Fritz that is 10 times faster.

Search help to find better positional moves.

Uri

[bob]

Today's engines look far less than 50 moves ahead. A human chess game statistically lasts 41 moves.

A human able to look 50 moves ahead, though he may occasionally lose a game, should clearly win all matches against top engines. Right

Are they doing it ?

Matthias.

No one can look 50 moves ahead unless he really has a very powerful memory. It's impossible to look 50 ahead and always find the optimal moves without missing something. 50 moves ahead is beyond the horizon of both humans and computers.

Depends on the position. Apparently Fine did it quite well in his book.

[Uri Blass]

There's another winner of an idea, humans have no hope of approaching 2900. 100 years ago no one thought they would reach 2700 or 2800. But the human brain is an amazing thing, far more amazing than many are giving credit for...

The only thing that has changed in human playing strength since computers entered the scene is that we now have many more GMs all along till the top.

Otherwise nothing has changed. Bobby Fischer has been surpassed only by Garry Kasparov. Botwinnik's performance remains comparable with that of Anand/Kramnik/Topalov.

The dilemma for humans is that there isn't much left that humans can learn or gain from computers, so humans are doomed to hit a brickwall before Elo 2850. Computers/engines don't have a limit within sight.


Matthias.

.

I agree that humans have no chance against computers but I disagree that they are doomed to hit a brickwall before 2850.

I believe that GM's can improve if programmers write the right programs to teach them.

The only problem is that they cannot improve enough to catch the computers.

Uri

[Marc MP]

There's another winner of an idea, humans have no hope of approaching 2900. 100 years ago no one thought they would reach 2700 or 2800. But the human brain is an amazing thing, far more amazing than many are giving credit for...

The only thing that has changed in human playing strength since computers entered the scene is that we now have many more GMs all along till the top.

Otherwise nothing has changed. Bobby Fischer has been surpassed only by Garry Kasparov. Botwinnik's performance remains comparable with that of Anand/Kramnik/Topalov.

The dilemma for humans is that there isn't much left that humans can learn or gain from computers, so humans are doomed to hit a brickwall before Elo 2850. Computers/engines don't have a limit within sight.


Matthias.

.

I agree that humans have no chance against computers but I disagree that they are doomed to hit a brickwall before 2850.

I believe that GM's can improve if programmers write the right programs to teach them.

The only problem is that they cannot improve enough to catch the computers.

Uri

Hi Uri,

I'll answer to you but that is directed to all of the pro-engines!
(remember this is a hobby! )

1. Rybka 2.3.2a might be more than 200 elo stronger against other engines, but I doubt it would be more than , say 75elo against humans. It all about comparative advantage.

2. If Rybka beats Kramnik 65-35 on an octo, you calculate the rating performance as being close to 3000. What about a mach against a "weak GM"? Say 2500-2550 elo. I don't think Rybka would score more than 75-25, that is 200 elo more than its opponent. Then you would have "the proof" that engines aren't stronger (elo-wise) than the very best human players... I'm very interested in a 20 game match between a "weaker GM" and Rybka on a octo!

3. How do you explain Freestyle tournament? Humans introducing mistakes in engine play?? (actually that might be true but only for Hydra! I'm not sure the owners are good players...)

4. Michael Adams played the worst anti-computer chess I ever seen by a GM. The contract payed him only for victories though.. Have you seen that?: http://chesslodge.blogspot.com/2005/09/ ... board.html

[Marc MP]

Strategy is one of the areas computers are weak at. In 1996, Kasparov crushed Deep Blue in round 6 by demonstrating his superior understanding of pawn play and space advantage. The same was truth about his win against X3D Fritz in this game.

I believe that Kramnik and Kasparov when playing their best chess are stronger than Rybka.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4764

I think that it is the opposite.
Rybka can lose to kasparov or kramnik when she play her worst chess but usually it does not happen.

There are positions that programs do not know what to do but these positions are minority of the positions and usually humans cannot get these positions from the opening positions.

In most positions programs play positionally better than humans and
even if they lose a game against the best players(I do not claim that it is impossible) the game does not contradict my claim.

Uri

"in most positions..." is about the _worst_ statement I have ever seen you write. "In some ..." might be reasonable. But not even "In many..." They will occasionally stumble into a great positional move, but for the most part they do not, and they create weaknesses that would lead to a loss were it not for the human's great tendency to make mistakes.

I think that it is the opposite.
They will occasionally make positional blunders but in most cases they play better than humans positionally.

Your theory was right some years ago and I can say that kasparov got positional advantage against deeper blue that he could not translate to winning the game in some games of the match(for example games 4 and game 5) but today it is not the case that humans get positional advantage against machines and if you watch hydra-adams games you can see that hydra got positional advantage and there was no situation when adams got the advantage that means a situation that hydra had to defend inferior position to get a draw or to win thanks to a tactical mistake.

Uri

Then we are on opposite poles with light-years between us. We also saw Kasparov get good positions against Junior and Fritz and then blow the games. But he did get "good positions". The programs just do not have an evaluation sophisticated enough to compare with a GM's abilities. Unfortunately for the GM, the programs _do_ have tactical skills (partially based on deep search, partially based on consistency) that are more than enough to compensate for the most part. But if you really think that programs understand the minor nuances of pawn structure and such, boy do we disagree...

There was a big progress in computer chess since the matches of kasparov with Fritz and Junior.

Kasparov played with programs that are more than 200 elo weaker than rybka2.3.2a

Even if you assume that the only relative advantage of rybka is better search
I doubt if kasparov could do the same against a version of Junior or Fritz that is 10 times faster.

Search help to find better positional moves.

Uri

Hi Uri,

I'll answer to you but that is directed to all of the pro-engines!
(remember this is a hobby! Smile)

1. Rybka 2.3.2a might be more than 200 elo stronger against other engines, but I doubt it would be more than , say 75elo against humans. It all about comparative advantage.

2. If Rybka beats Kramnik 65-35 on an octo, you calculate the rating performance as being close to 3000. What about a mach against a "weak GM"? Say 2500-2550 elo. I don't think Rybka would score more than 75-25, that is 200 elo more than its opponent. Then you would have "the proof" that engines aren't stronger (elo-wise) than the very best human players... I'm very interested in a 20 game match between a "weaker GM" and Rybka on a octo!

3. How do you explain Freestyle tournament? Humans introducing mistakes in engine play?? (actually that might be true but only for Hydra! I'm not sure the owners are good players...)

4. Michael Adams played the worst anti-computer chess I ever seen by a GM. The contract payed him only for victories though.. Have you seen that?: http://chesslodge.blogspot.com/2005/09/ ... board.html

(Sorry for the double post - I realized too late I replied to the wrong message)

[smirobth]

humans are doomed to hit a brickwall before Elo 2850.

??? Kasparov peaked at 2851.