Giving knight odds to a GM not too far away?

[Graham Banks]

Posted by Larry Kaufman in the Rybka forum.

I have now played four games against Super-Rybka (latest Benjamin version on 3.2 GHz quad) at knight odds (Rybka always White, removes b1 knight, uses small knight odds opening book to avoid repeat openings) at the FIDE Rapid time limit of 20' +10" increment. I won the first two games by shedding a pawn to simplify to a winning endgame. The third game ended in a draw when my queen was surprisingly trapped in the middle of the board by a sacrifice; I got enough for the queen to draw. The fourth game was a convincing win by Rybka, as I failed to achieve early exchanges. Each of the four games started with a different first move by White. Since I am considering a draw to be a defeat for me, the score is 2-2. I plan to play more games.
When I first got Rybka (2.2) I could usually win at knight odds in blitz. Now, with better hardware, huge program improvements, reluctance to trade when behind, and the knight odds opening book, I have little chance to win in blitz (though still good chances to draw), and it seems to be a tough battle for me to win in an hour long game.
Tentative conclusion: while it is clearly too soon to talk of giving a knight to a Grandmaster other than in blitz, it may not be as far in the future as I had thought.

[smirobth]

Posted by Larry Kaufman in the Rybka forum.

I have now played four games against Super-Rybka (latest Benjamin version on 3.2 GHz quad) at knight odds (Rybka always White, removes b1 knight, uses small knight odds opening book to avoid repeat openings) at the FIDE Rapid time limit of 20' +10" increment. I won the first two games by shedding a pawn to simplify to a winning endgame. The third game ended in a draw when my queen was surprisingly trapped in the middle of the board by a sacrifice; I got enough for the queen to draw. The fourth game was a convincing win by Rybka, as I failed to achieve early exchanges. Each of the four games started with a different first move by White. Since I am considering a draw to be a defeat for me, the score is 2-2. I plan to play more games.
When I first got Rybka (2.2) I could usually win at knight odds in blitz. Now, with better hardware, huge program improvements, reluctance to trade when behind, and the knight odds opening book, I have little chance to win in blitz (though still good chances to draw), and it seems to be a tough battle for me to win in an hour long game.
Tentative conclusion: while it is clearly too soon to talk of giving a knight to a Grandmaster other than in blitz, it may not be as far in the future as I had thought.

Perhaps against one of the weaker grandmasters, maybe. But I suspect the time will never come where a top 10 GM with knight odds at long time controls can't win almost every game against a computer no matter how powerful the program or computer.

[Graham Banks]

Posted by Larry Kaufman in the Rybka forum.

I have now played four games against Super-Rybka (latest Benjamin version on 3.2 GHz quad) at knight odds (Rybka always White, removes b1 knight, uses small knight odds opening book to avoid repeat openings) at the FIDE Rapid time limit of 20' +10" increment. I won the first two games by shedding a pawn to simplify to a winning endgame. The third game ended in a draw when my queen was surprisingly trapped in the middle of the board by a sacrifice; I got enough for the queen to draw. The fourth game was a convincing win by Rybka, as I failed to achieve early exchanges. Each of the four games started with a different first move by White. Since I am considering a draw to be a defeat for me, the score is 2-2. I plan to play more games.
When I first got Rybka (2.2) I could usually win at knight odds in blitz. Now, with better hardware, huge program improvements, reluctance to trade when behind, and the knight odds opening book, I have little chance to win in blitz (though still good chances to draw), and it seems to be a tough battle for me to win in an hour long game.
Tentative conclusion: while it is clearly too soon to talk of giving a knight to a Grandmaster other than in blitz, it may not be as far in the future as I had thought.

Perhaps against one of the weaker grandmasters, maybe. But I suspect the time will never come where a top 10 GM with knight odds at long time controls can't win almost every game against a computer no matter how powerful the program or computer.

I must say that I tend to agree with you.

[Dr.Ex]

Posted by Larry Kaufman in the Rybka forum.

I have now played four games against Super-Rybka (latest Benjamin version on 3.2 GHz quad) at knight odds (Rybka always White, removes b1 knight, uses small knight odds opening book to avoid repeat openings) at the FIDE Rapid time limit of 20' +10" increment. I won the first two games by shedding a pawn to simplify to a winning endgame. The third game ended in a draw when my queen was surprisingly trapped in the middle of the board by a sacrifice; I got enough for the queen to draw. The fourth game was a convincing win by Rybka, as I failed to achieve early exchanges. Each of the four games started with a different first move by White. Since I am considering a draw to be a defeat for me, the score is 2-2. I plan to play more games.
When I first got Rybka (2.2) I could usually win at knight odds in blitz. Now, with better hardware, huge program improvements, reluctance to trade when behind, and the knight odds opening book, I have little chance to win in blitz (though still good chances to draw), and it seems to be a tough battle for me to win in an hour long game.
Tentative conclusion: while it is clearly too soon to talk of giving a knight to a Grandmaster other than in blitz, it may not be as far in the future as I had thought.

Perhaps against one of the weaker grandmasters, maybe. But I suspect the time will never come where a top 10 GM with knight odds at long time controls can't win almost every game against a computer no matter how powerful the program or computer.

A Top GM really isn't necessary, any active player with FM strength should be totally sufficient for that. A 2300 FIDE player should be able to win at least 9 out of 10 games. A Blackout in 1 of 10 games might occur.

With missing knight on b1 the best reply to 1.e4 is arguably 1...d5 and 1.d4 should be answered with 1...c5. Rybka is toast after these moves.

Kaufman is a weak player, if he can't win a match (draw=loss) against his engine with knight odds at that time control.

[Terry McCracken]

Posted by Larry Kaufman in the Rybka forum.

I have now played four games against Super-Rybka (latest Benjamin version on 3.2 GHz quad) at knight odds (Rybka always White, removes b1 knight, uses small knight odds opening book to avoid repeat openings) at the FIDE Rapid time limit of 20' +10" increment. I won the first two games by shedding a pawn to simplify to a winning endgame. The third game ended in a draw when my queen was surprisingly trapped in the middle of the board by a sacrifice; I got enough for the queen to draw. The fourth game was a convincing win by Rybka, as I failed to achieve early exchanges. Each of the four games started with a different first move by White. Since I am considering a draw to be a defeat for me, the score is 2-2. I plan to play more games.
When I first got Rybka (2.2) I could usually win at knight odds in blitz. Now, with better hardware, huge program improvements, reluctance to trade when behind, and the knight odds opening book, I have little chance to win in blitz (though still good chances to draw), and it seems to be a tough battle for me to win in an hour long game.
Tentative conclusion: while it is clearly too soon to talk of giving a knight to a Grandmaster other than in blitz, it may not be as far in the future as I had thought.

Perhaps against one of the weaker grandmasters, maybe. But I suspect the time will never come where a top 10 GM with knight odds at long time controls can't win almost every game against a computer no matter how powerful the program or computer.

A Top GM really isn't necessary, any active player with FM strength should be totally sufficient for that. A 2300 FIDE player should be able to win at least 9 out of 10 games. A Blackout in 1 of 10 games might occur.

With missing knight on b1 the best reply to 1.e4 is arguably 1...d5 and 1.d4 should be answered with 1...c5. Rybka is toast after these moves.

Kaufman is a weak player, if he can't win a match (draw=loss) against his engine with knight odds at that time control.

Kaufman is an IM, hardly a weak player

[smirobth]

Posted by Larry Kaufman in the Rybka forum.

I have now played four games against Super-Rybka (latest Benjamin version on 3.2 GHz quad) at knight odds (Rybka always White, removes b1 knight, uses small knight odds opening book to avoid repeat openings) at the FIDE Rapid time limit of 20' +10" increment. I won the first two games by shedding a pawn to simplify to a winning endgame. The third game ended in a draw when my queen was surprisingly trapped in the middle of the board by a sacrifice; I got enough for the queen to draw. The fourth game was a convincing win by Rybka, as I failed to achieve early exchanges. Each of the four games started with a different first move by White. Since I am considering a draw to be a defeat for me, the score is 2-2. I plan to play more games.
When I first got Rybka (2.2) I could usually win at knight odds in blitz. Now, with better hardware, huge program improvements, reluctance to trade when behind, and the knight odds opening book, I have little chance to win in blitz (though still good chances to draw), and it seems to be a tough battle for me to win in an hour long game.
Tentative conclusion: while it is clearly too soon to talk of giving a knight to a Grandmaster other than in blitz, it may not be as far in the future as I had thought.

Perhaps against one of the weaker grandmasters, maybe. But I suspect the time will never come where a top 10 GM with knight odds at long time controls can't win almost every game against a computer no matter how powerful the program or computer.

A Top GM really isn't necessary, any active player with FM strength should be totally sufficient for that. A 2300 FIDE player should be able to win at least 9 out of 10 games. A Blackout in 1 of 10 games might occur.

With missing knight on b1 the best reply to 1.e4 is arguably 1...d5 and 1.d4 should be answered with 1...c5. Rybka is toast after these moves.

Kaufman is a weak player, if he can't win a match (draw=loss) against his engine with knight odds at that time control.

Kaufman is an IM, hardly a weak player

Indeed. Kaufman is not just any IM; he is a 2400 FIDE rated IM with a lot of familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of computers and playing against them. That said, I too was very surprised that Kaufman did not do better. Perhaps it is because we all tend to have relatively little experience playing a piece up against an opponent who is much stronger than ourselves. We know from experience how easy it is to win when we are a piece up ... but how often do we get that against someone rated 400+ points higher than ourselves?

[Dr.Ex]

Posted by Larry Kaufman in the Rybka forum.

I have now played four games against Super-Rybka (latest Benjamin version on 3.2 GHz quad) at knight odds (Rybka always White, removes b1 knight, uses small knight odds opening book to avoid repeat openings) at the FIDE Rapid time limit of 20' +10" increment. I won the first two games by shedding a pawn to simplify to a winning endgame. The third game ended in a draw when my queen was surprisingly trapped in the middle of the board by a sacrifice; I got enough for the queen to draw. The fourth game was a convincing win by Rybka, as I failed to achieve early exchanges. Each of the four games started with a different first move by White. Since I am considering a draw to be a defeat for me, the score is 2-2. I plan to play more games.
When I first got Rybka (2.2) I could usually win at knight odds in blitz. Now, with better hardware, huge program improvements, reluctance to trade when behind, and the knight odds opening book, I have little chance to win in blitz (though still good chances to draw), and it seems to be a tough battle for me to win in an hour long game.
Tentative conclusion: while it is clearly too soon to talk of giving a knight to a Grandmaster other than in blitz, it may not be as far in the future as I had thought.

Perhaps against one of the weaker grandmasters, maybe. But I suspect the time will never come where a top 10 GM with knight odds at long time controls can't win almost every game against a computer no matter how powerful the program or computer.

A Top GM really isn't necessary, any active player with FM strength should be totally sufficient for that. A 2300 FIDE player should be able to win at least 9 out of 10 games. A Blackout in 1 of 10 games might occur.

With missing knight on b1 the best reply to 1.e4 is arguably 1...d5 and 1.d4 should be answered with 1...c5. Rybka is toast after these moves.

Kaufman is a weak player, if he can't win a match (draw=loss) against his engine with knight odds at that time control.

Kaufman is an IM, hardly a weak player

I knew. I don't doubt that Kaufman _was_ a strong player.

Maybe he just had a very bad day or didn't took it seriously enough.

[Uri Blass]

Posted by Larry Kaufman in the Rybka forum.

I have now played four games against Super-Rybka (latest Benjamin version on 3.2 GHz quad) at knight odds (Rybka always White, removes b1 knight, uses small knight odds opening book to avoid repeat openings) at the FIDE Rapid time limit of 20' +10" increment. I won the first two games by shedding a pawn to simplify to a winning endgame. The third game ended in a draw when my queen was surprisingly trapped in the middle of the board by a sacrifice; I got enough for the queen to draw. The fourth game was a convincing win by Rybka, as I failed to achieve early exchanges. Each of the four games started with a different first move by White. Since I am considering a draw to be a defeat for me, the score is 2-2. I plan to play more games.
When I first got Rybka (2.2) I could usually win at knight odds in blitz. Now, with better hardware, huge program improvements, reluctance to trade when behind, and the knight odds opening book, I have little chance to win in blitz (though still good chances to draw), and it seems to be a tough battle for me to win in an hour long game.
Tentative conclusion: while it is clearly too soon to talk of giving a knight to a Grandmaster other than in blitz, it may not be as far in the future as I had thought.

Perhaps against one of the weaker grandmasters, maybe. But I suspect the time will never come where a top 10 GM with knight odds at long time controls can't win almost every game against a computer no matter how powerful the program or computer.

A Top GM really isn't necessary, any active player with FM strength should be totally sufficient for that. A 2300 FIDE player should be able to win at least 9 out of 10 games. A Blackout in 1 of 10 games might occur.

With missing knight on b1 the best reply to 1.e4 is arguably 1...d5 and 1.d4 should be answered with 1...c5. Rybka is toast after these moves.

Kaufman is a weak player, if he can't win a match (draw=loss) against his engine with knight odds at that time control.

Note only that Larry kaufman did not play against public rybka but against special rybka version that is better than public rybka.

I also expect 2300 fide players to win a match(when draw=loss) but I have no evidence for it and it is only an opinion.

I think that things may be dependent on the opponent and what advices he got before the match.

You say that 1.d4 c5 is the best for black and you may be right but it is possible that there are 2300 players who simply do not know it and never tried it.

Uri

[S.Taylor]

[
Perhaps against one of the weaker grandmasters, maybe. But I suspect the time will never come where a top 10 GM with knight odds at long time controls can't win almost every game against a computer no matter how powerful the program or computer.

I really reserve my judgement until I will see a selection of GM's take this on.
If they cannot affect early exchanges (and the computer should be programmed to avoid this), then I would REALLY like to see them win game after game even at long time controls.

[Terry McCracken]

Posted by Larry Kaufman in the Rybka forum.

I have now played four games against Super-Rybka (latest Benjamin version on 3.2 GHz quad) at knight odds (Rybka always White, removes b1 knight, uses small knight odds opening book to avoid repeat openings) at the FIDE Rapid time limit of 20' +10" increment. I won the first two games by shedding a pawn to simplify to a winning endgame. The third game ended in a draw when my queen was surprisingly trapped in the middle of the board by a sacrifice; I got enough for the queen to draw. The fourth game was a convincing win by Rybka, as I failed to achieve early exchanges. Each of the four games started with a different first move by White. Since I am considering a draw to be a defeat for me, the score is 2-2. I plan to play more games.
When I first got Rybka (2.2) I could usually win at knight odds in blitz. Now, with better hardware, huge program improvements, reluctance to trade when behind, and the knight odds opening book, I have little chance to win in blitz (though still good chances to draw), and it seems to be a tough battle for me to win in an hour long game.
Tentative conclusion: while it is clearly too soon to talk of giving a knight to a Grandmaster other than in blitz, it may not be as far in the future as I had thought.

Perhaps against one of the weaker grandmasters, maybe. But I suspect the time will never come where a top 10 GM with knight odds at long time controls can't win almost every game against a computer no matter how powerful the program or computer.

A Top GM really isn't necessary, any active player with FM strength should be totally sufficient for that. A 2300 FIDE player should be able to win at least 9 out of 10 games. A Blackout in 1 of 10 games might occur.

With missing knight on b1 the best reply to 1.e4 is arguably 1...d5 and 1.d4 should be answered with 1...c5. Rybka is toast after these moves.

Kaufman is a weak player, if he can't win a match (draw=loss) against his engine with knight odds at that time control.

Kaufman is an IM, hardly a weak player

I knew. I don't doubt that Kaufman _was_ a strong player.

Maybe he just had a very bad day or didn't took it seriously enough.

He's still strong...he's still master strength...he probably just fouled up as you say.