GM says Rybka & Fritz weaker than best GMs in classical

[Uri]

I think that it is the opposite.

Rybka can lose to kasparov or kramnik when she play her worst chess but usually it does not happen.

Uri

But it's enough that there is one or two instances like this, it already makes the GM better than the computer. It's because a computer will always make the same moves so it will always repeat the same mistakes. Computers cannot learn and improve on their own. Humans can. This is what makes the human mind or the human hardware far superior to the computer.

There are positions that programs do not know what to do but these positions are minority of the positions and usually humans cannot get these positions from the opening positions.

But a top GM understands more positions than the computer. Their chess understanding is so great that they will almost always know what to do in every position.

[Uri Blass]

I think that it is the opposite.

Rybka can lose to kasparov or kramnik when she play her worst chess but usually it does not happen.

Uri

But it's enough that there is one or two instances like this, it already makes the GM better than the computer. It's because a computer will always make the same moves so it will always repeat the same mistakes. Computers cannot learn and improve on their own. Humans can. This is what makes the human mind or the human hardware far superior to the computer.

There are positions that programs do not know what to do but these positions are minority of the positions and usually humans cannot get these positions from the opening positions.

But a top GM understands more positions than the computer. Their chess understanding is so great that they will almost always know what to do in every position.

This is not correct.

1)one example when GM is better than the computer is not enough because there is opening book and you cannot force the position that you want.

programs have book learning and they are not going to repeat the same line again and again.


2)Top GM's do more mistakes than computers.

Saying that they understand more positions than the computer is meanigless when there is no way to check it.

Uri

[ArmyBridge]

Terry has sent a lot positions constantly to see wether the chess progs. can solve this, and as far as I know all his test were solved...right Terry?, but why not Dr. Robert Hyatt send a set of positions where he think that Human are better than progs. and we will see if they are so, I guess that programm´s can solve above 80%, the only thing that programm´s can´t overtake Humans GM is plan in long term,but well, it would be interesting I have a Idea to solve the issue!!!
It could be interesting to check the recent positional great games of GM´s like Ivanchuk, Kramnik, Kamsky, and Magnus Carlsen and see how many percentage of posiocionales coincidences has the programs with the GM´s, if I check this and encounter improvements of the programs it would mean that the programs are better than the GM´s???, what do you thin Dr. and Terry?? I have only free engines but here are people that have Rybka, Zappa, Shredder Naum etc. all of us can run this test and and reach a "scientific" conclusion.
Regards

[Terry McCracken]

Terry has sent a lot positions constantly to see wether the chess progs. can solve this, and as far as I know all his test were solved...right Terry?, but why not Dr. Robert Hyatt send a set of positions where he think that Human are better than progs. and we will see if they are so, I guess that programm´s can solve above 80%, the only thing that programm´s can´t overtake Humans GM is plan in long term,but well, it would be interesting I have a Idea to solve the issue!!!
It could be interesting to check the recent positional great games of GM´s like Ivanchuk, Kramnik, Kamsky, and Magnus Carlsen and see how many percentage of posiocionales coincidences has the programs with the GM´s, if I check this and encounter improvements of the programs it would mean that the programs are better than the GM´s???, what do you thin Dr. and Terry?? I have only free engines but here are people that have Rybka, Zappa, Shredder Naum etc. all of us can run this test and and reach a "scientific" conclusion.
Regards

Many were solved, some weren't, some are still too deep for machines some couldn't be understood by machines.

[bob]

Strategy is one of the areas computers are weak at. In 1996, Kasparov crushed Deep Blue in round 6 by demonstrating his superior understanding of pawn play and space advantage. The same was truth about his win against X3D Fritz in this game.

I believe that Kramnik and Kasparov when playing their best chess are stronger than Rybka.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4764

I think that it is the opposite.
Rybka can lose to kasparov or kramnik when she play her worst chess but usually it does not happen.

There are positions that programs do not know what to do but these positions are minority of the positions and usually humans cannot get these positions from the opening positions.

In most positions programs play positionally better than humans and
even if they lose a game against the best players(I do not claim that it is impossible) the game does not contradict my claim.

Uri

"in most positions..." is about the _worst_ statement I have ever seen you write. "In some ..." might be reasonable. But not even "In many..." They will occasionally stumble into a great positional move, but for the most part they do not, and they create weaknesses that would lead to a loss were it not for the human's great tendency to make mistakes.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I think that it is the opposite.

Rybka can lose to kasparov or kramnik when she play her worst chess but usually it does not happen.

Uri

But it's enough that there is one or two instances like this, it already makes the GM better than the computer. It's because a computer will always make the same moves so it will always repeat the same mistakes. Computers cannot learn and improve on their own. Humans can. This is what makes the human mind or the human hardware far superior to the computer.

There are positions that programs do not know what to do but these positions are minority of the positions and usually humans cannot get these positions from the opening positions.

But a top GM understands more positions than the computer. Their chess understanding is so great that they will almost always know what to do in every position.

Indeed,and that's why they get crushed by the top chess engines regardless of their great chess understanding and the ability to know what to do in every position

[Uri Blass]

Strategy is one of the areas computers are weak at. In 1996, Kasparov crushed Deep Blue in round 6 by demonstrating his superior understanding of pawn play and space advantage. The same was truth about his win against X3D Fritz in this game.

I believe that Kramnik and Kasparov when playing their best chess are stronger than Rybka.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4764

I think that it is the opposite.
Rybka can lose to kasparov or kramnik when she play her worst chess but usually it does not happen.

There are positions that programs do not know what to do but these positions are minority of the positions and usually humans cannot get these positions from the opening positions.

In most positions programs play positionally better than humans and
even if they lose a game against the best players(I do not claim that it is impossible) the game does not contradict my claim.

Uri

"in most positions..." is about the _worst_ statement I have ever seen you write. "In some ..." might be reasonable. But not even "In many..." They will occasionally stumble into a great positional move, but for the most part they do not, and they create weaknesses that would lead to a loss were it not for the human's great tendency to make mistakes.

I think that it is the opposite.
They will occasionally make positional blunders but in most cases they play better than humans positionally.

Your theory was right some years ago and I can say that kasparov got positional advantage against deeper blue that he could not translate to winning the game in some games of the match(for example games 4 and game 5) but today it is not the case that humans get positional advantage against machines and if you watch hydra-adams games you can see that hydra got positional advantage and there was no situation when adams got the advantage that means a situation that hydra had to defend inferior position to get a draw or to win thanks to a tactical mistake.

Uri

[Matthias Gemuh]

I think that it is the opposite.
They will occasionally make positional blunders but in most cases they play better than humans positionally.

Your theory was right some years ago and I can say that kasparov got positional advantage against deeper blue that he could not translate to winning the game in some games of the match(for example games 4 and game 5) but today it is not the case that humans get positional advantage against machines and if you watch hydra-adams games you can see that hydra got positional advantage and there was no situation when adams got the advantage that means a situation that hydra had to defend inferior position to get a draw or to win thanks to a tactical mistake.

Uri

Thanks for making this point clear, once and for all.
Many people forget that since opensource Fruit 2.1 and drastically improved hardware, engines have gained 200+ points, whiles humans are stagnating with no hope of ever approaching a stable 2900 Elo.

And the engine-human gap is growing _daily_ !
As this gap widens, we can expect some people to delibrately ignore it and claim more energetically that GMs are stronger than engines.

No GM shall ever again achieve better than a loss in an 8-game match at _any_ time control, unless engine starts with less material.
Even memorizing the prefered lines of the engine's match book (as Kramnik was permitted to do against Fritz) will never help the GMs anymore to avoid a loss of the match. They may occasionally draw a game or two, but that's it. The human GM era is now ancient history.

All were are left with are :
- _why_ the humans lose
- _how_ the engines win


Matthias.


.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I think that it is the opposite.
They will occasionally make positional blunders but in most cases they play better than humans positionally.

Your theory was right some years ago and I can say that kasparov got positional advantage against deeper blue that he could not translate to winning the game in some games of the match(for example games 4 and game 5) but today it is not the case that humans get positional advantage against machines and if you watch hydra-adams games you can see that hydra got positional advantage and there was no situation when adams got the advantage that means a situation that hydra had to defend inferior position to get a draw or to win thanks to a tactical mistake.

Uri

Thanks for making this point clear, once and for all.
Many people forget that since opensource Fruit 2.1 and drastically improved hardware, engines have gained 200+ points, whiles humans are stagnating with no hope of ever approaching a stable 2900 Elo.

And the engine-human gap is growing _daily_ !
As this gap widens, we can expect some people to delibrately ignore it and claim more energetically that GMs are stronger than engines.

No GM shall ever again achieve better than a loss in an 8-game match at _any_ time control, unless engine starts with less material.
Even memorizing the prefered lines of the engine's match book (as Kramnik was permitted to do against Fritz) will never help the GMs anymore to avoid a loss of the match. They may occasionally draw a game or two, but that's it. The human GM era is now ancient history.

All were are left with are :
- _why_ the humans lose
- _how_ the engines win


Matthias.


.

Well said Matthias,I hope your words will affect the hearts and minds of the stronger players claiming that their super GM are superior to the top chess engines....

[Michael Sherwin]

I think that it is the opposite.

Rybka can lose to kasparov or kramnik when she play her worst chess but usually it does not happen.

Uri

But it's enough that there is one or two instances like this, it already makes the GM better than the computer. It's because a computer will always make the same moves so it will always repeat the same mistakes. Computers cannot learn and improve on their own. Humans can. This is what makes the human mind or the human hardware far superior to the computer.

There are positions that programs do not know what to do but these positions are minority of the positions and usually humans cannot get these positions from the opening positions.

But a top GM understands more positions than the computer. Their chess understanding is so great that they will almost always know what to do in every position.

My program RomiChess proves you wrong! RomiChess can and does learn to beat Rybka, even the newer Rybka's! So even when Romi was only 2170 WBEC she could vary her moves untill she found winning lines. When Romi found winning lines she then would stick with them untill they were proved non winning at which time she would find other moves to try.