Rybka vs top human match

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I'm more interested in a Rybka vs Hydra match, I already know that the best human chess players are inferior to chess engines.

I am not interested in rybka vs hydra match.

I see no reason to care about playing strength of hydra that is something that nobody can get.

It is more interesting to know the
playing strength of commercial engines or free engines

Uri

I agree with you Uri 100%,even more when we don't know what are the latest improvements of Hydra regarding the playing strength....

[Terry McCracken]

I'm more interested in a Rybka vs Hydra match, I already know that the best human chess players are inferior to chess engines.

What's your chess level? Did you enjoy my little crush over old Fritzy?

If you're not 2500+, you shouldn't make such statements. No wonder GM's detest this forum

[Leto]

I'm more interested in a Rybka vs Hydra match, I already know that the best human chess players are inferior to chess engines.

What's your chess level? Did you enjoy my little crush over old Fritzy?

If you're not 2500+, you shouldn't make such statements. No wonder GM's detest this forum

Your statement is illogical. One does not have to be a car to know that cars can outrun humans. Logically one does not have to be 2500+ to know that the best human chess players are inferior to top chess engines.

[Graham Banks]

Larry stated that a strong human GM has expressed interest so it would be interesting if the match takes off. Isn't a 3 move opening book too much of a concession? If Rybka suffers a reverse you can bet that will be one of the sticking points.

The conditions are of the Rybka teams making, so they should have no right to grizzle afterwards if things go badly.

[Terry McCracken]

I'm more interested in a Rybka vs Hydra match, I already know that the best human chess players are inferior to chess engines.

What's your chess level? Did you enjoy my little crush over old Fritzy?

If you're not 2500+, you shouldn't make such statements. No wonder GM's detest this forum

Your statement is illogical. One does not have to be a car to know that cars can outrun humans. Logically one does not have to be 2500+ to know that the best human chess players are inferior to top chess engines.

My statement is very logical, and your analogy is old, used by countless amateurs, and not sound.

You fail to appreciate the genius and artistry of brillant GM play.

So do computers.....

[Leto]

I'm more interested in a Rybka vs Hydra match, I already know that the best human chess players are inferior to chess engines.

What's your chess level? Did you enjoy my little crush over old Fritzy?

If you're not 2500+, you shouldn't make such statements. No wonder GM's detest this forum

Your statement is illogical. One does not have to be a car to know that cars can outrun humans. Logically one does not have to be 2500+ to know that the best human chess players are inferior to top chess engines.

My statement is very logical, and your analogy is old, used by countless amateurs, and not sound.

You fail to appreciate the genius and artistry of brillant GM play.

So do computers.....

You fail to appreciate the beauty of computer play, far more beautiful than anything a GM can produce.

[Terry McCracken]

I'm more interested in a Rybka vs Hydra match, I already know that the best human chess players are inferior to chess engines.

What's your chess level? Did you enjoy my little crush over old Fritzy?

If you're not 2500+, you shouldn't make such statements. No wonder GM's detest this forum

Your statement is illogical. One does not have to be a car to know that cars can outrun humans. Logically one does not have to be 2500+ to know that the best human chess players are inferior to top chess engines.

My statement is very logical, and your analogy is old, used by countless amateurs, and not sound.

You fail to appreciate the genius and artistry of brillant GM play.

So do computers.....

You fail to appreciate the beauty of computer play, far more beautiful than anything a GM can produce.

Utter nonsense! I've played thousands of both human and computer chess games. I've analized both, and humans win hands down for creativity and ingenious play!!

Programs are calculators, humans create, machines don't, and the best human chess positionally and tactically are still beyond computers.

Computers have only one thing that humans don't, stamina.

They can't create, they can't multi-stage plan, and positionally are not in the same class.

You haven't the ability to see this. In fact I doubt you know the game very well.

Do you play chess?

What computer can reproduce the brilliant play of Anand?

None!!!

[Event "Corus Wijk aan Zee"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee"]
[Date "2006.01.14"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "Round 1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Sergey Karjakin"]
[Black "Viswanathan Anand"]
[ECO "B90"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "74"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5
7. Nb3 Be6 8. f3 Be7 9. Qd2 O-O 10. O-O-O Nbd7 11. g4 b5
12. g5 b4 13. Ne2 Ne8 14. f4 a5 15. f5 a4 16. Nbd4 exd4
17. Nxd4 b3 18. Kb1 bxc2+ 19. Nxc2 Bb3 20. axb3 axb3 21. Na3
Ne5 22. h4 Ra5 23. Qc3 Qa8 24. Bg2 Nc7 25. Qxc7 Rc8 26. Qxe7
Nc4 27. g6 hxg6 28. fxg6 Nxa3+ 29. bxa3 Rxa3 30. gxf7+ Kh7
31. f8=N+ Rxf8 32. Qxf8 Ra1+ 33. Kb2 Ra2+ 34. Kc3 Qa5+ 35. Kd3
Qb5+ 36. Kd4 Ra4+ 37. Kc3 Qc4+ 0-1

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1385670

Whose superior? Not the computers!!! Anand shows his mastery and depth of play, the superiorty of humans over machines!
A computer can't reproduce this play in 40/2 TC's
Computers are not in the same class!

This is Chess!!!

[d]q3nrk1/4bppp/3p4/r3nPP1/4P2P/NpQ1B3/1P4B1/1K1R3R b - - 0 24

24...Nc7!!

[Uri Blass]

This is simply not correct.

Humans have something that they call experience.
They may know that some type of move never works based on their experience so they wll not find it because they will not analyze it when computers who analyze every possibility may find it.

There is book that is called creative chess and people found that computer found most of the moves in this book so you can say that they are creative.

I believe that top humans are relatively not creative in 120/40 games because being creative mean finding moves that seem to be illogical based on your experience(if you suspect that they are good based on your experience you are not creative and you simply use the experience that you know).

Humans have no time for analyzing lines that they consider as illogical in 120/40 games and they can spend their time better by looking only at candidate moves that they consider as logical.

I also suspect that you will find programs that find Nc7 at tournament time control.

Here is some analysis by a free program:

My hardware is not the best(only A3000 2ghz) and Galurung2-epsilon/2 does not use parallel search.

Sergey Karjakin - Viswanathan Anand, Corus Wijk aan Zee 2006
[D]q3nrk1/4bppp/3p4/r3nPP1/4P2P/NpQ1B3/1P4B1/1K1R3R b - - 0 1

Analysis by Glaurung 2-epsilon/2:

24...Ra5xa3 25.b2xa3 Qa8xa3
= (0.07) Depth: 2 00:00:00
24...Ra5xa3 25.b2xa3 Qa8xa3
= (0.07) Depth: 3 00:00:00
24...Ra5xa3 25.b2xa3 Qa8xa3 26.Rd1-d2
= (-0.13) Depth: 4 00:00:00
24...Ra5xa3 25.b2xa3 Qa8xa3 26.Rd1-d2 Qa3-a4
= (0.09) Depth: 5 00:00:00
24...Ra5xa3 25.b2xa3 Qa8xa3 26.Rd1-d2 Qa3-a4 27.Rh1-c1
= (0.11) Depth: 6 00:00:01 5kN
24...Ra5xa3 25.b2xa3 Qa8xa3 26.Rd1-d2 Be7-d8 27.g5-g6 h7xg6
² (0.70) Depth: 7 00:00:01 11kN
24...Ra5xa3 25.b2xa3 Qa8xa3 26.Rd1-d2 Ne5-g4 27.g5-g6 h7xg6 28.f5xg6 Ng4xe3 29.g6xf7+ Rf8xf7 30.Qc3xe3
± (0.98) Depth: 8 00:00:01 28kN
24...Ra5xa3 25.b2xa3 Qa8xa3 26.Rd1-d2 Qa3-a4 27.f5-f6 g7xf6 28.Rh1-c1 f6xg5 29.h4xg5
± (1.25) Depth: 9 00:00:01 77kN
24...Ra5xa3 25.b2xa3 Qa8xa3 26.Rd1-d2 Ne5-g4 27.f5-f6 g7xf6 28.Be3-d4 Ng4-e5 29.Rd2-b2
± (1.31) Depth: 10 00:00:02 345kN
24...Ne5-g4 25.Be3-d2 Ra5-a4 26.f5-f6 Ne8xf6 27.g5xf6 Be7xf6 28.Qc3-g3 Ra4xe4 29.Qg3xb3
± (1.00) Depth: 10 00:00:02 656kN
24...Ne5-g4 25.Be3-d2 Ra5-a4 26.f5-f6 Ne8xf6 27.g5xf6 Be7xf6 28.Qc3-g3 Ra4xe4 29.Qg3xb3 Rf8-c8 30.Bg2xe4 Qa8xe4+ 31.Kb1-a1
± (1.11) Depth: 11 00:00:03 1210kN
24...Ne5-g4 25.Be3-d4 d6-d5 26.f5-f6 g7xf6 27.Bg2-h3 Be7xa3 28.b2xa3 Ng4-e5 29.g5xf6 Ne5-c4 30.Rh1-g1+ Kg8-h8 31.e4xd5 Nc4xa3+ 32.Kb1-a1 Qa8xd5
± (1.07) Depth: 12 00:00:06 3856kN
24...Ne5-g4 25.Be3-d4 d6-d5 26.f5-f6 g7xf6 27.Bg2-h3 Be7xa3 28.b2xa3 Ng4-e5 29.g5xf6 Ne5-c4 30.Rh1-g1+ Kg8-h8 31.e4xd5 Nc4xa3+ 32.Kb1-c1 Qa8xd5
± (0.92) Depth: 13 00:00:12 7815kN
24...Ne5-g4 25.Be3-b6 Ra5xa3 26.b2xa3 Qa8xa3 27.Qc3-b2 Qa3-b4 28.Bb6-d4 Ng4-e5 29.f5-f6 g7xf6 30.Rh1-h3 Ne5-c4 31.Qb2-c1
+- (1.49) Depth: 14 00:00:36 24848kN
24...Ra5-a6 25.Be3-d4 Ra6-c6 26.Qc3-g3 Qa8-b8 27.Bg2-f1 Be7-d8 28.f5-f6 Qb8-b4 29.Bf1-b5 Rc6-c8 30.Rh1-h3 g7xf6 31.g5xf6+ Kg8-h8
+- (1.47) Depth: 14 00:00:48 33316kN
24...Ra5-a4 25.Be3-d4 Qa8-b8 26.Rh1-h3 Ra4-b4 27.Qc3-c1 Qb8-b7 28.Rh3-c3 Qb7-b8 29.Rd1-d2 Qb8-a8 30.Qc1-d1 Qa8-b7 31.Qd1-c1
± (1.03) Depth: 14 00:01:12 50039kN
24...Ra5-a4 25.Be3-d4 Qa8-b8 26.Rh1-h3 Ra4-b4 27.Qc3-c1 Qb8-a8 28.Rh3-c3 Qa8-b8 29.Rd1-d2 Qb8-a8 30.Rc3-c8 Qa8-b7 31.Qc1-c3 Rb4-a4
± (1.07) Depth: 15 00:01:33 63767kN
24...Ne8-f6 25.g5xf6 Be7xf6 26.Rd1-d2 Rf8-c8 27.Qc3xb3 Rc8-b8 28.Be3-b6 Ra5-a6 29.Rd2xd6 Bf6-e7 30.Rh1-d1 Qa8-b7 31.Qb3-b5 Ra6xb6
² (0.64) Depth: 15 00:02:07 87385kN
24...Ne8-f6 25.g5xf6 Be7xf6 26.Be3-c1 Rf8-c8 27.Qc3-b4 Ra5-a4 28.Qb4xb3 Rc8-b8 29.Qb3-d5 Qa8xd5 30.Rd1xd5 Ra4xa3 31.Rd5xd6 Ne5-c4 32.Rd6-c6 Nc4xb2
² (0.37) Depth: 16 00:02:44 114572kN
24...Ne8-f6 25.g5xf6 Be7xf6 26.Be3-c1 Rf8-c8 27.Qc3-b4 Ra5-a4 28.Qb4xb3 Rc8-b8 29.Qb3-d5 Qa8xd5 30.Rd1xd5 Ra4xa3 31.Rd5xd6 Ne5-c4 32.Rd6-c6 Ra3-a4 33.Bg2-f1 Nc4xb2
² (0.31) Depth: 17 00:03:35 151678kN
24...Ne8-f6 25.g5xf6 Be7xf6 26.Be3-c1 Rf8-c8 27.Qc3-b4 Ra5-a4 28.Qb4xd6 Ne5-c4 29.Qd6-d5 Ra4xa3 30.Qd5xa8 Ra3xa8 31.e4-e5 Nc4xe5 32.Bg2xa8 Rc8xa8 33.Rh1-h3 h7-h6
= (0.17) Depth: 18 00:06:12 264870kN
24...Ne8-c7 25.Qc3xc7 Rf8-c8 26.Qc7xe7 Ne5-c4 27.g5-g6 h7xg6 28.f5xg6 Ra5xa3 29.Qe7xf7+ Kg8-h8 30.b2xa3 Nc4xa3+ 31.Kb1-b2 Na3-c4+ 32.Kb2-c3 Nc4-e5+ 33.Kc3xb3 Ne5xf7 34.Rd1-d4 Qa8-c6 35.Be3-d2 Nf7-e5
³ (-0.58) Depth: 18 00:13:07 559500kN

(, 13.05.2007)

Uri

[Marc Lacrosse]

Utter nonsense! I've played thousands of both human and computer chess games. I've analized both, and humans win hands down for creativity and ingenious play!!

Programs are calculators, humans create, machines don't, and the best human chess positionally and tactically are still beyond computers.

Computers have only one thing that humans don't, stamina.

They can't create, they can't multi-stage plan, and positionally are not in the same class.

You haven't the ability to see this. In fact I doubt you know the game very well.

Do you play chess?

What computer can reproduce the brilliant play of Anand?

None!!!

[Event "Corus Wijk aan Zee"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee"]
[Date "2006.01.14"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "Round 1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Sergey Karjakin"]
[Black "Viswanathan Anand"]
[ECO "B90"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "74"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5
7. Nb3 Be6 8. f3 Be7 9. Qd2 O-O 10. O-O-O Nbd7 11. g4 b5
12. g5 b4 13. Ne2 Ne8 14. f4 a5 15. f5 a4 16. Nbd4 exd4
17. Nxd4 b3 18. Kb1 bxc2+ 19. Nxc2 Bb3 20. axb3 axb3 21. Na3
Ne5 22. h4 Ra5 23. Qc3 Qa8 24. Bg2 Nc7 25. Qxc7 Rc8 26. Qxe7
Nc4 27. g6 hxg6 28. fxg6 Nxa3+ 29. bxa3 Rxa3 30. gxf7+ Kh7
31. f8=N+ Rxf8 32. Qxf8 Ra1+ 33. Kb2 Ra2+ 34. Kc3 Qa5+ 35. Kd3
Qb5+ 36. Kd4 Ra4+ 37. Kc3 Qc4+ 0-1

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1385670

Whose superior? Not the computers!!! Anand shows his mastery and depth of play, the superiorty of humans over machines!
A computer can't reproduce this play in 40/2 TC's
Computers are not in the same class!

This is Chess!!!

[d]q3nrk1/4bppp/3p4/r3nPP1/4P2P/NpQ1B3/1P4B1/1K1R3R b - - 0 24

24...Nc7!!

Hi Terry

Although I fully agree with your preference for human creativity, your example is not adequate although the game is a real gem.

Here is Chessbase comment after the game :
(http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2864):

"23.Qc3N. Karjakin deviates from Leko-Vallejo in Monte Carlo 2005, where 23.Qe2 was played and the game ended in a draw after 67 moves. But Anand is prepared: 23...Qa8 24.Bg2.
24...Nc7! An amazing move by Anand, played á tempo and obviously coming from home preparation."

Anand himself said that 24..Nc7 was home preparation...

... and he just declared that his home prep is largely computer-based.

So this wonderful game is probably not the best example for showing human superiority over the comp ...



Marc

[Terry McCracken]

This is simply not correct.

Humans have something that they call experience.
They may know that some type of move never works based on their experience so they wll not find it because they will not analyze it when computers who analyze every possibility may find it.

There is book that is called creative chess and people found that computer found most of the moves in this book so you can say that they are creative.

I believe that top humans are relatively not creative in 120/40 games because being creative mean finding moves that seem to be illogical based on your experience(if you suspect that they are good based on your experience you are not creative and you simply use the experience that you know).

Humans have no time for analyzing lines that they consider as illogical in 120/40 games and they can spend their time better by looking only at candidate moves that they consider as logical.

I also suspect that you will find programs that find Nc7 at tournament time control.

Here is some analysis by a free program:

My hardware is not the best(only A3000 2ghz) and Galurung2-epsilon/2 does not use parallel search.

Sergey Karjakin - Viswanathan Anand, Corus Wijk aan Zee 2006
[D]q3nrk1/4bppp/3p4/r3nPP1/4P2P/NpQ1B3/1P4B1/1K1R3R b - - 0 1

Analysis by Glaurung 2-epsilon/2:

24...Ra5xa3 25.b2xa3 Qa8xa3
= (0.07) Depth: 2 00:00:00
24...Ra5xa3 25.b2xa3 Qa8xa3
= (0.07) Depth: 3 00:00:00
24...Ra5xa3 25.b2xa3 Qa8xa3 26.Rd1-d2
= (-0.13) Depth: 4 00:00:00
24...Ra5xa3 25.b2xa3 Qa8xa3 26.Rd1-d2 Qa3-a4
= (0.09) Depth: 5 00:00:00
24...Ra5xa3 25.b2xa3 Qa8xa3 26.Rd1-d2 Qa3-a4 27.Rh1-c1
= (0.11) Depth: 6 00:00:01 5kN
24...Ra5xa3 25.b2xa3 Qa8xa3 26.Rd1-d2 Be7-d8 27.g5-g6 h7xg6
² (0.70) Depth: 7 00:00:01 11kN
24...Ra5xa3 25.b2xa3 Qa8xa3 26.Rd1-d2 Ne5-g4 27.g5-g6 h7xg6 28.f5xg6 Ng4xe3 29.g6xf7+ Rf8xf7 30.Qc3xe3
± (0.98) Depth: 8 00:00:01 28kN
24...Ra5xa3 25.b2xa3 Qa8xa3 26.Rd1-d2 Qa3-a4 27.f5-f6 g7xf6 28.Rh1-c1 f6xg5 29.h4xg5
± (1.25) Depth: 9 00:00:01 77kN
24...Ra5xa3 25.b2xa3 Qa8xa3 26.Rd1-d2 Ne5-g4 27.f5-f6 g7xf6 28.Be3-d4 Ng4-e5 29.Rd2-b2
± (1.31) Depth: 10 00:00:02 345kN
24...Ne5-g4 25.Be3-d2 Ra5-a4 26.f5-f6 Ne8xf6 27.g5xf6 Be7xf6 28.Qc3-g3 Ra4xe4 29.Qg3xb3
± (1.00) Depth: 10 00:00:02 656kN
24...Ne5-g4 25.Be3-d2 Ra5-a4 26.f5-f6 Ne8xf6 27.g5xf6 Be7xf6 28.Qc3-g3 Ra4xe4 29.Qg3xb3 Rf8-c8 30.Bg2xe4 Qa8xe4+ 31.Kb1-a1
± (1.11) Depth: 11 00:00:03 1210kN
24...Ne5-g4 25.Be3-d4 d6-d5 26.f5-f6 g7xf6 27.Bg2-h3 Be7xa3 28.b2xa3 Ng4-e5 29.g5xf6 Ne5-c4 30.Rh1-g1+ Kg8-h8 31.e4xd5 Nc4xa3+ 32.Kb1-a1 Qa8xd5
± (1.07) Depth: 12 00:00:06 3856kN
24...Ne5-g4 25.Be3-d4 d6-d5 26.f5-f6 g7xf6 27.Bg2-h3 Be7xa3 28.b2xa3 Ng4-e5 29.g5xf6 Ne5-c4 30.Rh1-g1+ Kg8-h8 31.e4xd5 Nc4xa3+ 32.Kb1-c1 Qa8xd5
± (0.92) Depth: 13 00:00:12 7815kN
24...Ne5-g4 25.Be3-b6 Ra5xa3 26.b2xa3 Qa8xa3 27.Qc3-b2 Qa3-b4 28.Bb6-d4 Ng4-e5 29.f5-f6 g7xf6 30.Rh1-h3 Ne5-c4 31.Qb2-c1
+- (1.49) Depth: 14 00:00:36 24848kN
24...Ra5-a6 25.Be3-d4 Ra6-c6 26.Qc3-g3 Qa8-b8 27.Bg2-f1 Be7-d8 28.f5-f6 Qb8-b4 29.Bf1-b5 Rc6-c8 30.Rh1-h3 g7xf6 31.g5xf6+ Kg8-h8
+- (1.47) Depth: 14 00:00:48 33316kN
24...Ra5-a4 25.Be3-d4 Qa8-b8 26.Rh1-h3 Ra4-b4 27.Qc3-c1 Qb8-b7 28.Rh3-c3 Qb7-b8 29.Rd1-d2 Qb8-a8 30.Qc1-d1 Qa8-b7 31.Qd1-c1
± (1.03) Depth: 14 00:01:12 50039kN
24...Ra5-a4 25.Be3-d4 Qa8-b8 26.Rh1-h3 Ra4-b4 27.Qc3-c1 Qb8-a8 28.Rh3-c3 Qa8-b8 29.Rd1-d2 Qb8-a8 30.Rc3-c8 Qa8-b7 31.Qc1-c3 Rb4-a4
± (1.07) Depth: 15 00:01:33 63767kN
24...Ne8-f6 25.g5xf6 Be7xf6 26.Rd1-d2 Rf8-c8 27.Qc3xb3 Rc8-b8 28.Be3-b6 Ra5-a6 29.Rd2xd6 Bf6-e7 30.Rh1-d1 Qa8-b7 31.Qb3-b5 Ra6xb6
² (0.64) Depth: 15 00:02:07 87385kN
24...Ne8-f6 25.g5xf6 Be7xf6 26.Be3-c1 Rf8-c8 27.Qc3-b4 Ra5-a4 28.Qb4xb3 Rc8-b8 29.Qb3-d5 Qa8xd5 30.Rd1xd5 Ra4xa3 31.Rd5xd6 Ne5-c4 32.Rd6-c6 Nc4xb2
² (0.37) Depth: 16 00:02:44 114572kN
24...Ne8-f6 25.g5xf6 Be7xf6 26.Be3-c1 Rf8-c8 27.Qc3-b4 Ra5-a4 28.Qb4xb3 Rc8-b8 29.Qb3-d5 Qa8xd5 30.Rd1xd5 Ra4xa3 31.Rd5xd6 Ne5-c4 32.Rd6-c6 Ra3-a4 33.Bg2-f1 Nc4xb2
² (0.31) Depth: 17 00:03:35 151678kN
24...Ne8-f6 25.g5xf6 Be7xf6 26.Be3-c1 Rf8-c8 27.Qc3-b4 Ra5-a4 28.Qb4xd6 Ne5-c4 29.Qd6-d5 Ra4xa3 30.Qd5xa8 Ra3xa8 31.e4-e5 Nc4xe5 32.Bg2xa8 Rc8xa8 33.Rh1-h3 h7-h6
= (0.17) Depth: 18 00:06:12 264870kN
24...Ne8-c7 25.Qc3xc7 Rf8-c8 26.Qc7xe7 Ne5-c4 27.g5-g6 h7xg6 28.f5xg6 Ra5xa3 29.Qe7xf7+ Kg8-h8 30.b2xa3 Nc4xa3+ 31.Kb1-b2 Na3-c4+ 32.Kb2-c3 Nc4-e5+ 33.Kc3xb3 Ne5xf7 34.Rd1-d4 Qa8-c6 35.Be3-d2 Nf7-e5
³ (-0.58) Depth: 18 00:13:07 559500kN

(, 13.05.2007)

Uri

Uri, there are positions that only the human mind can solve, the most creative chess is still produced by humans.

There are tougher examples than this one and computers can't solve them.

That is a fact. You know this has to be true or corr. is dead!

There have been positions posted here that computers can't solve.

That's a fact. The best humans still can find the hardest tactics in very long sequences.

Computers can't create, they can only calculate, and some have better selective searches to find most but not all GM combinations.

That is a fact.

There are endgame positions that computers can't solve but humans can, that is a fact.

The best humans are still superior to the best programs in some amazingly complex positions.

That is a fact!

The machine can do only one thing better, not tire, hence they win more matches against humans.

But Junior and Fritz were lucky to draw Kasparov, and that too is a fact!

We both know Kasparov outplayed them both, but finally made human errors and didn't bring the victory home.

Computers simulate chess play well but still fall short of the mark to show they are in every way better, that is a fact!

Terry