GM says Rybka & Fritz weaker than best GMs in classical

[smirobth]

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, the last match Kasparov played was five years ago! Believe it or not the programs of today are much stronger positionally than X3D Fritz was.

[Matthias Gemuh]

humans are doomed to hit a brickwall before Elo 2850.

??? Kasparov peaked at 2851.

You missed the posting in which I say I am referring to a "stable" rating, not one peak.

Matthias.


.

[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

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)

I never claimed that hydra was the best computer so all the games when it lost to team of computers and humans do not count.
The game against topalov was before the match against adams and I believe that hydra improved since that match.

I believe that rybka is stronger than hydra and my example of hydra-adams was to show that even a relatively weak computer can beat humans.

Adams played with his normal style and not anti-computer but it does not change the fact that hydra got positional advantage before winning so hydra outplayed Adams positionally.

Facts are the following:
1)If you do not try hard to get positions that the computer does not understand the computer is stronger positionally
2)the positions that computer does not understand are clearly minority of the positions and today you cannot get them even if you try to play anti-computer.


For your question I expect something like 90-10 for rybka or higher against the average GM

Rybka already beat GM Benjamin with draw odds 6-2 when Benjamin has white in every game and time control was 90+30.

If the GM can get only 2 draws in 8 games with white
then it means that the GM can get only 12.5% with white
if you add 7.5% with black you get only 10%

You can say that the GM may score better and win games if the target is not to draw but on the other hand rybka is improved and Benjamin is slightly better than the average GM.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... l?tid=2937


Uri

[emerson4301972]

In the July 2008 edition of Chess Life (page 44), GM Lev Alburt
claims "Playing under classical conditions (40 moves in 2 1/2 hours),
today's best grandmasters are still favorites vs. Rybka and Fritz".

I was under the opposite impression, but I'm not a GM.

Sounds like a challenge for some program to me.

Just because someone is a GM, that does not mean he has a clue what he is talking about.
We want to see proofs, not baseless claims !
The top engines are proving their superiority more and more convincingly.

Matthias.

If you understood his point, the discussion would already be over.

Humans have _far_ superior positional understanding. By a factor of at least 10x and probably more than 100X better than any program around. however, the programs have far superior tactical skill, when the effort is spread over time. In positions like the Nolot-class tests, humans are simply better. But OTB, where fatigue and distraction play a significant role, the computers have an edge.

Been that way for a long time, and nothing has really changed, except we are beginning to see the tactical frailness of human chess over a 3-4-5 hour game is the limiting factor that is making programs superior. But that is the _only_ reason...

To test if humans have better positional understanding, humans should play a series of correspondence game against a computer without the aid of a computer. That way the fatigue and blunders and time pressure will be eliminated and chess understanding will play its part

[emerson4301972]

Curious argumentation as if fatigue, tactics mistakes, etc, were not part of the game.
I could, following the logic of Bob, say that I am 1000 times better than any program to see chess, but, well, bad luck, I lose almost every game due to tactics and distractions.
If only I could play them without tactics, fatigue, just comparing our higher strategic visions...

Sure I would be proclaimed bar better than Rybka regards
Fernando

I think he is trying to point out that humans are better positionaly

[emerson4301972]

I don't know if the man who goes by the name of "Father" is a GM or not but he has demonstrated that any program can be beaten or let us say a way to keep the program from beating him. Can any of you imagine what might happen if a GM used the same logic.
Bil

The so called "Father" uses a stupid bug in the ChessBase GUI to achieve his even more stupid wins on time
His wins has nothing to do with our discussion here,it's simply a monkey trick that he exploites again and again....

How does he do it, how can you take advantage of the bug?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I don't know if the man who goes by the name of "Father" is a GM or not but he has demonstrated that any program can be beaten or let us say a way to keep the program from beating him. Can any of you imagine what might happen if a GM used the same logic.
Bil

The so called "Father" uses a stupid bug in the ChessBase GUI to achieve his even more stupid wins on time
His wins has nothing to do with our discussion here,it's simply a monkey trick that he exploites again and again....

How does he do it, how can you take advantage of the bug?

Please use the search function of the forum,you'll find the answers there....

[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...

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

There has not been any "big progress" in terms of evaluation. Hardware speed, yes. Perhaps search tricks like LMR and whatever different thing Rybka is doing. But not in the "smarts"...

[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...

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

There has not been any "big progress" in terms of evaluation. Hardware speed, yes. Perhaps search tricks like LMR and whatever different thing Rybka is doing. But not in the "smarts"...

[bob]

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, the last match Kasparov played was five years ago! Believe it or not the programs of today are much stronger positionally than X3D Fritz was.

I'll take "not"... Tactically they are much better. Positionally the only change is that the deeper searches help some. But not in terms of new evaluation tricks... not much has changed there.