M ANSARI wrote: 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 ...
While i agree that top Chess programs even on 1 CPU are better than all top GMs, and of course at 8 CPUs(cores) this is being magnified, and of course their positional play is not as bad(or good) as it was before 4 years, i still believe that positionally, the best GMs are a lot better than that of top computers even on 8 cores.
It is just that top todays computers at 4 or 8 cores, just go so deep that they don't miss a thing, so their defense is so amazing that a human just can't beat them!
They just can't. They will try some things, they will plan better from the computer, but since in order to win you have to risk a bit, and miss one two tiny minor things here and there, and since computers will punish even a tiny teeny minor error, it is just impossible to win.
After his son's birth they've asked him:
"Is it a boy or girl?"
YES! He replied.....
M ANSARI wrote: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.
Hala Majd,
Is your octa machine stable enough at 4.8 Ghz
What cooling system are you using
_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….
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.
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...
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.
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...
Thanks Bob! That is the point I have been trying to get across to no avail.
You certainly have the experience with Crafty and a great many GM players to realize this.
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.
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...
No,this is not the only reason,programs like Rybka,Hiarcs,Zappa,etc.,are showing an outstanding positional understanding of the positions OTB when playing humans....
Where is the superior human positional understanding when everyday we are watching the top chess engines wiping the floor with the top human grandmasters usualy in odd matchs,not to talk about normal chess playing conditions....
_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….
bob wrote:
Humans have _far_ superior positional understanding. By a factor of at least 10x and probably more than 100X better than any program around.
That is of course 5...50 times intentionally exaggerated !
Of what use is positional understanding if a sequence of sub-optimal tactics throws the game out of the window ?
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.
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...
A humans positional understanding is based on a plethera of 'rules of thumb' in which the majority have many exceptions. The computer is very good at finding the exceptions. The human needs to search inorder to find the exceptions. The computer is better at searching. There are holes in the positional undrstanding of even the strongest humans. The incredible searh of the modern chess program on modern hardware simply plugs alot of holes in its understanding. 10X? I don't buy it.
If you are on a sidewalk and the covid goes beep beep
Just step aside or you might have a bit of heat
Covid covid runs through the town all day
Can the people ever change their ways
Sherwin the covid's after you
Sherwin if it catches you you're through
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.
Hard to claim the opposite ... but GM Lev Alburt should be ready for
an official match under tournament conditions and then we shall see.
Kurt
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.
Hard to claim the opposite ... but GM Lev Alburt should be ready for
an official match under tournament conditions and then we shall see.
Kurt
Yeah,an empty words are easy to speak,but will we live the day to see him or any other GM beating the engines at long time controls without any odd conditions
Personaly,I don't think so....
_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….
