In reality this (ridiculous handicap ) decreases the human pondering time and so reduces the human chances .
2. Material handicap is just not a chess.
3. Playing only with dark colour is natural though it only reflects one side of the engine and man capabilities.
4. No opening book and no table bases are acceptable but programmers may arguement that they could have been already added algorithms for their engines if EGTB and opening books are not available.
When talking about such handicaped matches people are missing the basic question .
" why we need the handicap matches ?"
Just because on equal bases our engines are too strong to be matched by any Human GM .
So by un equal time or material odds the engines rating should be decreased and thus the gap between GM and engines.
But we are miising the point that people want GM and Rybka matches just because Rybka is the top engine and have crushing 3030+ elo , if u decrease the rybka's strength by these unnatural means in order to decrase the gap between Engine and GM then why not arrange the GM matches only against low rated programs and have natural and more enteraining games.
It is really disappointing for me that still we don't have any Proper Rybka vs GM match.
Don't know why the organinser are more interested in organising handicaped matches .
I am sure all the chess followers just want to see Rybka playing at its full strengt against a grandmaster and not these bullshit handicaped matches.
So the most natural way to give the GM a benefit is to increase the time controls may be little longer than tournament time controls and only one game a day.
No handicaps whatever, but if Rybka loses one game at any time, the match is over
and Rybka loses. Rybka would only be allowed to win or draw its games. I think some
GM's would think they have a chance to win one game out of ten.
By the way, handicap games are not bullshit. They have been played for centuries. Two years ago I was campaining hard for GMs to play the computers because when the computers pass them up it will no longer be interesting to watch them get beat by computers. Once they pass you up you will never catch up again. They passed me in 1981.
against a quality GM. Don't get me wrong. Elhvest and Benjamin
are quality GM's, but not top 5 or 10. It seems to me that we will
never again see an epic match such as Kasparov-Deep Blue. I think
this is what enthusiasts really want. I know, it's all about the
money and sponsors, but maybe a better effort could be made to
get a big name sponsor (Intel, IBM, Microsoft, or combo of these, etc.)
1. Rybka to use the fastest hardware (we all want Rybka to play this way).
2. GM has no time limit with a maximum of whole day with time breaks (good compensation to rule 1).
3. Ponder On for Rybka (and GM :) )
4. No TableBase for Rybka (because TableBase isn't chess)
5. 3 Move Opening Book for Rybka (Because Opening book isn't chess too!)
Tablebases are chess - Vas relies on them, else he'd write some code to improove Rybka´s abilities in endgames like kbnk.
Opening books are chess at its best - btw. GM uses them, too. Many openings are just stored in his brain.
>I disagree about TableBases and full Opening Book because Rybka isn't thinking when this things are on.. It's cheating!
There is one playing entity:
-Rybka without opening book and without endgame tablebases.
And there is another playing entity:
-Rybka with opening book and with endgame tablebases.
The second playing entity is stronger than the first(because of the book mainly).
You suggest that the second playing entity is not Rybka. I agree. It is Rybka + opening book + tablebases. OK i agree.
I'm more interested in seeing a match between a GM against the strongest possible Chess entity, than against a weaker Chess entity.
There humans will prove their value. Against the strongest! Not the weaker....
Why you don't want this?
>An Opening Book isn't Rybka..
CPU of the computer is not Rybka too, but you allow it to help Rybka....
1.) long thinking times like 2 hours / 40 moves to avoid zeitnot (time pressure)
2.) the GM can use fritz or shredder on a slow pc (< 500 MHZ) to avoid tactical blunder (like mate in one by Kramnik or instant losses)
There are no other handicaps necessary.
On the other side i like pawn handicaps , because they give an symmetric imbalance. Thats good for programs since - on average - the game is going to have more action.
An yes - A pawn handicap IS Chess ;-)
Handicaps that i do NOT like are
1) to use a slow pc for Rybka
2) not to allow tablebases (because vas could have integratet endgame knowledge into his engine in that way that the difference in playing strength is less than 10 elo - but he did not)
3) giving rybka less time to think
4.) not to allow opening books (because vas could have integratet opening knowledge into his engine. I think he did not very much)
5.) playing only with dark colour .
> On the other side i like pawn handicaps , because they give an symmetric imbalance. Thats good for programs since - on average - the game is going to have more action.
> An yes - A pawn handicap IS Chess ;-)
No , In chess there are 32 pieces at the initial position . :-)
let's play chess not from the initial position :-)
a) one 90'+90" or 40/120' game per day
b) second board for analysis or Tablet PC without engine
c) max 4MB for Rybka's book and 100MB for EG positions
If this will not help, last chance is to build strong team of 6-10 GMs.
> If this will not help, last chance is to build strong team of 6-10 GMs.
in that case i would prefer 6-10 different games: GM(n) vs Rybka
Human wins if a win is produced.
Human losses, if computer wins 3 games in a row
The match is drawn otherwise
This handicap can be adjusted, so human only losses if computer wins 5 games in a row etc. Or could be made harder for the human by requiring the human to score 1.5 point in two games at any stage in the match.
> One possibility an 8-10 game "sudden death" match with long time for both parties (40 moves in 2.5 hours like 20 odd years ago).
> Human wins if a win is produced.
> Human losses, if computer wins 3 games in a row
> The match is drawn otherwise
> This handicap can be adjusted, so human only losses if computer wins 5 games in a row etc. Or could be made harder for the human by requiring the human to score 1.5 point in two games at any stage in the match.
These kind of handicaps could effect the out come of the match but have nothing to do with the outcome of the games.
More important are the entertaining games under legal or natural rules not the match scores.
> My suggestion will encourage the human to take certain risks, that I think will create more exciting games than most more ordinary setups where the human tries to avoid taking risks.
Taking risk against (constant 3040+ player ) !!
The thing we need is a very strong GM who have atleast 8 hours to play a decent game against such a crushing chess entity.
Twenty odd years ago my ELO was 2300, but I think I am playing somewhat better today since I learned a lot about chess from the programs. I have specialized in playing computers (I have not played any over the board games in the last 10 years) and a few years ago I could thrash most programs.
So far I have NOT been able to win a single game (at any time controls) against 2.3.2, while I did occasionally win against some of the earlier versions of Rybka. In general I play openings where Rybka seems (at least in my mind) to misjudge the resulting middle game. My PC is just a single processor PC and I am not sure what would happen if I played on a Quad.
My suspicion is that some of my opening lines would not work anymore.
My sudden death handicap is a serious suggestion than I think will create interesting match condition. If I was to play with those conditions against Rybka on my 3200Mhz single processor PC, I would have reasonable chances drawing the match, and I just discovered that I can "trick" Rybka into favorable position when I play black. If I win, Rybka will change its preferences for the opening, but then it would be too late! I would have won the "sudden death" match...
just more time for the human.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill