Do humans rated 2775+ still have a chance against Rybka 3 ?

[pichy]

Milov's results were very impressive indeed ... but in no way shape or form was the match a classic chess match. It was a handicap match against a 2700 player and it was extremely difficult for the human.

Not all games were handicaped 2 games out of the eight were normal. First I wrote that no FIDE rated player with a 2775+ and Rybka 3 with a single processor ( Not an 8 core super computer ). But if you take one of the best 5 players which are rated above 2775+ at the same time control 90 + 30 which GM Milov played, you might even see better result for the humans.

PS: Simple logic will tell you that GM Milov played Rybka 3 with 8 core procesors and is rated only 2705, now what do you expect from GM Anand or one of the first 5 FIDE top players like topalov, morosevich etc.. with rybka using a single processors.

http://www.gmchess.com/ratings/



Some time back Kasparov lost to Genius 3 on weak hardware ... the same Genius 3 lost several games against Rybka 3 with a Knight handicap.

Don't compare apples and oranges Kasparov lost to genius 3 on super fast blitz time control not at 90 + 30 and at that time the top GMs were not used to play against computer programs.



Of course Kasparov lost in a blitz game and that is not the same ... but while a human time is static ... for computers hardware makes time a very dynamic parameter.

Again I did not mentioned using 8 core computer, but a single processor, and even GM Milov at slow time control could hold Rybka 3 8 core with two normal games ( Not handicap )


An 8 core today probably plays 100 X faster than the Genius 3 that played against Kasparov (if not more).

I realy believe that an 8 core Rybka 3 plays at around a 3200 ELo ... if matched against humans it might be even higher than that. It would be a brave bunch of super GM's that would try to disprove that fact.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Milov's results were very impressive indeed ... but in no way shape or form was the match a classic chess match. It was a handicap match against a 2700 player and it was extremely difficult for the human.

Not all games were handicaped 2 games out of the eight were normal. First I wrote that no FIDE rated player with a 2775+ and Rybka 3 with a single processor ( Not an 8 core super computer ). But if you take one of the best 5 players which are rated above 2775+ at the same time control 90 + 30 which GM Milov played, you might even see better result for the humans.

PS: Simple logic will tell you that GM Milov played Rybka 3 with 8 core procesors and is rated only 2705, now what do you expect from GM Anand or one of the first 5 FIDE top players like topalov, morosevich etc.. with rybka using a single processors.

http://www.gmchess.com/ratings/



Some time back Kasparov lost to Genius 3 on weak hardware ... the same Genius 3 lost several games against Rybka 3 with a Knight handicap.

Don't compare apples and oranges Kasparov lost to genius 3 on super fast blitz time control not at 90 + 30 and at that time the top GMs were not used to play against computer programs.



Of course Kasparov lost in a blitz game and that is not the same ... but while a human time is static ... for computers hardware makes time a very dynamic parameter.

Again I did not mentioned using 8 core computer, but a single processor, and even GM Milov at slow time control could hold Rybka 3 8 core with two normal games ( Not handicap )

An 8 core today probably plays 100 X faster than the Genius 3 that played against Kasparov (if not more).

I realy believe that an 8 core Rybka 3 plays at around a 3200 ELo ... if matched against humans it might be even higher than that. It would be a brave bunch of super GM's that would try to disprove that fact.

Why you insist on dumping Rybka to play on a single processor when it can use an octal machine
Again you are trying to invent some kind of handicap conditions so that the poor human can get a chance....
I say get the best human players and the machines with the biggest guns they can afford and let's see once and for all who's the big boss even though I already know the outcome

[Leto]

Jorge don't put your statements inside the quote box, it is extremely confusing to readers.

As for this human vs computer stuff, it's well known to everyone that humans have no chance. Look at Kramnik in his match against Deep Fritz 10 running on four cores. A lot of people don't know that Deep Fritz 10 had at the time of the match a huge bug which made the 4 core version weaker than the 2 core version. In fact that bug wasn't fixed until months after Deep Fritz 10 was released to the public.

In the last game of that match, where Kramnik went all out for a win, he got crushed. He got crushed by a decent crippled engine running on an ordinary computer, with its opening tree fully available to Kramnik during the game.

Now put Kramnik against Rybka 3 running on Rybka team's 40-core monster, he'd be lucky to get a single draw even if they give him access to its opening tree.

You mention Anand, well if you look at his history against computers it's not very good. He drew a match with Rebel 10 which if I remember correctly is barely a 2600 engine today so it probably was playing at around 2500 strength.

The reason why Anand wouldn't make a strong opponent for computers is that he plays for a win much more often than the average Super Grandmaster. You play for a win and the computer will crush you.

The best strategy against computers still seems to be to trick the computer into reaching a lost ending. As you can see in the Kramnik - DF10 match, that's becoming practically impossible, and is perhaps impossible today.

[pichy]

Jorge don't put your statements inside the quote box, it is extremely confusing to readers.

As for this human vs computer stuff, it's well known to everyone that humans have no chance. Look at Kramnik in his match against Deep Fritz 10 running on four cores. A lot of people don't know that Deep Fritz 10 had at the time of the match a huge bug which made the 4 core version weaker than the 2 core version. In fact that bug wasn't fixed until months after Deep Fritz 10 was released to the public.

In the last game of that match, where Kramnik went all out for a win, he got crushed. He got crushed by a decent crippled engine running on an ordinary computer, with its opening tree fully available to Kramnik during the game.

Now put Kramnik against Rybka 3 running on Rybka team's 40-core monster, he'd be lucky to get a single draw even if they give him access to its opening tree.

You mention Anand, well if you look at his history against computers it's not very good. He drew a match with Rebel 10 which if I remember correctly is barely a 2600 engine today so it probably was playing at around 2500 strength.

The reason why Anand wouldn't make a strong opponent for computers is that he plays for a win much more often than the average Super Grandmaster. You play for a win and the computer will crush you.

The best strategy against computers still seems to be to trick the computer into reaching a lost ending. As you can see in the Kramnik - DF10 match, that's becoming practically impossible, and is perhaps impossible today.

If humans don't have a chance, what do you consider GM Milov ( as far as I know he won the match and he is made of flesh and bones like you and I , or is he a cyborg ?)

[Uri Blass]

Jorge don't put your statements inside the quote box, it is extremely confusing to readers.

As for this human vs computer stuff, it's well known to everyone that humans have no chance. Look at Kramnik in his match against Deep Fritz 10 running on four cores. A lot of people don't know that Deep Fritz 10 had at the time of the match a huge bug which made the 4 core version weaker than the 2 core version. In fact that bug wasn't fixed until months after Deep Fritz 10 was released to the public.

In the last game of that match, where Kramnik went all out for a win, he got crushed. He got crushed by a decent crippled engine running on an ordinary computer, with its opening tree fully available to Kramnik during the game.

Now put Kramnik against Rybka 3 running on Rybka team's 40-core monster, he'd be lucky to get a single draw even if they give him access to its opening tree.

You mention Anand, well if you look at his history against computers it's not very good. He drew a match with Rebel 10 which if I remember correctly is barely a 2600 engine today so it probably was playing at around 2500 strength.

The reason why Anand wouldn't make a strong opponent for computers is that he plays for a win much more often than the average Super Grandmaster. You play for a win and the computer will crush you.

The best strategy against computers still seems to be to trick the computer into reaching a lost ending. As you can see in the Kramnik - DF10 match, that's becoming practically impossible, and is perhaps impossible today.

humans may have no chance but kramnik's loss does not prove it
because it seems that kramnik did not care about the match and he even did not care to see a simple mate in 1.

Maybe he thought about his new wife and not about the board.

Uri

[Uri Blass]

Jorge don't put your statements inside the quote box, it is extremely confusing to readers.

As for this human vs computer stuff, it's well known to everyone that humans have no chance. Look at Kramnik in his match against Deep Fritz 10 running on four cores. A lot of people don't know that Deep Fritz 10 had at the time of the match a huge bug which made the 4 core version weaker than the 2 core version. In fact that bug wasn't fixed until months after Deep Fritz 10 was released to the public.

In the last game of that match, where Kramnik went all out for a win, he got crushed. He got crushed by a decent crippled engine running on an ordinary computer, with its opening tree fully available to Kramnik during the game.

Now put Kramnik against Rybka 3 running on Rybka team's 40-core monster, he'd be lucky to get a single draw even if they give him access to its opening tree.

You mention Anand, well if you look at his history against computers it's not very good. He drew a match with Rebel 10 which if I remember correctly is barely a 2600 engine today so it probably was playing at around 2500 strength.

The reason why Anand wouldn't make a strong opponent for computers is that he plays for a win much more often than the average Super Grandmaster. You play for a win and the computer will crush you.

The best strategy against computers still seems to be to trick the computer into reaching a lost ending. As you can see in the Kramnik - DF10 match, that's becoming practically impossible, and is perhaps impossible today.

If humans don't have a chance, what do you consider GM Milov ( as far as I know he won the match and he is made of flesh and bones like you and I , or is he a cyborg ?)

Milov did not win a fair match.

Milov lost the normal non handicap games 1.5:0.5 when he was white in both of them.

Uri

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Jorge don't put your statements inside the quote box, it is extremely confusing to readers.

As for this human vs computer stuff, it's well known to everyone that humans have no chance. Look at Kramnik in his match against Deep Fritz 10 running on four cores. A lot of people don't know that Deep Fritz 10 had at the time of the match a huge bug which made the 4 core version weaker than the 2 core version. In fact that bug wasn't fixed until months after Deep Fritz 10 was released to the public.

In the last game of that match, where Kramnik went all out for a win, he got crushed. He got crushed by a decent crippled engine running on an ordinary computer, with its opening tree fully available to Kramnik during the game.

Now put Kramnik against Rybka 3 running on Rybka team's 40-core monster, he'd be lucky to get a single draw even if they give him access to its opening tree.

You mention Anand, well if you look at his history against computers it's not very good. He drew a match with Rebel 10 which if I remember correctly is barely a 2600 engine today so it probably was playing at around 2500 strength.

The reason why Anand wouldn't make a strong opponent for computers is that he plays for a win much more often than the average Super Grandmaster. You play for a win and the computer will crush you.

The best strategy against computers still seems to be to trick the computer into reaching a lost ending. As you can see in the Kramnik - DF10 match, that's becoming practically impossible, and is perhaps impossible today.

If humans don't have a chance, what do you consider GM Milov ( as far as I know he won the match and he is made of flesh and bones like you and I , or is he a cyborg ?)

He played six games under handicapped conditions and he played only with white pieces,can't you understand this simple fact
I am astonished from the fact that you can't accept a single simple fact:
Humans have lost the war with the computer chess software,try to live with this fact....

[pichy]

Milov's results were very impressive indeed ... but in no way shape or form was the match a classic chess match. It was a handicap match against a 2700 player and it was extremely difficult for the human.

Not all games were handicaped 2 games out of the eight were normal. First I wrote that no FIDE rated player with a 2775+ and Rybka 3 with a single processor ( Not an 8 core super computer ). But if you take one of the best 5 players which are rated above 2775+ at the same time control 90 + 30 which GM Milov played, you might even see better result for the humans.

PS: Simple logic will tell you that GM Milov played Rybka 3 with 8 core procesors and is rated only 2705, now what do you expect from GM Anand or one of the first 5 FIDE top players like topalov, morosevich etc.. with rybka using a single processors.

http://www.gmchess.com/ratings/



Some time back Kasparov lost to Genius 3 on weak hardware ... the same Genius 3 lost several games against Rybka 3 with a Knight handicap.

Don't compare apples and oranges Kasparov lost to genius 3 on super fast blitz time control not at 90 + 30 and at that time the top GMs were not used to play against computer programs.



Of course Kasparov lost in a blitz game and that is not the same ... but while a human time is static ... for computers hardware makes time a very dynamic parameter.

Again I did not mentioned using 8 core computer, but a single processor, and even GM Milov at slow time control could hold Rybka 3 8 core with two normal games ( Not handicap )

An 8 core today probably plays 100 X faster than the Genius 3 that played against Kasparov (if not more).

I realy believe that an 8 core Rybka 3 plays at around a 3200 ELo ... if matched against humans it might be even higher than that. It would be a brave bunch of super GM's that would try to disprove that fact.

Why you insist on dumping Rybka to play on a single processor when it can use an octal machine
Again you are trying to invent some kind of handicap conditions so that the poor human can get a chance....
I say get the best human players and the machines with the biggest guns they can afford and let's see once and for all who's the big boss even though I already know the outcome

I am not trying to invent any kind of handicap, but it would be more interesting to see rybka 3 running on the fastest single processor available and playing a match against GM Milov under normal condition without pawn odds handicap and playing white and black.

PS: According to this SSDF super performance there is no computer that can beat Rybka 3 on a mere Athlon 1200 MHZ, since Rybka 3 is stronger than its closest rival on a Q6600

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 49&t=24579

[michiguel]

Jorge don't put your statements inside the quote box, it is extremely confusing to readers.

As for this human vs computer stuff, it's well known to everyone that humans have no chance. Look at Kramnik in his match against Deep Fritz 10 running on four cores. A lot of people don't know that Deep Fritz 10 had at the time of the match a huge bug which made the 4 core version weaker than the 2 core version. In fact that bug wasn't fixed until months after Deep Fritz 10 was released to the public.

In the last game of that match, where Kramnik went all out for a win, he got crushed. He got crushed by a decent crippled engine running on an ordinary computer, with its opening tree fully available to Kramnik during the game.

Now put Kramnik against Rybka 3 running on Rybka team's 40-core monster, he'd be lucky to get a single draw even if they give him access to its opening tree.

You mention Anand, well if you look at his history against computers it's not very good. He drew a match with Rebel 10 which if I remember correctly is barely a 2600 engine today so it probably was playing at around 2500 strength.

People keep mentioning this, but it is not accurate. Anand lost at faster speeds. IIRC, Anand beat Rebel at the slower pace.

Miguel

The reason why Anand wouldn't make a strong opponent for computers is that he plays for a win much more often than the average Super Grandmaster. You play for a win and the computer will crush you.

The best strategy against computers still seems to be to trick the computer into reaching a lost ending. As you can see in the Kramnik - DF10 match, that's becoming practically impossible, and is perhaps impossible today.

[M ANSARI]

To be honest it would not make much of difference for a human if Rybka 3 is on single core or Octal. For engine vs. engine match it would make a huge difference but humans would probably not be able to tell the difference of play between the two platforms. R3 on Athlon 1200 32bit is rated over 3000 ... A single core Nehalem running at the fastest available speed which is 3.2 ghz and using 64 bit orders of magnitude stronger. I think if a match were to be done vs. a human the results of a powerful single core setup and a 40 core cluster would be pretty much the same.

Usually a human loses due to tactics, and his only chance of surviving is to try to close the position as much as possible. If he is able to do that then a 1000 core cluster will make no difference to a single core cluster ... at least not until some form of Monte Carlo module is integrated into the cluster setup.

One more thing I would like to add ... the players that would fare best against computers do not necessarily have to be the top 5 players in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if some lower ranked GM's or even some IM's might have better results due to being able to know how to close positions.