Four strategic moves(moments) for drawing Rybka 3

[Ovyron]

ENJOY RYBKA 3 FANATICS

More like "Father fanatics." A Rybka fanatic knows that the contempt should have been set higher.

[Terry McCracken]

ENJOY RYBKA 3 FANATICS

More like "Father fanatics." A Rybka fanatic knows that the contempt should have been set higher.

It doesn't matter, it can and will be drawn by Pablo's techniques.

[Eastendboy]

Congratulations Pablo! Very nicely done. You have every right to be proud of your accomplishment because there aren't many that have the dedication to do what you do or the skill to do it.

It's been a good week for we carbon based beings! It's also been interesting to watch the Rybka forum react to Milov's stellar performance against Rybka 3. Prior to the match, the consensus seemed to be that Milov was going to be thrashed convincingly. When reality didn't meet expectations there's now a lot of hostility about the fact that it was a handicap match. For the life of me, I don't understand why so many people seem to be cheering for the 1' and 0's when she's playing against flesh and blood. Isn't it a good thing that there are still a few breathers out there that can go toe to toe with the best chess software ever designed?

I understand how people become loyal to a chess engine -- if you play with them enough you start to view them as people -- you cheer for them and hate to see them beaten -- but when push comes to shove, I feel better knowing that we haven't reached the point where the machine will always win. Judging from the Milov/Pablo matches, we're not even close. Thankfully.

[BubbaTough]

It's been a good week for we carbon based beings! It's also been interesting to watch the Rybka forum react to Milov's stellar performance against Rybka 3. Prior to the match, the consensus seemed to be that Milov was going to be thrashed convincingly. When reality didn't meet expectations there's now a lot of hostility about the fact that it was a handicap match. For the life of me, I don't understand why so many people seem to be cheering for the 1' and 0's when she's playing against flesh and blood. Isn't it a good thing that there are still a few breathers out there that can go toe to toe with the best chess software ever designed?

Well, I for one really enjoy seeing the handicap matches and am always rooting for the human. I find them very interesting (handicap matches and humans). I was starting to feel I was the only one, but perhaps not..

[Father]

Rybka 3 (4 CPUs): 16.5 ply; 198kN/s Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz 3001MHz

A PARADIGM against an ANTI-PARADIGM

To Chain or not Chain
To be or not to be
Thats the question.

Rybka 3 has the characteristic, of broking with its pawns chain the white or black chain in b4 or b5.

If human beings find an antidot and discover how to be alive playing with a hole in "a" lines, "a1-a8", then the Rybka 3 paradigm wiont be eough.

Here an example.

EnjoyFather



[d]
6k1/r7/3qpbp1/5p1p/3PpP1P/1pPbN1PK/1P1Q4/2B3R1 w - - 0 79


[d]6k1/8/1q2pbp1/5p1p/3PpP1P/1pPbN1PK/1P1Q4/r1B3R1 b - - 0 72


[d]r4rk1/4p1bp/2q1b1p1/p4p2/1p1PpP2/P1P1B3/1P4PP/R2QRNK1 w - - 0 19

[Event "Rated game, 5m + 0s"]
[Site "Engine Room"]
[Date "2008.09.23"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Father"]
[Black "Guest42"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A03"]
[WhiteElo "2044"]
[BlackElo "2709"]
[Annotator "Restrepo,Pablo Ignacio"]
[PlyCount "156"]
[EventDate "2008.09.23"]
[WhiteTeam "Formula Reject: Rated 60m + 15s from Workunit"]
[BlackTeam "Formula Reject: Rated 60m + 15s from Workunit"]
[TimeControl "300"]

1. d4 {3} Nf6 {B/0 0} 2. e3 {0} g6 {6} 3. c3 {-0.12/15 0} d5 {6} 4. f4 {-0.19/
15 0} Bg7 {-0.42/14 8} 5. Nf3 {17} O-O {-0.34/16 5} 6. Bd3 {17} c5 {-0.34/16 0}
7. O-O {1} Nc6 {-0.34/15 4} 8. Re1 {1} Qd6 {-0.46/12 4} 9. Ne5 {1} Qc7 {-0.42/
13 11} 10. Nxc6 {1} Qxc6 {-0.58/14 4} 11. Nd2 {1} Be6 {-0.55/15 27} 12. Nf3 {1}
Ne4 {-0.60/12 2} 13. Bxe4 {3} dxe4 {-0.59/11 0} 14. Nd2 {2} cxd4 {-1.00/13 4}
15. exd4 {2} f5 {-1.02/14 2} 16. Nf1 {3} b5 {-1.07/13 3} 17. a3 {1} a5 {-1.04/
14 11} 18. Be3 {4} b4 {-1.05/14 1} 19. axb4 {2} axb4 {11} 20. Qd2 {-0.95/16 0}
b3 {-0.95/15 8} 21. Rxa8 {9} Rxa8 {-1.06/17 0} 22. Qf2 {2} Qb5 {-1.19/14 5} 23.
g3 {3} Bc4 {-1.29/14 5} 24. h4 {2} Bd3 {-1.31/15 3} 25. Bc1 {5} h5 {-1.31/16 0}
26. Ne3 {12} Ra1 {-1.31/15 0} 27. Qd2 {2} Qc6 {-1.26/16 3} 28. Kh2 {2} e6 {-1.
31/16 4} 29. Kh3 {1} Bf6 {-1.31/16 9} 30. Kh2 {2} Kh7 {-1.31/17 2} 31. Kh3 {0}
Bg7 {-1.31/15 3} 32. Kh2 {1} Qc8 {-1.26/16 9} 33. Kh3 {0} Bf6 {-1.31/17 20} 34.
Kh2 {1} Qc7 {-1.31/17 0} 35. Kh3 {1} Qc6 {-1.31/15 2} 36. Kh2 {1} Kg8 {-1.31/
15 3} 37. Kh3 {1} Qc7 {-1.31/14 3} 38. Kh2 {1} Bg7 {-1.30/15 0} 39. Kh3 {1} Qc6
{-1.30/14 2} 40. Kh2 {1} Qc8 {-1.27/15 4} 41. Kh3 {0} Kf7 {-1.29/15 8} 42. Kh2
{0} Bf6 {-1.30/15 1} 43. Kh3 {1} Kg7 {-1.30/12 2} 44. Kh2 {1} Kh7 {-1.30/15 12}
45. Kh3 {0} Qc7 {-1.30/15 2} 46. Rg1 {5} Ra2 {-1.30/13 3} 47. Re1 {4} Qb6 {-1.
29/12 1} 48. Rg1 {2} Qb5 {-1.30/13 2} 49. Re1 {3} Kg7 {-1.30/16 0} 50. Rg1 {1}
Bd8 {-1.31/13 1} 51. Re1 {1} Qc6 {-1.30/13 0} 52. Rg1 {1} Qd7 {-1.31/13 1} 53.
Re1 {0} Qf7 {-1.30/14 4} 54. Rg1 {0} Ba5 {-1.31/14 3} 55. Re1 {4} Ra4 {-1.30/
14 1} 56. Qf2 {14} Qb7 {-1.30/17 0} 57. Rg1 {6} Ra2 {-1.31/15 1} 58. Qd2 {8}
Ra4 {-1.31/16 1} 59. Qf2 {4} Bd8 {-1.30/16 5} 60. Qd2 {2} Qd7 {-1.30/13 1} 61.
Re1 {1} Ba5 {-1.30/15 1} 62. Qf2 {4} Bc7 {-1.30/16 0} 63. Qd2 {1} Qc6 {-1.30/
14 1} 64. Rg1 {3} Ba5 {-1.31/13 2} 65. Qf2 {2} Bd8 {-1.31/14 1} 66. Re1 {1} Ra2
{-1.30/14 0} 67. Qd2 {2} Ra8 {-1.30/15 0} 68. Rg1 {1} Bf6 {-1.30/13 1} 69. Re1
{1} Qb6 {-1.30/14 0} 70. Rg1 {2} Kg8 {-1.30/12 2} 71. Re1 {0} Ra1 {-1.30/11 1}
72. Rg1 {1} Qc7 {-1.31/13 3} 73. Re1 {1} Qb7 {-1.30/13 5} 74. Rg1 {1} Ra2 {-1.
30/12 1} 75. Re1 {2} Qb5 {-1.26/12 6} 76. Rg1 {1} Qb6 {0.00/14 5} 77. Re1 {1}
Ra7 {0.00/13 1} 78. Rg1 {1} Qd6 {(Lag: Av=0.35s, max=0.7s) 0.00/16 1} 1/2-1/2

[Ovyron]

It doesn't matter, it can and will be drawn by Pablo's techniques.

But at least it would disprove lkaufman's claims that Pablo shouldn't be able to do it.

[Nimzovik]

DeepSigh........Pablo's score against the programs is irrelevant. His finding holes in the programs logic (blocking positions- ie the stonewall - et.al.) IS the central issue. This has been desicused ad nauseum.

[Terry McCracken]

DeepSigh........Pablo's score against the programs is irrelevant. His finding holes in the programs logic (blocking positions- ie the stonewall - et.al.) IS the central issue. This has been desicused ad nauseum.

If it works it works.

[Terry McCracken]

It doesn't matter, it can and will be drawn by Pablo's techniques.

But at least it would disprove lkaufman's claims that Pablo shouldn't be able to do it.

It would at that.

[Rolf]

But at least it would disprove lkaufman's claims that Pablo shouldn't be able to do it.

He makes the same fault like Eduard. There's a principal difference between collecting the games where it functioned and outsorting the ones where it didnt - and proving the results in a match. The GM succeeded at least one time with exchange advantage with sort of anticomputger chess. But Pablo wont be able to do that just like Eduard. No way.

That is the same with correspondance chess. Nobody would believe such a corr player if he claimed that he could succeed on the level he plays corr at home outside direct competition.

This would be comparing apples and oranges.