1
2
![[ch]](/mwf/v12/flags/ch.png "Switzerland")
Like I said in some other thread, I`m new to this forum. Here I`d like to express my view on what happenned in the match.
Rybka is currently without a doubt the strongest chess engine in the world and I admit that even though I was getting handicap in most of games I was quite pessimistic before the match as I had no experience of playing computers in the past. Add to this an octal computer, opening book, equal amount of time for the game and last but not least that I had to play 8 games in 5 days against someone who doesn`t get tired and who doesn`t forgive you any mistake and you`ll probably understand why I was not such a big optimist when starting the match. And something else I`d like to add here. Chess programs nowadays are so strong that supporting an engine in the match vs human is like backing a car in its competition vs runner. I think we can all admire the strong program and give our credit to people who created it but I have to say that those ones who back the engine in such a match have a little understanding from me.
And now to the games. In the first game I thought that I started quite well but then overrestimated my position after Rybka played very unusual Nd7-b8. I sacrificed a pawn and although it probably was not a mistake by itself, such a way of playing is unadvisible vs. computer. For some time I was able to hold the balance but in the end Rybka won in a very convincing manner. Could I imagine at that time that I was not going to lose a single game anymore?
In the 2nd game I had an exchange up but still came very close to losing. I think that if Rybka hadn`t played forcing c3-c4 but just kept pressure on the kingside, things could become very difficult for me. In the game Rybka won some material but I managed to activate my pieces and the game ended in a draw.
In the 3rd I didn`t get much from the opening but I wasn`t afraid of Rybka so much that I wanted to keep the position closed at any cost and decided to open it up by playing e3-e4. Later on the endgame was equal but then I relaxed and allowed Rybka to occupy the d-file after what the things became unpleasant again. Probably Rybka could play better somewhere, maybe winning the pawn on b3 was not the best choice but anyhow I held the draw.
In the 4th game for the first time I came close to winning. I managed to develop an initiative on the queenside without any real counterplay for Rybka but then in the time trouble I missed Qd2-h6! and especially Nf6-e8!, and had to force the draw. As Larry told me, Rybka saw quite an easy win for me but again, what easy for Rybka doesn`t have to be necessarily easy for the human!
In the 5th game Rybka played without the f7-pawn. Though Larry did a good job preparing Rybka`s opening book, I still feel somewhat embarassed that I wasn`t able to win having such a big advantage. As I`m sure you all noticed, in the beginning I had difficulties getting used to Rybka`s play and f7-pawn handicap was not the exception. After I made the mistake early in the opening playing Ne4-f6, the game ended with perpetual check.
By this time we played 5 games and I think Rybka started to get tired. In game 6 Rybka played 1.c4 as she realised that she was having a lot of problems in the game 4. However, we got a kind of Queens gambit semi-open position where my exchange started to play a big role. My play was not perfect and may be Rybka could make a draw somewhere but I think in the opposite colour bishop ending I played quite well bringing my king over from queenside to g4 and back to the queenside.
I was happy with my first win and wanted to win again but didn`t expect that I would win so easily in game 7. Hard to believe that the strongest program in the world played nearly the whole game like a good old Fritz2. Absense of the f7 pawn is only a small excuse as the computer had enough chances to open up the position early in the opening.
And in the last game my only goal was to make a draw and that`s what happenned in the end.
My first conclusions, just after the match:
As I said before, Rybka is very strong and is the strongest engine in the world. She is strong not only in the open positions as some might think but also in defence and that`s probably the reason why it`s so hard to win against her even having f7-pawn handicap.
However, I`m convinced that the program is not unbeatable (when talking about playing normal chess without handicap). In the match we played now the question basically was whether I can convert my material advantage or not and in a way it became a little boring towards the end. I personally would be interested to play a match against this program where the only handicap I`m asking for is that I get White in all games. I`m confident that with the right preparation I`ll be able to represent the human side as well as I did in this match.
Rybka is currently without a doubt the strongest chess engine in the world and I admit that even though I was getting handicap in most of games I was quite pessimistic before the match as I had no experience of playing computers in the past. Add to this an octal computer, opening book, equal amount of time for the game and last but not least that I had to play 8 games in 5 days against someone who doesn`t get tired and who doesn`t forgive you any mistake and you`ll probably understand why I was not such a big optimist when starting the match. And something else I`d like to add here. Chess programs nowadays are so strong that supporting an engine in the match vs human is like backing a car in its competition vs runner. I think we can all admire the strong program and give our credit to people who created it but I have to say that those ones who back the engine in such a match have a little understanding from me.
And now to the games. In the first game I thought that I started quite well but then overrestimated my position after Rybka played very unusual Nd7-b8. I sacrificed a pawn and although it probably was not a mistake by itself, such a way of playing is unadvisible vs. computer. For some time I was able to hold the balance but in the end Rybka won in a very convincing manner. Could I imagine at that time that I was not going to lose a single game anymore?
In the 2nd game I had an exchange up but still came very close to losing. I think that if Rybka hadn`t played forcing c3-c4 but just kept pressure on the kingside, things could become very difficult for me. In the game Rybka won some material but I managed to activate my pieces and the game ended in a draw.
In the 3rd I didn`t get much from the opening but I wasn`t afraid of Rybka so much that I wanted to keep the position closed at any cost and decided to open it up by playing e3-e4. Later on the endgame was equal but then I relaxed and allowed Rybka to occupy the d-file after what the things became unpleasant again. Probably Rybka could play better somewhere, maybe winning the pawn on b3 was not the best choice but anyhow I held the draw.
In the 4th game for the first time I came close to winning. I managed to develop an initiative on the queenside without any real counterplay for Rybka but then in the time trouble I missed Qd2-h6! and especially Nf6-e8!, and had to force the draw. As Larry told me, Rybka saw quite an easy win for me but again, what easy for Rybka doesn`t have to be necessarily easy for the human!
In the 5th game Rybka played without the f7-pawn. Though Larry did a good job preparing Rybka`s opening book, I still feel somewhat embarassed that I wasn`t able to win having such a big advantage. As I`m sure you all noticed, in the beginning I had difficulties getting used to Rybka`s play and f7-pawn handicap was not the exception. After I made the mistake early in the opening playing Ne4-f6, the game ended with perpetual check.
By this time we played 5 games and I think Rybka started to get tired. In game 6 Rybka played 1.c4 as she realised that she was having a lot of problems in the game 4. However, we got a kind of Queens gambit semi-open position where my exchange started to play a big role. My play was not perfect and may be Rybka could make a draw somewhere but I think in the opposite colour bishop ending I played quite well bringing my king over from queenside to g4 and back to the queenside.
I was happy with my first win and wanted to win again but didn`t expect that I would win so easily in game 7. Hard to believe that the strongest program in the world played nearly the whole game like a good old Fritz2. Absense of the f7 pawn is only a small excuse as the computer had enough chances to open up the position early in the opening.
And in the last game my only goal was to make a draw and that`s what happenned in the end.
My first conclusions, just after the match:
As I said before, Rybka is very strong and is the strongest engine in the world. She is strong not only in the open positions as some might think but also in defence and that`s probably the reason why it`s so hard to win against her even having f7-pawn handicap.
However, I`m convinced that the program is not unbeatable (when talking about playing normal chess without handicap). In the match we played now the question basically was whether I can convert my material advantage or not and in a way it became a little boring towards the end. I personally would be interested to play a match against this program where the only handicap I`m asking for is that I get White in all games. I`m confident that with the right preparation I`ll be able to represent the human side as well as I did in this match.
"I personally would be interested to play a match against this program where the only handicap I`m asking for is that I get White in all games. I`m confident that with the right preparation I`ll be able to represent the human side as well as I did in this match."
And what is it going to take for us to see these games? Do not be bashful... if you have a figure in your head let us know.
And what is it going to take for us to see these games? Do not be bashful... if you have a figure in your head let us know.
You will watch and hopefully enjoy the games.
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
If that's all it cost then the next competition is on me. (Airfare not included.)
![[si]](/mwf/v12/flags/si.png "Slovenia")
I'm sure your decision will be greatly appreciated by the chess community. btw congratulations for amazing play!
First of all, congratulations for your results.
What kind of adjustments you made in the final games to beat Rybka? Did you make some adjustments to Rybka's play consciously, or did you just "got used" to Rybka's play in some unconscious way?
> In the match we played now the question basically was whether I can convert my material advantage or not and in a way it became a little boring towards the end.
What kind of adjustments you made in the final games to beat Rybka? Did you make some adjustments to Rybka's play consciously, or did you just "got used" to Rybka's play in some unconscious way?
it`s hard to tell. I think I mostly was able to adjust myself to her play.
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
Congratulations! This is the first serious match Rybka lost. Even though Rybka obviously should not have played c4 in game 7, I found your play very instructive. I liked 28. Ng5-f3 that I think was the key move that made Rybka's play look so silly. Rybka did not seem to like her knight on f7.
![[be]](/mwf/v12/flags/be.png "Belgium")
You are a REAL representative for humanity, you don't settle for stupid stonewall draws...you play for the win...but I think NO HUMAN will ever win a match against Rybka regardless of which side should play white all the time, the human brain falters all the time Mr. Milov, one single loss could affect your morale thus greatly affecting your performance of the whole match and this is not easy to deal with... You may have a chance for a draw but I don't think you can win this one
'
'
'
'
![[nl]](/mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
Congratulations with your victory and strong play, in the first place.
I followed all games but two from the first to the last move live and it was a great pleasure to be able to. Of course I was behind you all the way; in a match like this I don't understand people backing the engine either ...
I must say though, that you really tortured us in game seven by waiting so long, when you could have ended it twenty or thirty moves earlier!
If the white only handicap match ever comes about, be sure to find me amongst the audience again!
I followed all games but two from the first to the last move live and it was a great pleasure to be able to. Of course I was behind you all the way; in a match like this I don't understand people backing the engine either ...
I must say though, that you really tortured us in game seven by waiting so long, when you could have ended it twenty or thirty moves earlier!
If the white only handicap match ever comes about, be sure to find me amongst the audience again!
Congrats !
looking forward to see you playing Rybka with no other advantage than playing white side.
regards
looking forward to see you playing Rybka with no other advantage than playing white side.
regards
Dear GM Vadim,
first of all: congratulations to your well earned victory over the strongest chess program on earth!
It was a great pleasure for me to follow the match live on internet.
Despite odds it must have been very stressful and exhausting for you to be aware not to make the slightest mistake, which surely immediately would have been punished by Rybka.
Before this match, I was convinced that it would not be possible for a human player to win this match - but surprisingly and fortunately you disabused me (and many others)!
Thanks a lot for giving us a personal insight of your view and feelings along the games.
In the 4th game I hoped you will find a win in your advanced position, but as you said "Rybka saw quite an easy win for me but again, what easy for Rybka doesn`t have to be necessarily easy for the human!"
In 5th game I can imagine that you felt "somewhat embarressed that I wasn`t able to win having such a big advantage" ;-)
Did you ever consider to play 7.Be2, Bf4 or even 7.Nxe5?!
Regarding 7.Be2 I run a computer match, which I mentioned to Larry in the following post:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=108184#pid108184
I think 7.Nxe5 would have been awarded and cited all over the world!
Again thanks for this great performance and hopefully we will see you soon in another well organized, attractive and - last but not least - well sponsored match!
Best regards
Axel
(BTW: I am willing to pay for internet live-coverage, somewhat at about 5 $ a game or 25$ an 8 game match)
first of all: congratulations to your well earned victory over the strongest chess program on earth!
It was a great pleasure for me to follow the match live on internet.
Despite odds it must have been very stressful and exhausting for you to be aware not to make the slightest mistake, which surely immediately would have been punished by Rybka.
Before this match, I was convinced that it would not be possible for a human player to win this match - but surprisingly and fortunately you disabused me (and many others)!
Thanks a lot for giving us a personal insight of your view and feelings along the games.
In the 4th game I hoped you will find a win in your advanced position, but as you said "Rybka saw quite an easy win for me but again, what easy for Rybka doesn`t have to be necessarily easy for the human!"
In 5th game I can imagine that you felt "somewhat embarressed that I wasn`t able to win having such a big advantage" ;-)
Did you ever consider to play 7.Be2, Bf4 or even 7.Nxe5?!
Regarding 7.Be2 I run a computer match, which I mentioned to Larry in the following post:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=108184#pid108184
I think 7.Nxe5 would have been awarded and cited all over the world!
Again thanks for this great performance and hopefully we will see you soon in another well organized, attractive and - last but not least - well sponsored match!
Best regards
Axel
(BTW: I am willing to pay for internet live-coverage, somewhat at about 5 $ a game or 25$ an 8 game match)
Thank you!
I considered 7.Bf4 and even 7.Be2 but didn`t pay much attention to it as my king would have to recapture black bishop on e2 and I wanted to avoid that.
I considered 7.Bf4 and even 7.Be2 but didn`t pay much attention to it as my king would have to recapture black bishop on e2 and I wanted to avoid that.
Thanks for your comments, which are quite objective. I'd like to add a few remarks.
1. It is unfortunate (for us, not for you!) that Rybka did not strive harder to open the games. Particularly this was shown in game 7, first when Rybka failed to play ...c5 instead of ..Nc6, then when she played ..c4?, and then when she waited far too long for counterplay with ...b5 and ...a5. I can see why you might think that you could have chances with no advantage other than White pieces. However, I must warn you: it is quite simple for us to add code that will give Rybka a strong incentive to open the game when told she is playing a human. I very much regret that we did not do this either in Rybka 3 or at least for this match. Rybka 3 already has some incentive to avoid blocked positions in normal chess, enough that it seems that blockading strategies no longer suffice to draw in the hands of amateur players, but this incentive is cancelled out by a material handicap and so Rybka seems to be unaware of the need to open the game in the handicap games. We must fix this before playing further matches with humans.
2. Regarding the Exchange handicap games, the handicap proved to be a bit larger than I expected. One reason for this is that White cannot castle long but Black can. This amounts to a double handicap, material and positional. In some games long ago at rook odds White was allowed to play Kc1 in one move, but this is not an option for us as the normal program will consider such a move to be illegal. You made good use of the queenside castling option in two of the four Exchange handicap games. So I think that in any future matches involving Exchange handicap, it's only fair to say that Black also cannot castle queenside, as if he already had moved the queen's rook. Another issue is that the undefended pawn on a2 is yet a further problem for White in many openings, but I'm reluctant to put it on a3 (as some players do when giving rook odds) as then it constitutes an advantage.
3. You made the comment to me that the Exchange handicap games were in general of more interest than Pawn and move, because at least Rybka can play actively even though down in material. I must say I agree with this view. Also the variety of openings possible is much greater at Exchange handicap than at pawn and move, as the weak Black king severely limits Black's options. I think that the Exchange handicap will likely be a main battleground in the future for Rybka against ordinary GMs, even if it's a bit much to give to an Elite GM like yourself.
4. I have already made one change to the Rybka eval based on the match (mainly game 7) that is testing as a 1 Elo point gain. So at least the match did help Rybka's overall play a tiny bit.
5. I'd like to mention another possibility for future matches (whether with you or another GM). In Japanese they call it "sashi-komi", something like "changing pieces". The idea is this: the first game of the match is played normally, with the GM just getting White. If he wins he must play Black the next game, but if he loses he must take some small handicap (maybe two moves or White c2 pawn for example). If he then wins it's back to even game with GM White; if he loses the handicap game the next game handicap is increased. In all cases a draw means no change for the next game. So if the GM is really able to compete on even terms with only White and to win with a handicap, most or all of the games will be normal games. But if he cannot compete on even terms with just White and can't win with a small handicap, the match would be mostly a handicap match. This format could be used against any strong player; the handicap (or lack of handicap) is self-adjusting. In theory if GM wins twice at the start he might even have to give Rybka a handicap, though I think the chance of this happening is too remote to consider. Anyway this format insures variety.
I hope we get sponsorship for a second match, regardless of the format. Thanks for playing the match and congratulations from the Rybka team on your victory!
1. It is unfortunate (for us, not for you!) that Rybka did not strive harder to open the games. Particularly this was shown in game 7, first when Rybka failed to play ...c5 instead of ..Nc6, then when she played ..c4?, and then when she waited far too long for counterplay with ...b5 and ...a5. I can see why you might think that you could have chances with no advantage other than White pieces. However, I must warn you: it is quite simple for us to add code that will give Rybka a strong incentive to open the game when told she is playing a human. I very much regret that we did not do this either in Rybka 3 or at least for this match. Rybka 3 already has some incentive to avoid blocked positions in normal chess, enough that it seems that blockading strategies no longer suffice to draw in the hands of amateur players, but this incentive is cancelled out by a material handicap and so Rybka seems to be unaware of the need to open the game in the handicap games. We must fix this before playing further matches with humans.
2. Regarding the Exchange handicap games, the handicap proved to be a bit larger than I expected. One reason for this is that White cannot castle long but Black can. This amounts to a double handicap, material and positional. In some games long ago at rook odds White was allowed to play Kc1 in one move, but this is not an option for us as the normal program will consider such a move to be illegal. You made good use of the queenside castling option in two of the four Exchange handicap games. So I think that in any future matches involving Exchange handicap, it's only fair to say that Black also cannot castle queenside, as if he already had moved the queen's rook. Another issue is that the undefended pawn on a2 is yet a further problem for White in many openings, but I'm reluctant to put it on a3 (as some players do when giving rook odds) as then it constitutes an advantage.
3. You made the comment to me that the Exchange handicap games were in general of more interest than Pawn and move, because at least Rybka can play actively even though down in material. I must say I agree with this view. Also the variety of openings possible is much greater at Exchange handicap than at pawn and move, as the weak Black king severely limits Black's options. I think that the Exchange handicap will likely be a main battleground in the future for Rybka against ordinary GMs, even if it's a bit much to give to an Elite GM like yourself.
4. I have already made one change to the Rybka eval based on the match (mainly game 7) that is testing as a 1 Elo point gain. So at least the match did help Rybka's overall play a tiny bit.
5. I'd like to mention another possibility for future matches (whether with you or another GM). In Japanese they call it "sashi-komi", something like "changing pieces". The idea is this: the first game of the match is played normally, with the GM just getting White. If he wins he must play Black the next game, but if he loses he must take some small handicap (maybe two moves or White c2 pawn for example). If he then wins it's back to even game with GM White; if he loses the handicap game the next game handicap is increased. In all cases a draw means no change for the next game. So if the GM is really able to compete on even terms with only White and to win with a handicap, most or all of the games will be normal games. But if he cannot compete on even terms with just White and can't win with a small handicap, the match would be mostly a handicap match. This format could be used against any strong player; the handicap (or lack of handicap) is self-adjusting. In theory if GM wins twice at the start he might even have to give Rybka a handicap, though I think the chance of this happening is too remote to consider. Anyway this format insures variety.
I hope we get sponsorship for a second match, regardless of the format. Thanks for playing the match and congratulations from the Rybka team on your victory!
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
> enough that it seems that blockading strategies no longer suffice to draw in the hands of amateur players
They still do, though the amateurs have great problems, Pablo often posts his successful draws against Rybka 3 on CCC.
I quite like the idea of point 5. I'd call them dynamic handicaps! Does the GM want a normal game? He should earn it! Though I'd like if the next level handicaps weren't as drastic, such as that losing the first game gives you time handicap, and losing the second gives you draw odds, then draw odds+time handicap, two moves or material handicap, that seem more drastic and make fans unhappy should come later.
Do you know whether Pablo got draws with R3 using default contempt, or with a reasonably high value set? The anti-blockading logic in R3 is more or less proportional to the contempt setting, so getting a draw that way is not so hard at default, but should be quite hard with a value like 50 or more. I like your name "dynamic handicaps". We could make the steps a bit smaller, though I don't like the idea of mixing draw odds with other handicaps, because draw odds requires special book preparation and because it is not clear whether draw + White odds is more or less than two move odds, for example. The steps should be clearly increasing with each loss, not just different.
> Do you know whether Pablo got draws with R3 using default contempt, or with a reasonably high value set?
It is default settings so Contempt was 15. The thing is that people isn't going to change the parameters just to play against Pablo, and changing parameters is akin to using ChessTiger's Anti-Human setting that already is invulnerable to Pablo tactics. So maybe Rybka is capable of making Pablo fail every time with a higher contempt but people is interested in a program that does it on the default settings (as in a Rybka that becomes aware of the stonewall and changes contempt automatically.) That's yet to be seen.
> The steps should be clearly increasing with each loss, not just different.
But we don't know the value of certain handicaps so it's valid to change from a unclear handicap to another, as long as it's on the same range so the steps are clearly increasing, at least until we can figure out the values of the handicap. Anyway, I'd like to see as much normal games as possible , so, instead of mixing draw odds (that I agree it doesn't work), what about 3 move book, then time handicap, then book+time handicap, then enter material odds? That would guarantee that at least 4 games look normal, those are the ones I'm most interested in. I wonder of other normal game handicaps can be mixed.
If Pablo is playing Rybkas which are online for the purpose of playing humans, they should already be set to at least contempt=50 for that purpose anyway. The default is intened to be optimum against the nearest rival engines.
As for handicap steps, we could logically do White plus shortened book as the first step or time odds, and then both together, but I think it's not logical to use short book and time as separate steps, as which is larger is unclear and depends on the magnitude of each. There are many other options that stay within the realm of standard chess, such as requiring Black to open 1...h6 for example or stipulating some unsound gambit like 1e4 d5 2exd5 c6?. Note also that two move handicap is equivalent to requiring White to open with 1Nf3 and 2Ng1 against any defense, so this is also a valid handicap that does not change the starting position or force the human to make any particular moves. Same with three moves (Black must open 1...Nc6 and 2...Ng8 against anything).
As for handicap steps, we could logically do White plus shortened book as the first step or time odds, and then both together, but I think it's not logical to use short book and time as separate steps, as which is larger is unclear and depends on the magnitude of each. There are many other options that stay within the realm of standard chess, such as requiring Black to open 1...h6 for example or stipulating some unsound gambit like 1e4 d5 2exd5 c6?. Note also that two move handicap is equivalent to requiring White to open with 1Nf3 and 2Ng1 against any defense, so this is also a valid handicap that does not change the starting position or force the human to make any particular moves. Same with three moves (Black must open 1...Nc6 and 2...Ng8 against anything).
> There are many other options that stay within the realm of standard chess, such as requiring Black to open 1...h6 for example or stipulating some unsound gambit like 1e4 d5 2exd5 c6?.
Oh yeah, I've been a great supporter of the unsound gambit handicap, I thought that would never be considered as I've never seen it happen and watched the pawn handicap over and over. Forcing 1 move feels natural, since I've played amateurs that may answer h6?! against me, and the game feels normal. For a two forcing moves I'd prefer to see h6+a6 played than Nc6+Nb8 because the pawn moves at least seem to make some sense "You can't put your bishops on b5/g5; I can chase you away with these moves if you play Bc4/Bf4, etc.", but in the second case it's just like adding "pass" as a rule, as there's no difference (just like creating a game in where black loses a pawn and call it a thematic opening instead of pawn and move, how we got there doesn't change where we are.) Though I'm aware we'll inevitable get to these weird looking games as Rybka will play better than the GM.
There is a distinction between positions (like material handicap start positions) that can arise legally only by an artificial sequence on the part of both players, and positions (like 2 or 3 move handicaps) which can arise legally by restricting the choices of the computer only. Some people who don't like the first category may have no objection to the second.
This is very simple to solve: since Pablo's style is so contrary to the style of others, people should block him, but if he wants to play, then he can challenge them individually, allowing them to change their settings specifically for him. This is how chess is normally played, anyway: people usually make slight adjustments in their playing depending on their opponent if they have a decent amount of knowledge about their opponent.
Well, they don't do anything, and Pablo is now good at drawing against Rybka 3 Default, it's common to see him post his draws daily.
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23874&postdays=0&postorder=asc&topic_view=&start=0
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23874&postdays=0&postorder=asc&topic_view=&start=0
Nice idea but I think the name 'adaptive handicap' is more logical.
I want to see how Rybka 3, as I purchased it does against a strong GM who can prepare for it - like any other opponent who would have games in the database. I care not about how some tweaked private version with a novel antihuman mode (which is probably more effective but objectively gives much weaker play) does. It seems clear now that engines are going to excel in competition against humans and that is an old debate. What is more interesting is the performance of the official Rybak 3 with default settings and perhaps even on normal hardware rather than some exotic octal. This is what will get customers because they will have the same software and similar hardware.
Agreed. They would solve part of the problem by providing the Rybka used on the match to Rybka customers.
I suppose, but it wouldn't be used for analysis in that form anyway. My guess is that it would be about 200 ELO weaker if it always tries to go for open positions. Thus, it's a kind of artificial version with little purpose apart from beating humans.
> My guess is that it would be about 200 ELO weaker if it always tries to go for open positions.
lkaufman said the other day that changing Rybka's playing style had a loss of 30 ELO, I wouldn't call that dramatic (I'm aware you didn't.)
More important is the use of a 1CPU 32bit for matches, I'd like to know if the Rybka at my PC can beat a GM at normal chess! But it seems 1CPU is now rare and 32bit is coming next.
Well, it depends to what extent it is tweaked. If it is only set to prefer open positions and not force them, I imagine it would be far less costly in strength.
R3 already prefers open positions when contempt is set, it's just a question of degree. The point of an anti-human algorithm would be to be able to increase this preference without also distorting the play in many other ways that a high contempt value would do. If for example it allows us to seek open positions as if contempt was set to 100 while keeping the other parameters as if contempt were set to 50, the level of play would be higher than if we actually set contempt to 100. Some tests I ran indicate that the Elo loss (in self-play) from using contempt is something like 40% of the contempt value used, so we're not talking about hundreds of Elo points here.
I think that "Prefer open positions" and contempt should be separated.
I somewhat agree. When playing a weaker opponent, even another engine, Rybka prefers open positions to avoid blocked-up draws and to be able to demonstrate her superior search, so it is a part of contempt. But it would be very nice to be able to set a preference for open positions even when a draw is desired or even against opponents close in playing strength, aside from any preference already given due to contempt or to the position on the board.
They already sell notebook computers with 2 cpus and 64 bit Vista in the local store here for $675, so I think there is no point any more in trying to demonstrate performance on 1 cpu or 32 bit systems.
![[pk]](/mwf/v12/flags/pk.png "Pakistan")
> They already sell notebook computers with 2 cpus and 64 bit Vista in the local store here for $675, so I think there is no point any more in trying to demonstrate performance on 1 cpu or 32 bit systems.
Hi larry would u please give details of this package.
Are they second hand or new ?
I want to buy one.
It's a new Gateway computer, sold at the local Best Buy store in Rockville, Maryland. Maybe it's also on the Best Buy website and/or the Gateway website, I didn't look. I don't know model number, but it uses "t5750" processor I think (2 GHz I believe), and 4 GB RAM.
Well, we already use a higher contempt setting in these matches, which accomplishes some of the same things as a special anti-human algorithm. Maybe all we would do would be to change the formula used for contempt if the opponent is human. As for using R3, the problem is that we don't want the opponent to be able to prepare exact games (or many moves of a game) in advance by simply playing R3 against herself from unusual openings and choosing the ones which Rybka plays poorly as Black (assuming GM is White). Another point is that right now we are still close in time to R3, but in a few months we will be closer to R4 than to R3 and will want to begin to demonstrate improvements made that will show up in R4. As for hardware, I've read here that fairly soon octals should become quite affordable.
![[it]](/mwf/v12/flags/it.png "Italy")
Larry write: "Well, we already use a higher contempt setting in these matches, which accomplishes some of the same things as a special anti-human algorithm"
I have analysis the games with my "simple" Rybka3. (some games also in real time).
I have gotten all, I underline ALL, the movements played by the special version of Rybka for the match with Milov.
I am a little sceptic on these versions "anti-human" of engines.
I have analysis the games with my "simple" Rybka3. (some games also in real time).
I have gotten all, I underline ALL, the movements played by the special version of Rybka for the match with Milov.
I am a little sceptic on these versions "anti-human" of engines.
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
Do you really mean each move? Even if your version was identical to Larry's, that would still be highly unlikely.
Yes really each move .
And I can show this.
A few days to find the time to do one "compare analysis", and I will write the file in this forum.
And I can show this.
A few days to find the time to do one "compare analysis", and I will write the file in this forum.
Kappatoo,here show analysis with "normal" Rybka3 (match 2). To see all the game open file pgn. ALL moves are = ! (note: 20 move it is only inversion of move)
Attachment: milova.pgn (6k)
Thanks. And sorry, but I only had a casual look, I don't have the time to compare all of the moves - I simply trust you. I still think that's quite a coincidence, even if the versions hardly differed - or even not at all. How did you make sure that your Rybka spent the same amount of time on each move? (Or even worse - same number of nodes, as I assume that the hardware differs).
Rybka often changes her mind while thinking, so I suppose you mean that all moves played were also considered as best at some point in time by R3. The difference between the match version and R3 is indeed quite small and would mainly affect only the Exchange handicap games. Contempt 50 (instead of default 15) should have a more significant effect, especially in the handicap games, but you are right that the "anti-human" effect of this 35 point difference is not that dramatic, an that's why I feel the need for a separate term here.
We could also think about Rybka playing openings that give some handicap, like 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nxe5, we talked about that in the chat already. Actually this looks quite natural, if the stronger player sees that is opponent is inferior, he starts playing such openings just for fun and I already heard about masters playing such things against weaker players in rapid or blitz games. So this would be more realistic and entertaing, as it could happen in real games.
Well, I'm happy that my old ideas about losing material in a normal game are getting considered ;)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=14392
My implementation requiring Rybka's evaluation were unnecessarily overcomplicated, though.
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=14392
My implementation requiring Rybka's evaluation were unnecessarily overcomplicated, though.
I have played this many times (long ago).
We called it "Progressive Odds".
We called it "Progressive Odds".
When you played it, what were the handicap steps?
As I recall,:
-even, draw for color
-pawn and move
-pawn and 2 moves
-knight (odds giver gets white)
-rook (odds giver gets white)
-queen for knight (odds giver gets white)
I don't recall anyone being weak enough to need more odds. The rook pawns always started in their ordinary position (no a3 at the beginning).
-even, draw for color
-pawn and move
-pawn and 2 moves
-knight (odds giver gets white)
-rook (odds giver gets white)
-queen for knight (odds giver gets white)
I don't recall anyone being weak enough to need more odds. The rook pawns always started in their ordinary position (no a3 at the beginning).
Well then, progressive handicap isn't what we're looking for because we need the change more gradual (Pawn odds being like the 6th dynamic handicap.) Though the concept is the same.
![[tr]](/mwf/v12/flags/tr.png "Turkey")
the format suggested in the 5th term is simply great. It's a very clever and natural way of making an even competition. I hope you find some nice way of presenting this though. "progressive handicaps" could be a catchy title, as said in the above post. maybe you could look for something better.
by the way, I also would like to add that the exchange sacrifice games were much more natural and normal-chess like than the pawn and move handicap. the pawn and move dictates the strategy of the game too much, I suppose, whereas with the exchange, there are so many options for the defender.
by the way, I also would like to add that the exchange sacrifice games were much more natural and normal-chess like than the pawn and move handicap. the pawn and move dictates the strategy of the game too much, I suppose, whereas with the exchange, there are so many options for the defender.
1
2
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill