GenoM wrote:I think Alburt knows what he's talking about. Don't underestimate human top-players, guys.
Zdravei Geno,
I am almost sure that the GM in question will lose severly to Rybka in a head to head match at long time controls...
And not only him,the proof is yet to be revealed....
Botvinnik had once mentioned that there will be a time when humans can't compete with the machines anymore and the machines will play in their own league....
I think that the time has already come
Then why didn't Rybka beat an over the hill GM ~2550 in it's last encounter? Why do GM's still pick up points at ICC, why did my lowly master friend score wins against CM10th Edition, why did I collect some points againts CM10 & 9000 including Rybka Beta 1.0?
And I'm not a GM...although I nailed one on ICC as a guest a few years back:)
CRoberson wrote: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.
GM´s still being better than chess program´s, they know to handle better the strategy bla, bla ,bla bla, just give me a proof or a test, a convincing victory from Gm´s in a match… it simply does not exist, not even kramnik could overcome to Deep Fritz, so the good Lev Alburt must stop to say trivialities and blusters the only way for a Human Gm to beat a top program today is play anti-chess and this will not even be sufficient because it seems that rybka 3 will be even more stronger and difficult to beat even played anti-chess
GenoM wrote:I think Alburt knows what he's talking about. Don't underestimate human top-players, guys.
Zdravei Geno,
I am almost sure that the GM in question will lose severly to Rybka in a head to head match at long time controls...
And not only him,the proof is yet to be revealed....
Botvinnik had once mentioned that there will be a time when humans can't compete with the machines anymore and the machines will play in their own league....
I think that the time has already come
Then why didn't Rybka beat an over the hill GM ~2550 in it's last encounter?
Because it was a HANDICAP game.
The GM had white in all 8 games AND Rybka had one of its Pawns removed each time.
So do you still believe that with this handicap conditions, the 4-4 result Rybka achieved was bad?
From there: Most games are blitz ones, with timings between 3+1 and 5+5.
In 1436 games, the Grandmasters are white.
Their score is +32 =169 -1235 : 8% (no typo : really EIGHT percents!!)
In 1401 games the Grandmasters are black.
Their score : +20 =96 -1285 : 5% (no typo : FIVE percents!)
8% and 5% at blitz time controls.
Do you think at longer time controls things will improve so drastically that humans will go beyond 40% or 50% ??
why did my lowly master friend score wins against CM10th Edition, why did I collect some points againts CM10 & 9000 including Rybka Beta 1.0?
And the magic word is "SOME".
Your master friend and yourself may score wins and take points, but i say again that the important and most critical thing is:
From how many games?
After his son's birth they've asked him:
"Is it a boy or girl?"
YES! He replied.....
GenoM wrote:I think Alburt knows what he's talking about. Don't underestimate human top-players, guys.
Zdravei Geno,
I am almost sure that the GM in question will lose severly to Rybka in a head to head match at long time controls...
And not only him,the proof is yet to be revealed....
Botvinnik had once mentioned that there will be a time when humans can't compete with the machines anymore and the machines will play in their own league....
I think that the time has already come
Then why didn't Rybka beat an over the hill GM ~2550 in it's last encounter? Why do GM's still pick up points at ICC, why did my lowly master friend score wins against CM10th Edition, why did I collect some points againts CM10 & 9000 including Rybka Beta 1.0?
And I'm not a GM...although I nailed one on ICC as a guest a few years back:)
Because of all these odd matchs and not giving the computer the maximum potential that it has to use....
I also have a lot of draws and good number of wins against engines rated over 2400 in my rating list and I am not even rated....
Again,in a head to head match with Rybka or Zappa on a cutting edge hardware,the humans are doomed Terry,doomed
The funny thing is that you see the prrof almost everyday and you still don't want to believe
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
I'm certainly not a GM. At best a mediocre casual club player. I was an acquaintace of Lev about twenty years ago when we were both on a summer institute faculty. He was the chess instructor, obviously. At that time I was experimenting with early chessmaster (2000) for PCs. I don't recall Lev being interested in computer chess Btw, Lev is a great guy and a great teacher and if I recall, a PhD in physics. I respect his opinions very highly but I do not agree with his opinions on chess computers.
Anyway, here is how I look at it. When it comes to making a deep strategic plan, a GM is as good or better than all but Rybka and maybe a couple of others. That is because Rybka is also aware of how to play strategic imbalances, eg when it is as good or better to have 2 bishops than a rook and a knight.
When it comes to tactics, the computer is better. The computer can see further over the horizon. Particularly when it comes to an opening novelty. A GM may or may not find the right tactical line against a new opening novelty OTB in 15 minutes, whereas a computer will do a better job in 1 minute. Likewise for seeing a 10 move mating net.
Computers use opening books which they can go as deep or deeper than 60 plies. But occassionally all computer books will pick a weak opening that a GM can pounce on. Computer books do not contain opening novelties, as they use tried and true openings. A GMs opening database in his brain is not as deep. The GM might be better off using an opening that is not well represented in the computers opening book. However a GM should not use a opening gambit or a novelty against a computer, because of the computers superiority in tactics.
The GM could go for a middle-game blockade, or go for the draw in other ways, even if there is a slight hope for a win. The computer will not do that and will pursue a win if it sees an evaluation greater than 0. The GM can ignore these slivers of hopes for a win, and be conservative.
Over the course of many games, a computer like Rybka, especially on a mp platform will overwhelm a GM at long time-controls. The best hope for the GM is that the computer picks a faulty opening.
Against a computer engine weaker than Rybka, the GMs have better chances to take advantage of their strategic superiority and see something the computer does not see. But the GM has to still be very wary of the computers greater tactical strength. A small tactical miscue is all that it takes to wipe out the strategic advantage. Engines on the level of Shredder 10, 1CPU, or higher will still dominate over GMs. Betweem Chess Tiger 2007 and Shredder 10 1CPU, the situtation can be competitive but still in the computers favor. Slightly below Chess Tiger 2007, it might be equal balance. Again I'm thinking in terms of equal and long time-controls without any gimmicks or handicaps.
Norm Pollock wrote:I'm certainly not a GM. At best a mediocre casual club player. I was an acquaintace of Lev about twenty years ago when we were both on a summer institute faculty. He was the chess instructor, obviously. At that time I was experimenting with early chessmaster (2000) for PCs. I don't recall Lev being interested in computer chess Btw, Lev is a great guy and a great teacher and if I recall, a PhD in physics. I respect his opinions very highly but I do not agree with his opinions on chess computers.
Anyway, here is how I look at it. When it comes to making a deep strategic plan, a GM is as good or better than all but Rybka and maybe a couple of others. That is because Rybka is also aware of how to play strategic imbalances, eg when it is as good or better to have 2 bishops than a rook and a knight.
When it comes to tactics, the computer is better. The computer can see further over the horizon. Particularly when it comes to an opening novelty. A GM may or may not find the right tactical line against a new opening novelty OTB in 15 minutes, whereas a computer will do a better job in 1 minute. Likewise for seeing a 10 move mating net.
Computers use opening books which they can go as deep or deeper than 60 plies. But occassionally all computer books will pick a weak opening that a GM can pounce on. Computer books do not contain opening novelties, as they use tried and true openings. A GMs opening database in his brain is not as deep. The GM might be better off using an opening that is not well represented in the computers opening book. However a GM should not use a opening gambit or a novelty against a computer, because of the computers superiority in tactics.
The GM could go for a middle-game blockade, or go for the draw in other ways, even if there is a slight hope for a win. The computer will not do that and will pursue a win if it sees an evaluation greater than 0. The GM can ignore these slivers of hopes for a win, and be conservative.
Over the course of many games, a computer like Rybka, especially on a mp platform will overwhelm a GM at long time-controls. The best hope for the GM is that the computer picks a faulty opening.
Against a computer engine weaker than Rybka, the GMs have better chances to take advantage of their strategic superiority and see something the computer does not see. But the GM has to still be very wary of the computers greater tactical strength. A small tactical miscue is all that it takes to wipe out the strategic advantage. Engines on the level of Shredder 10, 1CPU, or higher will still dominate over GMs. Betweem Chess Tiger 2007 and Shredder 10 1CPU, the situtation can be competitive but still in the computers favor. Slightly below Chess Tiger 2007, it might be equal balance. Again I'm thinking in terms of equal and long time-controls without any gimmicks or handicaps.
Shredder 10 is not so strong in my opinion. Even i (a 1300 Elo player) could get an advantage over Shredder 10 in several 1 minute games (i did not continue till the end though) so a GM could definitely beat Shredder 10. But i guess the next version of Shredder (which should be Shredder 12) will be much better than Shredder 10, maybe even better than Rybka 3.0
GenoM wrote:I think Alburt knows what he's talking about. Don't underestimate human top-players, guys.
Zdravei Geno,
I am almost sure that the GM in question will lose severly to Rybka in a head to head match at long time controls...
And not only him,the proof is yet to be revealed....
Botvinnik had once mentioned that there will be a time when humans can't compete with the machines anymore and the machines will play in their own league....
I think that the time has already come
Then why didn't Rybka beat an over the hill GM ~2550 in it's last encounter?
Because it was a HANDICAP game.
The GM had white in all 8 games AND Rybka had one of its Pawns removed each time.
So do you still believe that with this handicap conditions, the 4-4 result Rybka achieved was bad?
From there: Most games are blitz ones, with timings between 3+1 and 5+5.
In 1436 games, the Grandmasters are white.
Their score is +32 =169 -1235 : 8% (no typo : really EIGHT percents!!)
In 1401 games the Grandmasters are black.
Their score : +20 =96 -1285 : 5% (no typo : FIVE percents!)
8% and 5% at blitz time controls.
Do you think at longer time controls things will improve so drastically that humans will go beyond 40% or 50% ??
why did my lowly master friend score wins against CM10th Edition, why did I collect some points againts CM10 & 9000 including Rybka Beta 1.0?
And the magic word is "SOME".
Your master friend and yourself may score wins and take points, but i say again that the important and most critical thing is:
From how many games?
I'm not a GM and am past my prime, that is my point. Computers are better at hard to spot tactics and don't become distracted or tired, that's it.
GenoM wrote:I think Alburt knows what he's talking about. Don't underestimate human top-players, guys.
Zdravei Geno,
I am almost sure that the GM in question will lose severly to Rybka in a head to head match at long time controls...
And not only him,the proof is yet to be revealed....
Botvinnik had once mentioned that there will be a time when humans can't compete with the machines anymore and the machines will play in their own league....
I think that the time has already come
Then why didn't Rybka beat an over the hill GM ~2550 in it's last encounter? Why do GM's still pick up points at ICC, why did my lowly master friend score wins against CM10th Edition, why did I collect some points againts CM10 & 9000 including Rybka Beta 1.0?
And I'm not a GM...although I nailed one on ICC as a guest a few years back:)
Because of all these odd matchs and not giving the computer the maximum potential that it has to use....
I also have a lot of draws and good number of wins against engines rated over 2400 in my rating list and I am not even rated....
Again,in a head to head match with Rybka or Zappa on a cutting edge hardware,the humans are doomed Terry,doomed
The funny thing is that you see the prrof almost everyday and you still don't want to believe
Eventually machines will win every single game against all comers, I have no doubt about that. However, that day hasn't arrived, but it's looming on the horizon.
I think a lot of you still don't understand how much chess engines combined with hardware have changed ... they have changed A LOT from one or two years ago. I recentely built a very powerful machine running 8 cores at 4.8 Ghz ... it is amazing how much more powerful Rybka and Zappa play on this hardware. The days where a GM could play better positional chess are gone IMHO ... let us face it ... Rybka or Zappa will play better positional chess than even the best GM ... I have put Rybka 2.3.2a and Zappa in a few 30 0 games and the level of play is phenomenally strong .... and to think that Rybka 3.0 is even stronger ... I think the facts are obvious. A good GM can still give engines a good run for their money if the hardware is changed ... say a single core Athlon ... but on a Quadcore or an Octa ... sorry no chance.
And let's not forget the usefulness of Nalimov tablebases. I'm using the 3-4-5 tbs on an 8G usb stick drive. No spinning of the HD. I also have room for Daniels egbbs. Just barely, out of 8G available, there is just 37M left over. Just made it.
Now if 6 man tbs are used, the power of computers is even greater.
the only way for a Human Gm to beat a top program today is play anti-chess and this will not even be sufficient because it seems that rybka 3 will be even more stronger and difficult to beat even played anti-chess
