GM says Rybka & Fritz weaker than best GMs in classical

[Michael Sherwin]

In a conversation where 2 sides disagree, one side states its arguments and the other answers by trying to refute them and provide better. Etc, and conversation continues.
By saying, like you did, with an ironic way that you know better, and also expecting everyone to agree with what you say is ridiculous.
You can't force everyone to agree with you and if they don't, to start being ironic against them is a bad thing....
You should try to refute their statements instead.

Oh God, I must say it:
Terry and Bob are right in this case -- cause they have looked on the other side too unlike you.
They have expirience that you missed -- you, Mathias, Wael (sorry, doc!): experience of knowing GM's in live.
So I can repeat my words from some posts below -- you underestimate grandmasters, guys. You strongly underestimate them.

Terry and Bob are right! But, only in a limited way. GM's can do tremendous feats in both pattern recognition and deep calculations. It is just that the top programs of today (with their human sourced opening books) do not let the GM's have positions where they can use those abilities. So, in very specific positions they are right, though in general they may not be. Inspiration is the power behind such abilities and computers seem to squelch inspiration.

[Bill Rogers]

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

[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....

[Michael Sherwin]

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

Hi Bill,

Just a couple points.

First, what father plays, as anti computer chess, has absolutly no apeal to me.

Second, there already exist strong programs that will not allow father's style to be played against them.

[Bill Rogers]

[quote="Michael Sherwin
Hi Bill,

Just a couple points.

First, what father plays, as anti computer chess, has absolutly no apeal to me.

Second, there already exist strong programs that will not allow father's style to be played against them.[/quote]

I realize he uses anti-computer chess but then again GM's will study the games of other GM's that they expect to play so that they may develope anit-GM play to use in their next games. By the use of the term 'anti-GM' I am referring to the fact that everyone has their own style and playing strenghts and weakness'. What Father does is not any different than the rest of the boys do, well in my opinion at least.
Bill

[Matthias Gemuh]

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

Let's not forget how many attempts fail before he gets a success.
His successes are not frequent enough to draw a match.
He of course never wins any of such games.

Matthias.

[George Tsavdaris]

In a conversation where 2 sides disagree, one side states its arguments and the other answers by trying to refute them and provide better. Etc, and conversation continues.
By saying, like you did, with an ironic way that you know better, and also expecting everyone to agree with what you say is ridiculous.
You can't force everyone to agree with you and if they don't, to start being ironic against them is a bad thing....
You should try to refute their statements instead.

Oh God, I must say it:
Terry and Bob are right in this case -- cause they have looked on the other side too unlike you.
They have expirience that you missed -- you, Mathias, Wael (sorry, doc!): experience of knowing GM's in live.
So I can repeat my words from some posts below -- you underestimate grandmasters, guys. You strongly underestimate them.

You obviously didn't pay enough attention to this conversation.
I'm not in the other side! The side of Mathias, Wael etc. I'm rather leaning towards on the other side.
I'm not even exclusively on the side where Hyatt and Terry is.

I'm between. I'm more with what Uri says.
GM's can certainly search sometimes 30-50 plies ahead. But of course, needless to say, they overlook billions of variations.
Computers also can search 40-60 plies ahead and they are doing it. They also overlook many things.

But my opinion is that computers in a game they search many more times such deep variations than GMs do.

As the conversation has evolved, i don't even know what is the point of disagreement anymore....

[bob]

A GM can _way_ out-calculate a computer along sharp tactical lines for the most part,

That is not true for today's hardware and top engines !!!!!.

Matthias.

Easy to say, but programs have a fixed and fairly shallow horizon. GMs sometimes calculate variations to 40-50 plies. Programs don't.

If you mean in correspondence chess, aided by engines, you are right.
Otherwise there is no proof for your claim.

Statistics prove that you are wrong:
if the GMs were that strong, they would not be blundering as frequently as they do in important human-human tournaments.
Just pick _any_ one of such tournaments and count the blunders at _shallow_ depth. There is no way they can calculate variations to 40-50 plies without using engines.

Matthias.

I'm only going to say this one more time and then move on to other topics. Correspondence play in the 1960's and 1970's did _not_ use computers, yet the variations were calculated out to depths that I considered impossible. Berliner had some gems and did _not_ need a computer to help him, since none were available back then.

GMs blunder because they are human, and make mistakes in time pressure, or when distracted, etc. But overall their moves are quite good. Otherwise I guess all the "greatest games" books need to be trashed as too full of blunders to be useful?

This is one of those "impossible to prove" situations so there is little point in continuing the back and forth discussion. You can have the last word. I still believe GM players are far stronger than computers overall in terms of positional play. And in the case of certain types of very deep and forcing tactics. Computers don't miss anything within their search horizon, and this horizon has gotten deep enough that they give GM players great trouble now. A GM can certainly calculate as deep as or deeper than a computer program. But at a cost of mental energy, and eventually fatigue will decide the outcome in many games... it is more a case of the GMs losing than it is a case of the computers winning... and it now happens frequently enough that GMs are beginning to not do very well against computers. Whether they would do better with one game a week is unknown since such an event would take forever.

Bob, don't waste your time with them, they know far more than we do.

That's not polite.
In a conversation where 2 sides disagree, one side states its arguments and the other answers by trying to refute them and provide better. Etc, and conversation continues.
By saying, like you did, with an ironic way that you know better, and also expecting everyone to agree with what you say is ridiculous.
You can't force everyone to agree with you and if they don't, to start being ironic against them is a bad thing....
You should try to refute their statements instead.

He can't,the truth and the statistical data are obvious for everyone to see....
No more human strategical superiority nonsense,set on the table and prove it,or let one of your GM searching 500 plies ahead do it....

As I said, I have given up trying to explain. I've not said that GMs can beat programs OTB very often, although they can still do it. I have simply explained _how_ the computer is beating the GM. And based on my experience, my reasoning is correct. I've watched it over the years. We started beating GMs at blitz in the late 70's, not because we outplayed them, but we let them make mistakes that turned out to be fatal. Today the same idea is holding on, and it is approaching the point where a GM simply can not play with enough accuracy over a long enough period of time, to hold off the computers. But to say that computers can positionally outplay top GM players is just silly, for anyone with enough chess skill to understand the ideas involved...

A computer is so bad at recognizing weak pawns, weak squares and such. But its tactics carry it anyway...

[Uri Blass]

A GM can _way_ out-calculate a computer along sharp tactical lines for the most part,

That is not true for today's hardware and top engines !!!!!.

Matthias.

Easy to say, but programs have a fixed and fairly shallow horizon. GMs sometimes calculate variations to 40-50 plies. Programs don't.

If you mean in correspondence chess, aided by engines, you are right.
Otherwise there is no proof for your claim.

Statistics prove that you are wrong:
if the GMs were that strong, they would not be blundering as frequently as they do in important human-human tournaments.
Just pick _any_ one of such tournaments and count the blunders at _shallow_ depth. There is no way they can calculate variations to 40-50 plies without using engines.

Matthias.

I'm only going to say this one more time and then move on to other topics. Correspondence play in the 1960's and 1970's did _not_ use computers, yet the variations were calculated out to depths that I considered impossible. Berliner had some gems and did _not_ need a computer to help him, since none were available back then.

GMs blunder because they are human, and make mistakes in time pressure, or when distracted, etc. But overall their moves are quite good. Otherwise I guess all the "greatest games" books need to be trashed as too full of blunders to be useful?

This is one of those "impossible to prove" situations so there is little point in continuing the back and forth discussion. You can have the last word. I still believe GM players are far stronger than computers overall in terms of positional play. And in the case of certain types of very deep and forcing tactics. Computers don't miss anything within their search horizon, and this horizon has gotten deep enough that they give GM players great trouble now. A GM can certainly calculate as deep as or deeper than a computer program. But at a cost of mental energy, and eventually fatigue will decide the outcome in many games... it is more a case of the GMs losing than it is a case of the computers winning... and it now happens frequently enough that GMs are beginning to not do very well against computers. Whether they would do better with one game a week is unknown since such an event would take forever.

Bob, don't waste your time with them, they know far more than we do.

That's not polite.
In a conversation where 2 sides disagree, one side states its arguments and the other answers by trying to refute them and provide better. Etc, and conversation continues.
By saying, like you did, with an ironic way that you know better, and also expecting everyone to agree with what you say is ridiculous.
You can't force everyone to agree with you and if they don't, to start being ironic against them is a bad thing....
You should try to refute their statements instead.

He can't,the truth and the statistical data are obvious for everyone to see....
No more human strategical superiority nonsense,set on the table and prove it,or let one of your GM searching 500 plies ahead do it....

As I said, I have given up trying to explain. I've not said that GMs can beat programs OTB very often, although they can still do it. I have simply explained _how_ the computer is beating the GM. And based on my experience, my reasoning is correct. I've watched it over the years. We started beating GMs at blitz in the late 70's, not because we outplayed them, but we let them make mistakes that turned out to be fatal. Today the same idea is holding on, and it is approaching the point where a GM simply can not play with enough accuracy over a long enough period of time, to hold off the computers. But to say that computers can positionally outplay top GM players is just silly, for anyone with enough chess skill to understand the ideas involved...

A computer is so bad at recognizing weak pawns, weak squares and such. But its tactics carry it anyway...

I agree that in the beginning when computers only started to beat GM's it was the case but not today for the top programs.

Remember that we talk about the top programs of today and not about Crafty.

You can look at the games of rybka against GM's to see that rybka positionally outplay GM's in most of the games.

I do not claim that it is because of better evaluation function and it may be because of search but the facts remain.

Uri

[terminator]

As I said, I have given up trying to explain. I've not said that GMs can beat programs OTB very often, although they can still do it. I have simply explained _how_ the computer is beating the GM. And based on my experience, my reasoning is correct. I've watched it over the years. We started beating GMs at blitz in the late 70's, not because we outplayed them, but we let them make mistakes that turned out to be fatal. Today the same idea is holding on, and it is approaching the point where a GM simply can not play with enough accuracy over a long enough period of time, to hold off the computers. But to say that computers can positionally outplay top GM players is just silly, for anyone with enough chess skill to understand the ideas involved...

A computer is so bad at recognizing weak pawns, weak squares and such. But its tactics carry it anyway...

This flawed assessment must come from Crafty seeing it has not been at the top for a quarter century. Seeing that you are talking the talk are you prepared to walk the walk? The only reason Kasparov and Kramnik were not humiliated like Adams is that they put in ridiculous conditions like getting the opening book/specific copy of program to be used.