bigo wrote:How about a Carlson vs Rybka match? I'll put my money on Carlson, provided hardware is a Quad and not a cluster.
Who is Carlson? Are you talking about Magnus Carlsen? He is not even a world champion. I'm willing to bet you that the top programs i.e. Rybka/Hiarcs/Fritz would beat the world chess champion in a 24 game match at classical time controls on only an off the shelf laptop.
Magnus Carlsen is probably the best chess player in the world and he probably can beat the world champion in a match.
I will not be surprised if Magnus Carlsen is going to get 60% or 70% when he get opportunity to play a match for the world title and I will not be surprised if Magnus Carlsen is going to be the only human to get fide rating above 2900 but I still consider rybka to be favourite against him.
I think there is still a couple of years to go until Carlsen is undisputed 1st.
Also, against a non-expensive quad and a short with several days off, reasonable limitations on computer book and several months for Carlsen to prepare it would be close.
Mistakes you guys find in his game are not quite relevant in case they play a heads-up match. Carlsen would play a completely different kind of chess against the computer than he plays against the humans. Queens off, get a bishop pair, grind it off.
Uri Blass wrote:Magnus Carlsen is probably the best chess player in the world and he probably can beat the world champion in a match.
I will not be surprised if Magnus Carlsen is going to get 60% or 70% when he get opportunity to play a match for the world title and I will not be surprised if Magnus Carlsen is going to be the only human to get fide rating above 2900 but I still consider rybka to be favourite against him.
Uri
How many tournament wins has Magnus Carlsen achieved at the highest level? In the game below you do not need a computer to see that 37 Qh3! Nd2+ 38 Ka1 Rh8 39 Qxh8+! when Rh1-h7xd7 wins a rook.
One can hardly call someone the "best chess player in the world" or claim that Rybka would need to be at least on a quad to beat him in a match if he has not achieved top results over many, many years. The people making these outrageous claims are making them out of "fanboyism".
You do not need the strongest chess program to tell you that 37 Qh3 wins. I think even Crafty should be able to see that one. Therefore the claim that Carlsen could beat Rybka on a normal pc would have to be made by someone who has inhaled something or does not understand chess.
Uri Blass wrote:Magnus Carlsen is probably the best chess player in the world and he probably can beat the world champion in a match.
I will not be surprised if Magnus Carlsen is going to get 60% or 70% when he get opportunity to play a match for the world title and I will not be surprised if Magnus Carlsen is going to be the only human to get fide rating above 2900 but I still consider rybka to be favourite against him.
Uri
How many tournament wins has Magnus Carlsen achieved at the highest level? In the game below you do not need a computer to see that 37 Qh3! Nd2+ 38 Ka1 Rh8 39 Qxh8+! when Rh1-h7xd7 wins a rook.
M Carlsen v V Topalov
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 Nf3 0-0 6 h3 Na6 7 Be3 e5 8 d5 c6 9 g4 Nc5 10 Nd2 a5 11 a3 Nfd7 12 Rg1 a4 13 Qc2 Nb6 14 0-0-0 Bd7 15 Kb1 cxd5 16 cxd5 Rc8 17 Bb5! Bxb5 18 Nxb5 Qd7 19 Nc3 Bf6 20 g5 Bd8 21 h4 Na8? 22 Bxc5 Rxc5 23 Qxa4 Qc8 24 Rc1 Nb6 25 Qd1 Qh3 26 Qf3 Qd7 27 Qd3 Kg7 28 Rc2 f6 29 gxf6+ Rxf6 30 h5 Rxf2 31 hxg6 h6 32 Nd1 Rxc2 33 Nxf2 Rc8 34 Ng4 Bg5 35 Nf3 Nc4 36 Nxg5 hxg5 37 Ne3?!
In an interview Carlsens father stated that Magnus had seen 37.Qh3 just after doing Ne3. Still there is no reason for the question mark, Ne3 is also winning.
One can hardly call someone the "best chess player in the world" or claim that Rybka would need to be at least on a quad to beat him in a match if he has not achieved top results over many, many years. The people making these outrageous claims are making them out of "fanboyism".
You do not need the strongest chess program to tell you that 37 Qh3 wins. I think even Crafty should be able to see that one. Therefore the claim that Carlsen could beat Rybka on a normal pc would have to be made by someone who has inhaled something or does not understand chess.
Uri Blass wrote:Magnus Carlsen is probably the best chess player in the world and he probably can beat the world champion in a match.
I will not be surprised if Magnus Carlsen is going to get 60% or 70% when he get opportunity to play a match for the world title and I will not be surprised if Magnus Carlsen is going to be the only human to get fide rating above 2900 but I still consider rybka to be favourite against him.
Uri
How many tournament wins has Magnus Carlsen achieved at the highest level? In the game below you do not need a computer to see that 37 Qh3! Nd2+ 38 Ka1 Rh8 39 Qxh8+! when Rh1-h7xd7 wins a rook.
M Carlsen v V Topalov
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 Nf3 0-0 6 h3 Na6 7 Be3 e5 8 d5 c6 9 g4 Nc5 10 Nd2 a5 11 a3 Nfd7 12 Rg1 a4 13 Qc2 Nb6 14 0-0-0 Bd7 15 Kb1 cxd5 16 cxd5 Rc8 17 Bb5! Bxb5 18 Nxb5 Qd7 19 Nc3 Bf6 20 g5 Bd8 21 h4 Na8? 22 Bxc5 Rxc5 23 Qxa4 Qc8 24 Rc1 Nb6 25 Qd1 Qh3 26 Qf3 Qd7 27 Qd3 Kg7 28 Rc2 f6 29 gxf6+ Rxf6 30 h5 Rxf2 31 hxg6 h6 32 Nd1 Rxc2 33 Nxf2 Rc8 34 Ng4 Bg5 35 Nf3 Nc4 36 Nxg5 hxg5 37 Ne3?!
In an interview Carlsens father stated that Magnus had seen 37.Qh3 just after doing Ne3. Still there is no reason for the question mark, Ne3 is also winning.
One can hardly call someone the "best chess player in the world" or claim that Rybka would need to be at least on a quad to beat him in a match if he has not achieved top results over many, many years. The people making these outrageous claims are making them out of "fanboyism".
You do not need the strongest chess program to tell you that 37 Qh3 wins. I think even Crafty should be able to see that one. Therefore the claim that Carlsen could beat Rybka on a normal pc would have to be made by someone who has inhaled something or does not understand chess.
First of all, why are we assuming that Rybka will spank the best player of the world in normal match conditions? I guess that Rybka will win based on indirect evidence, but it is not clear whether the best human may make it close. I would like to see this. Rybkas 3200 ELO among engines is meaningless against humans. We do not know accurately its real strength.
Uri Blass wrote:Magnus Carlsen is probably the best chess player in the world and he probably can beat the world champion in a match.
I will not be surprised if Magnus Carlsen is going to get 60% or 70% when he get opportunity to play a match for the world title and I will not be surprised if Magnus Carlsen is going to be the only human to get fide rating above 2900 but I still consider rybka to be favourite against him.
Uri
How many tournament wins has Magnus Carlsen achieved at the highest level? In the game below you do not need a computer to see that 37 Qh3! Nd2+ 38 Ka1 Rh8 39 Qxh8+! when Rh1-h7xd7 wins a rook.
One can hardly call someone the "best chess player in the world" or claim that Rybka would need to be at least on a quad to beat him in a match if he has not achieved top results over many, many years. The people making these outrageous claims are making them out of "fanboyism".
You do not need the strongest chess program to tell you that 37 Qh3 wins. I think even Crafty should be able to see that one. Therefore the claim that Carlsen could beat Rybka on a normal pc would have to be made by someone who has inhaled something or does not understand chess.
I do not claim that rybka needs at least a quad to beat Magnus Carlsen but I believe that Magnus Carlsen is the best player in the world
Your game proves nothing because you cannot decide based on one move that a player is not the best in the world and 37.Ne3 is enough to win the game and it is possible that Magnus Carlsen simply played it for that reason without calculating 37.Qh3
My claim is that today Magnus Carlsen is probably the best player in the world.
I do not think that he was the best player in the world before he took lessons from kasparov so it is clear that he could not achieve top results over many years.
Do not wish to add more oil to the fire. However, wanted to clarify a few things:
1. I think most GM/Super GM level players find it far easier to draw Rybka (especially with white) than try to beat it. The last match where Kramnik lost to Deep Fritz emanated from a game where he blundered to a mate in one against Fritz in game 2. He then tried hard to win game 6 but lost. If he had not lost game 2, he could have probably drawn game 6 and the match.
A Rybka - Carlsen match is a hypothetical question, but I figure it is easier for Carlsen to try to draw all games (and play for a win in a risk free endgame like Kramnik did against Fritz in game 1). The Rybka team can probably adopt counter strategies..
I think Carlsen would be a better opponent for Rybka than Kasparov as he seems to be more willing to play quiet positions (similar to Kramnik).
2. Finding a horrible or bad move by one player does not automatically make the observer stronger than the original player. If this is true, then most of us can see the mate in 1 that Kramnik missed and claim a 2750 FIDE rating. Or we can point out flaws with Fritz's play in game one and also claim 2750-2800.
3. Whether Carlsen is the best player or not will be answered by father time and Arpiad Elo. Today, Arpiad Elo would disagree as Topalov is rated higher.
Uri Blass wrote:
I do not claim that rybka needs at least a quad to beat Magnus Carlsen but I believe that Magnus Carlsen is the best player in the world
Your game proves nothing because you cannot decide based on one move that a player is not the best in the world and 37.Ne3 is enough to win the game and it is possible that Magnus Carlsen simply played it for that reason without calculating 37.Qh3
My claim is that today Magnus Carlsen is probably the best player in the world.
I do not think that he was the best player in the world before he took lessons from kasparov so it is clear that he could not achieve top results over many years.
Uri
This is chess we are talking about not darts. If you claim that a GM who cannot see a tactical combination (not one move!) is the best player in the world because of winning one tournament then you do not understand chess at all.
The likes of Tal, Karpov, Fischer, Kasparov produced excellent results over a period of time not based on one tournament. You may have heard of Ruslan Ponomariov or even Rustam Kasimdzhanov who were FIDE champions but not at the same level as the classical world champion. Carlsen has not produced enough results at the highest level to be compared to the top chess players.
michiguel wrote:
First of all, why are we assuming that Rybka will spank the best player of the world in normal match conditions? I guess that Rybka will win based on indirect evidence, but it is not clear whether the best human may make it close. I would like to see this. Rybkas 3200 ELO among engines is meaningless against humans. We do not know accurately its real strength.
Miguel
First of all tell us what happened between Kramnik and Fritz. You must be living in a cuckoo world if you are not aware that the top GMs are no match for Fritz/Hiarcs/Rybka. What evidence do you have that the GM will come out on top and based on what matches/games?
Uri Blass wrote:
I do not claim that rybka needs at least a quad to beat Magnus Carlsen but I believe that Magnus Carlsen is the best player in the world
Your game proves nothing because you cannot decide based on one move that a player is not the best in the world and 37.Ne3 is enough to win the game and it is possible that Magnus Carlsen simply played it for that reason without calculating 37.Qh3
My claim is that today Magnus Carlsen is probably the best player in the world.
I do not think that he was the best player in the world before he took lessons from kasparov so it is clear that he could not achieve top results over many years.
Uri
This is chess we are talking about not darts. If you claim that a GM who cannot see a tactical combination (not one move!) is the best player in the world because of winning one tournament then you do not understand chess at all.
My opinion is not based only on the fact that he won one tournament.
I also disagree that he cannot see a tactical combination.
He did not see a tactical combination during the game and there is a difference.
