Next Komodo vs GM match - 2 pawns

[lkaufman]

Back to those odds already? Too bad.

I'm guessing you would have preferred another match like the last one but with larger time odds? I didn't like this so much because making Komodo play much faster than 3' + 1" seems pointless, since hardly anyone uses it with just one or two seconds thinking time I imagine. Or did you have another idea in mind?

A faster TC for Komodo, a longer TC for the GM or a stronger human opponent. Any of those variations, or a viable combination, would give us a more even match.

There's also the option of using a popular phone, instead of a laptop.

U

We might try this sort of match if we get another top ten opponent. Increasing the human's time further isn't very practical for chess.com tv coverage, and I'm told that single core of laptop already falls within the range of cellphones, so using a cellphone wouldn't be much different. We don't want matches where the winner is not in doubt.

[Laskos]

Back to those odds already? Too bad.

I'm guessing you would have preferred another match like the last one but with larger time odds? I didn't like this so much because making Komodo play much faster than 3' + 1" seems pointless, since hardly anyone uses it with just one or two seconds thinking time I imagine. Or did you have another idea in mind?

A faster TC for Komodo, a longer TC for the GM or a stronger human opponent. Any of those variations, or a viable combination, would give us a more even match.

There's also the option of using a popular phone, instead of a laptop.

U

We might try this sort of match if we get another top ten opponent. Increasing the human's time further isn't very practical for chess.com tv coverage, and I'm told that single core of laptop already falls within the range of cellphones, so using a cellphone wouldn't be much different. We don't want matches where the winner is not in doubt.

Against a 2600 GM, a fair match would be against a mid-range smartphone at 30''+0.3''. Who wants to see such a match?

I have another idea: takebacks. Is it too insulting to GM to allow him taking back? This would solve one prominent issue with humans, that a GM plays generally a very sound chess, but marred by blunders and large inaccuracies. I used "Andscacs Randomizer" engine, which can play a specified percentage of random moves in the total of moves, the rest being regular Andscacs, to compute the value of a blunder defined here as random move. If taken back, this improves the performance of the player by the resulting ELO points. Here are the results, I computed them several weeks ago:

Code: Select all

BLUNDERS (RANDOM MOVES)

Random: 0%   ELO:2700
100%:95%
Score of R2 vs R1: 334 - 36 - 30  [0.873] 400
ELO difference: 334.10 +/- 47.24
Finished match
PlyCount: Total = 400  Range: 3-283  Average = 105.47  StdDev = 36.14
Av.nr.blunders = 2.63675   
Av.ELO per blunder = 126.7
ELO = 2700
Takebacks: 4.7

Random: 5%   ELO:2476
95%:90%
Score of R2 vs R1: 306 - 79 - 15  [0.784] 400
ELO difference: 223.69 +/- 40.49
Finished match
PlyCount: Total = 400  Range: 16-311  Average = 92.0  StdDev = 34.36
Av.nr.blunders = 2.30   
Av.ELO per blunder = 97.3
ELO = 2476
Takebacks: 8.5

Random: 10%   ELO:2324
90%:85%
Score of R2 vs R1: 278 - 113 - 9  [0.706] 400
ELO difference: 152.39 +/- 37.02
Finished match
PlyCount: Total = 400  Range: 17-246  Average = 89.56  StdDev = 34.99
Av.nr.blunders = 2.24  
Av.ELO per blunder: 68.0
ELO = 2324
Takebacks: 14.3

Random: 15%   ELO:2185
85%:80%
Score of R2 vs R1: 269 - 117 - 14  [0.690] 400
ELO difference: 138.99 +/- 36.18
Finished match
PlyCount: Total = 400  Range: 9-282  Average = 90.23  StdDev = 37.57
Av.nr.blunders = 2.26   
Av.ELO per blunder: 61.5
ELO = 2185
Takebacks: 18.1

Random: 20%   ELO:1947
80%:70%
Score of R2 vs R1: 315 - 77 - 8  [0.797] 400
ELO difference: 238.12 +/- 42.06
Finished match
PlyCount: Total = 400  Range: 5-233  Average = 84.18  StdDev = 34.86
Av.nr.blunders = 4.21   
Av.ELO per blunder: 56.6
ELO = 1947
Takebacks: 23.9

Random: 30%   ELO:1784
70%:60%
Score of R2 vs R1: 275 - 100 - 25  [0.719] 400
ELO difference: 162.99 +/- 36.53
Finished match
PlyCount: Total = 400  Range: 5-247  Average = 91.68  StdDev = 43.77
Av.nr.blunders = 4.58
Av.ELO per blunder: 35.6
ELO = 1784
Takebacks: 42.6

A 2700 GM would need to take back thus defined blunders 5 times to reach 3250-3300 FIDE ELO level of Komodo on 24 cores. A 2476 GM would need 8-9 takebacks. A 2324 player about 14 takebacks, A 2185 about 18 takebacks. So on, and a 1784 ELO player would need 43 takebacks. If the blunder (or large inaccuracy) is on average still better than random move, there is a multiplicaive factor on all these numbers of takebacks. One can probably determine pretty accurately what sort of handicap is needed for what strength, say if a ELO 2700 player needs 10 takebacks, then a 2200 player would need 35 takebacks, and a 1900 player needs to take back all moves at least once.

To me it would make for good handicap matches because it eliminates one of the main human weaknesses - blunders an serious inaccuracies. If only GMs are not offended by this proposal, I don't know their tastes.

[Ozymandias]

Back to those odds already? Too bad.

I'm guessing you would have preferred another match like the last one but with larger time odds? I didn't like this so much because making Komodo play much faster than 3' + 1" seems pointless, since hardly anyone uses it with just one or two seconds thinking time I imagine. Or did you have another idea in mind?

A faster TC for Komodo, a longer TC for the GM or a stronger human opponent. Any of those variations, or a viable combination, would give us a more even match.

There's also the option of using a popular phone, instead of a laptop.

U

We might try this sort of match if we get another top ten opponent. Increasing the human's time further isn't very practical for chess.com tv coverage, and I'm told that single core of laptop already falls within the range of cellphones, so using a cellphone wouldn't be much different. We don't want matches where the winner is not in doubt.

Even tough something like the Lg G5 may give similar speed numbers, taking into account SMP, it should be slightly weaker than a 1-core laptop CPU. The human could also be slightly stronger, you don't need a top ten, maybe a young player not yet in the 2700 club could be affordable. Going from 3+1 to 3+0 could also help, not only because of the 25% time reduction, but because of the absence of increment (the engine needs to save some time). As for the time allocated to the human, if it can't be increased it's a pity, I wouldn't even impose a clock on him. After all, the object of the clock is to keep things fair. We already accept that the engine must play at time odds, so "fairness" is out the window. The human should be able to play, free of as much pressure as possible.

[Ozymandias]

]A 2700 GM would need to take back thus defined blunders 5 times to reach 3250-3300 FIDE ELO level of Komodo on 24 cores.

I also thought about take backs, but there's no way to correlate ELO with that of a normal OTB game. Your calculations are done with engines, but with humans is far more complex. It's not just blunders, is generally weaker play across the game, that explains the strength difference. If it were just a question of taking back 5 moves, human correspondence players would still dominate mindless computer-assisted play.

[Uri Blass]

In the previous 1 core game, I already expected 3.5 or 4 in favour of Komodo as I know how strong was the software even on my first smart phone HTC HD2 years ago. This result will not much depend on human rating but depend how he have prepared with this odd! I mean even 2200 player who analysed hundreds of games for this position will get a good positional advantage enough to win than some with 2500 who havent trained in this position.
Guess- 2.5-1.5 in favour of Komodo.

Since he will get $100 per draw and $300 per win (on top of base fee), and since he was clearly motivated to play this match by the prize money, I do expect him to prepare a fair amount. This didn't help any of the GMs who played at f7 and move or two moves or Exchange odds to win even a single game, but perhaps with two pawns it will be different. GM Lenderman shared his full analysis of the f7 handicap with me after the game; he clearly put some effort into preparing. I don't think a 2200 player would win any game at these handicaps no matter how much he prepared, but a nearly 2600 player should win some. The GMs often get big advantages out of the opening in these handicap games, but can't win them. But I think that winning with two extra pawns with just slightly less development is easier for a human than winning with one extra pawn and a great position. Most pawn plus endgames are just too hard for a human to win against Komodo, but with two extra pawns almost any endgame should be easy to win. In general, Komodo will be "happy" to reach an endgame only one pawn down which it can probably draw.

1)I do not think that the prize money is enough to give a big motivation to the GM to prepare.

2)I think that knowing to win won positions and knowing to get them is different so I am not convinced that 2200 players have no chance to win.

[Laskos]

]A 2700 GM would need to take back thus defined blunders 5 times to reach 3250-3300 FIDE ELO level of Komodo on 24 cores.

I also thought about take backs, but there's no way to correlate ELO with that of a normal OTB game. Your calculations are done with engines, but with humans is far more complex. It's not just blunders, is generally weaker play across the game, that explains the strength difference. If it were just a question of taking back 5 moves, human correspondence players would still dominate mindless computer-assisted play.

I happen to think that human-computer in correspondence chess can be stronger than the same computer alone if the human is competent. Also, one has to empirically derive a factor, say of 2, applied to takebacks to define a human blunder as proportional to random move. It's not that hard, and that I used engines is not a big issue in this case. It might be, though, that even top humans do small mistakes all the time, but I doubt it. I think many times top humans do play with more insight than the eval of engines.

[lkaufman]

Back to those odds already? Too bad.

I'm guessing you would have preferred another match like the last one but with larger time odds? I didn't like this so much because making Komodo play much faster than 3' + 1" seems pointless, since hardly anyone uses it with just one or two seconds thinking time I imagine. Or did you have another idea in mind?

A faster TC for Komodo, a longer TC for the GM or a stronger human opponent. Any of those variations, or a viable combination, would give us a more even match.

There's also the option of using a popular phone, instead of a laptop.

U

We might try this sort of match if we get another top ten opponent. Increasing the human's time further isn't very practical for chess.com tv coverage, and I'm told that single core of laptop already falls within the range of cellphones, so using a cellphone wouldn't be much different. We don't want matches where the winner is not in doubt.

Against a 2600 GM, a fair match would be against a mid-range smartphone at 30''+0.3''. Who wants to see such a match?

I have another idea: takebacks. Is it too insulting to GM to allow him taking back? This would solve one prominent issue with humans, that a GM plays generally a very sound chess, but marred by blunders and large inaccuracies. I used "Andscacs Randomizer" engine, which can play a specified percentage of random moves in the total of moves, the rest being regular Andscacs, to compute the value of a blunder defined here as random move. If taken back, this improves the performance of the player by the resulting ELO points. Here are the results, I computed them several weeks ago:

Code: Select all

BLUNDERS (RANDOM MOVES)

Random: 0%   ELO:2700
100%:95%
Score of R2 vs R1: 334 - 36 - 30  [0.873] 400
ELO difference: 334.10 +/- 47.24
Finished match
PlyCount: Total = 400  Range: 3-283  Average = 105.47  StdDev = 36.14
Av.nr.blunders = 2.63675   
Av.ELO per blunder = 126.7
ELO = 2700
Takebacks: 4.7

Random: 5%   ELO:2476
95%:90%
Score of R2 vs R1: 306 - 79 - 15  [0.784] 400
ELO difference: 223.69 +/- 40.49
Finished match
PlyCount: Total = 400  Range: 16-311  Average = 92.0  StdDev = 34.36
Av.nr.blunders = 2.30   
Av.ELO per blunder = 97.3
ELO = 2476
Takebacks: 8.5

Random: 10%   ELO:2324
90%:85%
Score of R2 vs R1: 278 - 113 - 9  [0.706] 400
ELO difference: 152.39 +/- 37.02
Finished match
PlyCount: Total = 400  Range: 17-246  Average = 89.56  StdDev = 34.99
Av.nr.blunders = 2.24  
Av.ELO per blunder: 68.0
ELO = 2324
Takebacks: 14.3

Random: 15%   ELO:2185
85%:80%
Score of R2 vs R1: 269 - 117 - 14  [0.690] 400
ELO difference: 138.99 +/- 36.18
Finished match
PlyCount: Total = 400  Range: 9-282  Average = 90.23  StdDev = 37.57
Av.nr.blunders = 2.26   
Av.ELO per blunder: 61.5
ELO = 2185
Takebacks: 18.1

Random: 20%   ELO:1947
80%:70%
Score of R2 vs R1: 315 - 77 - 8  [0.797] 400
ELO difference: 238.12 +/- 42.06
Finished match
PlyCount: Total = 400  Range: 5-233  Average = 84.18  StdDev = 34.86
Av.nr.blunders = 4.21   
Av.ELO per blunder: 56.6
ELO = 1947
Takebacks: 23.9

Random: 30%   ELO:1784
70%:60%
Score of R2 vs R1: 275 - 100 - 25  [0.719] 400
ELO difference: 162.99 +/- 36.53
Finished match
PlyCount: Total = 400  Range: 5-247  Average = 91.68  StdDev = 43.77
Av.nr.blunders = 4.58
Av.ELO per blunder: 35.6
ELO = 1784
Takebacks: 42.6

A 2700 GM would need to take back thus defined blunders 5 times to reach 3250-3300 FIDE ELO level of Komodo on 24 cores. A 2476 GM would need 8-9 takebacks. A 2324 player about 14 takebacks, A 2185 about 18 takebacks. So on, and a 1784 ELO player would need 43 takebacks. If the blunder (or large inaccuracy) is on average still better than random move, there is a multiplicaive factor on all these numbers of takebacks. One can probably determine pretty accurately what sort of handicap is needed for what strength, say if a ELO 2700 player needs 10 takebacks, then a 2200 player would need 35 takebacks, and a 1900 player needs to take back all moves at least once.

To me it would make for good handicap matches because it eliminates one of the main human weaknesses - blunders an serious inaccuracies. If only GMs are not offended by this proposal, I don't know their tastes.

I don't think GMs would be offended by this idea, it's no more embarassing than playing with material odds. Rather, the problem is that I don't think GMs will have any confidence that takebacks will help much. I don't think your simulation has much to do with the Komodo vs GM situation. Usually GMs make small mistakes, not outright blunders. Sometimes they are apparent after the computer responds, sometimes not.
I suppose any takeback handicap would stipulate that a player may retract his move any time until he makes another move, and if he does so he does not get back any time but Komodo should get back the time of the last move (this may be impractical though). It should probably also stipulate that you cannot take back the same move number more than once. I don't know how to simulate all this, but I think that your numbers are way too optimistic for the human side. In my opinion, even with unlimited takebacks (subject to my above rules) an ordinary GM would have little chance to win a match vs. Komodo. Maybe a top ten player might have a fair chance; even then he might need some other edge like White pieces or short opening book. I'm willing to try the idea if some GM has enough confidence to play knowing he won't make much money if he loses all the games.

[carldaman]

Back to those odds already? Too bad.

I'm guessing you would have preferred another match like the last one but with larger time odds? I didn't like this so much because making Komodo play much faster than 3' + 1" seems pointless, since hardly anyone uses it with just one or two seconds thinking time I imagine. Or did you have another idea in mind?

I have to say that watching Komodo play real chess vs a human GM in the last match was totally fascinating. If you want to level the playing field more you probably need someone a bit stronger than GM Erenburg, rather than giving more time to the human or further slowing down Komodo.

Material handicaps on the other hand, present little spectator interest as far as I'm concerned. Once you've seen one, it feels like you've seen them all.
With an equal starting position, you're giving Komodo an opportunity to shine at real chess, which never gets old. More people can probably relate to that, I would imagine.

CL

[Laskos]

I don't think GMs would be offended by this idea, it's no more embarassing than playing with material odds. Rather, the problem is that I don't think GMs will have any confidence that takebacks will help much. I don't think your simulation has much to do with the Komodo vs GM situation. Usually GMs make small mistakes, not outright blunders. Sometimes they are apparent after the computer responds, sometimes not.
I suppose any takeback handicap would stipulate that a player may retract his move any time until he makes another move, and if he does so he does not get back any time but Komodo should get back the time of the last move (this may be impractical though). It should probably also stipulate that you cannot take back the same move number more than once. I don't know how to simulate all this, but I think that your numbers are way too optimistic for the human side. In my opinion, even with unlimited takebacks (subject to my above rules) an ordinary GM would have little chance to win a match vs. Komodo. Maybe a top ten player might have a fair chance; even then he might need some other edge like White pieces or short opening book. I'm willing to try the idea if some GM has enough confidence to play knowing he won't make much money if he loses all the games.

You are of the opinion that GMs constantly make small mistakes? I would change just a bit your rules by the stipulation that a player may take back several times (subject to total) the same move, but this is a detail. If you are not sure that a good GM can sometimes beat Komodo taking back all the moves once, you can organize a match, favoring in your view Komodo.

[lkaufman]

I don't think GMs would be offended by this idea, it's no more embarassing than playing with material odds. Rather, the problem is that I don't think GMs will have any confidence that takebacks will help much. I don't think your simulation has much to do with the Komodo vs GM situation. Usually GMs make small mistakes, not outright blunders. Sometimes they are apparent after the computer responds, sometimes not.
I suppose any takeback handicap would stipulate that a player may retract his move any time until he makes another move, and if he does so he does not get back any time but Komodo should get back the time of the last move (this may be impractical though). It should probably also stipulate that you cannot take back the same move number more than once. I don't know how to simulate all this, but I think that your numbers are way too optimistic for the human side. In my opinion, even with unlimited takebacks (subject to my above rules) an ordinary GM would have little chance to win a match vs. Komodo. Maybe a top ten player might have a fair chance; even then he might need some other edge like White pieces or short opening book. I'm willing to try the idea if some GM has enough confidence to play knowing he won't make much money if he loses all the games.

You are of the opinion that GMs constantly make small mistakes? I would change just a bit your rules by the stipulation that a player may take back several times (subject to total) the same move, but this is a detail. If you are not sure that a good GM can sometimes beat Komodo taking back all the moves once, you can organize a match, favoring in your view Komodo.

I don't say that the GM won't win any games that way, just not a match. Taking back the same move more than once might be too embarassing or seem too unreasonable, and obviously if we allow unlimited number of total takebacks then this wouldn't work. I'm willing to try your idea if I find a GM who is confident enough to try. Maybe I'll ask some GM opinions. So far we only have one (mine). I think this idea would have to be played from my home on a real chessboard, not just on chess.com as some have been.