![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
(Evaluations by Zappa)
[Event "Blitz:10'+10"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.09.27"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Rybka"]
[Black "Zappa Mexico "]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A30"]
[PlyCount "118"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
[TimeControl "600+10"]
{4MB, ZapM X Black.ctg, ZAPPA} 1. Nf3 {0} Nf6 {B/0 0} 2. c4 {11} e6 {B/0 0} 3.
Nc3 {8} c5 {B/0 0} 4. g3 {8} b6 {B/0 0} 5. Bg2 {10} Bb7 {B/0 0} 6. O-O {8} Be7
{B/0 0} 7. Re1 {8} d6 {B/0 0} 8. e4 {9} a6 {B/0 0} 9. d4 {8} cxd4 {B/0 0} 10.
Nxd4 {8} Qc7 {B/0 0} 11. Be3 {8} Nbd7 {B/0 0} 12. f4 {8} Rc8 {B/0 0} 13. Rc1 {9
} O-O {B/0 0} 14. f5 {10} e5 {0.42/19 289} 15. Nb3 {13} Qb8 {B/0 0} 16. Qe2 {
151} Rc7 {0.39/19 245} 17. Nd2 {554} Rfc8 {0.37/21 0} 18. g4 {(a4) 153} h6 {
0.43/20 233} 19. h4 {12} Nh7 {0.48/19 228} 20. Bf2 {10} Bc6 {0.48/20 498} 21.
Nd5 {131} Bxd5 {0.48/20 1} 22. exd5 {20} b5 {0.49/19 212} 23. b3 {40} b4 {
0.52/19 129} 24. Qe3 {109} Nc5 {0.51/19 43} 25. Ne4 {117} Nxe4 {0.54/19 113}
26. Bxe4 {14} Rd7 {0.58/19 424} 27. Bf3 {(Kh1) 179} Qc7 {0.52/18 122} 28. Kg2 {
(Ted1) 10} a5 {0.61/17 174} 29. Kh3 {(Th1) 371} Qd8 {0.50/18 195} 30. Qd2 {
(Ted1) 11} Rdc7 {0.52/18 125} 31. Rcd1 {(Ted1) 66} Bf6 {0.52/18 136} 32. Re2 {
(Tc1) 134} Rd7 {0.55/17 101} 33. Qd3 {(Tc1) 31} Be7 {0.51/16 27} 34. a3 {
(Dd2) 47} bxa3 {0.45/17 39} 35. Ra1 {43} Qf8 {0.29/18 0} 36. Rxa3 {55} Bd8 {
0.31/18 0} 37. Kg2 {1339} Rb8 {0.30/22 37} 38. Re1 {(Tea2) 109} Rdb7 {
0.23/20 80} 39. c5 {55} Rb4 {0.23/18 8} 40. c6 {(Dd1) 81} Qe7 {0.12/15 41} 41.
Bg3 {(Dd2) 179} Nf6 {0.09/16 32} 42. g5 {194} hxg5 {0.17/18 1} 43. hxg5 {25}
Ne8 {0.00/18 22} 44. Qd2 {(g6) 14} Rxb3 {-0.01/16 37} 45. Rxb3 {9} Rxb3 {
-0.01/16 0} 46. g6 {284} Bb6 {0.00/18 2} 47. Qa2 {27} Rb4 {0.00/17 9} 48. Rb1 {
(Te4) 34} fxg6 {0.00/17 53} 49. fxg6 {10} Qg5 {0.00/18 24} 50. Rxb4 {11} axb4 {
0.00/18 2} 51. Qb1 {(Dc4) 30} Qd2+ {0.00/19 107} 52. Kf1 {411} Qe3 {0.00/19 49}
53. Qf5 {33} Qg1+ {0.00/22 0} 54. Ke2 {9} Qe3+ {0.00/22 0} 55. Kd1 {(Kf1) 30}
Qb3+ {0.00/21 40} 56. Kd2 {(Ke1) 41} Qc3+ {0.00/20 38} 57. Kd1 {8} Qb3+ {
0.00/22 75} 58. Ke1 {11} Qe3+ {0.00/23 37} 59. Kd1 {(Kf1) 10} Qb3+ {0.00/24 94}
1/2-1/2
[Event "Blitz:10'+10"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.09.27"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Rybka"]
[Black "Zappa Mexico "]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A30"]
[PlyCount "118"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
[TimeControl "600+10"]
{4MB, ZapM X Black.ctg, ZAPPA} 1. Nf3 {0} Nf6 {B/0 0} 2. c4 {11} e6 {B/0 0} 3.
Nc3 {8} c5 {B/0 0} 4. g3 {8} b6 {B/0 0} 5. Bg2 {10} Bb7 {B/0 0} 6. O-O {8} Be7
{B/0 0} 7. Re1 {8} d6 {B/0 0} 8. e4 {9} a6 {B/0 0} 9. d4 {8} cxd4 {B/0 0} 10.
Nxd4 {8} Qc7 {B/0 0} 11. Be3 {8} Nbd7 {B/0 0} 12. f4 {8} Rc8 {B/0 0} 13. Rc1 {9
} O-O {B/0 0} 14. f5 {10} e5 {0.42/19 289} 15. Nb3 {13} Qb8 {B/0 0} 16. Qe2 {
151} Rc7 {0.39/19 245} 17. Nd2 {554} Rfc8 {0.37/21 0} 18. g4 {(a4) 153} h6 {
0.43/20 233} 19. h4 {12} Nh7 {0.48/19 228} 20. Bf2 {10} Bc6 {0.48/20 498} 21.
Nd5 {131} Bxd5 {0.48/20 1} 22. exd5 {20} b5 {0.49/19 212} 23. b3 {40} b4 {
0.52/19 129} 24. Qe3 {109} Nc5 {0.51/19 43} 25. Ne4 {117} Nxe4 {0.54/19 113}
26. Bxe4 {14} Rd7 {0.58/19 424} 27. Bf3 {(Kh1) 179} Qc7 {0.52/18 122} 28. Kg2 {
(Ted1) 10} a5 {0.61/17 174} 29. Kh3 {(Th1) 371} Qd8 {0.50/18 195} 30. Qd2 {
(Ted1) 11} Rdc7 {0.52/18 125} 31. Rcd1 {(Ted1) 66} Bf6 {0.52/18 136} 32. Re2 {
(Tc1) 134} Rd7 {0.55/17 101} 33. Qd3 {(Tc1) 31} Be7 {0.51/16 27} 34. a3 {
(Dd2) 47} bxa3 {0.45/17 39} 35. Ra1 {43} Qf8 {0.29/18 0} 36. Rxa3 {55} Bd8 {
0.31/18 0} 37. Kg2 {1339} Rb8 {0.30/22 37} 38. Re1 {(Tea2) 109} Rdb7 {
0.23/20 80} 39. c5 {55} Rb4 {0.23/18 8} 40. c6 {(Dd1) 81} Qe7 {0.12/15 41} 41.
Bg3 {(Dd2) 179} Nf6 {0.09/16 32} 42. g5 {194} hxg5 {0.17/18 1} 43. hxg5 {25}
Ne8 {0.00/18 22} 44. Qd2 {(g6) 14} Rxb3 {-0.01/16 37} 45. Rxb3 {9} Rxb3 {
-0.01/16 0} 46. g6 {284} Bb6 {0.00/18 2} 47. Qa2 {27} Rb4 {0.00/17 9} 48. Rb1 {
(Te4) 34} fxg6 {0.00/17 53} 49. fxg6 {10} Qg5 {0.00/18 24} 50. Rxb4 {11} axb4 {
0.00/18 2} 51. Qb1 {(Dc4) 30} Qd2+ {0.00/19 107} 52. Kf1 {411} Qe3 {0.00/19 49}
53. Qf5 {33} Qg1+ {0.00/22 0} 54. Ke2 {9} Qe3+ {0.00/22 0} 55. Kd1 {(Kf1) 30}
Qb3+ {0.00/21 40} 56. Kd2 {(Ke1) 41} Qc3+ {0.00/20 38} 57. Kd1 {8} Qb3+ {
0.00/22 75} 58. Ke1 {11} Qe3+ {0.00/23 37} 59. Kd1 {(Kf1) 10} Qb3+ {0.00/24 94}
1/2-1/2
As i've said on CCC i can't believe that Rybka failed to win this! This is just not Rybka. It had a completely better position and it played bad moves.
I think something was wrong with Rybka in the 10th game.....
Here are the moves i was talking about on Playchess that seem to lead to a forced win for Rybka! Yet Rybka failed to find them....
27.Kh2->Rg1 is the key.....
[Event "Blitz:10'+10"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.09.27"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Rybka"]
[Black "Zappa Mexico X64 Remote X Rem"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A30"]
[Annotator "George"]
[PlyCount "118"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
[TimeControl "600+10"]
{4MB, ZapM X Black.ctg, ZAPPA} 1. Nf3 {0} Nf6 {B/0 0} 2. c4 {11} e6 {B/0 0} 3.
Nc3 {8} c5 {B/0 0} 4. g3 {8} b6 {B/0 0} 5. Bg2 {10} Bb7 {B/0 0} 6. O-O {8} Be7
{B/0 0} 7. Re1 {8} d6 {B/0 0} 8. e4 {9} a6 {B/0 0} 9. d4 {8} cxd4 {B/0 0} 10.
Nxd4 {8} Qc7 {B/0 0} 11. Be3 {8} Nbd7 {B/0 0} 12. f4 {8} Rc8 {B/0 0} 13. Rc1 {9
} O-O {B/0 0} 14. f5 {10} e5 {0.42/19 289} 15. Nb3 {13} Qb8 {B/0 0} 16. Qe2 {
151} Rc7 {0.39/19 245} 17. Nd2 {554} Rfc8 {0.37/21 0} 18. g4 {(a4) 153} h6 {
0.43/20 233} 19. h4 {12} Nh7 {0.48/19 228} 20. Bf2 {10} Bc6 {0.48/20 498} 21.
Nd5 {131} Bxd5 {0.48/20 1} 22. exd5 {20} b5 {0.49/19 212} 23. b3 {40} b4 {
0.52/19 129} 24. Qe3 {109} Nc5 {0.51/19 43} 25. Ne4 {117} Nxe4 {0.54/19 113}
26. Bxe4 {14} Rd7 {0.58/19 424} 27. Bf3 {(Kh1) 179} (27. Kh2 Qc7 (27... Re8 28.
Rg1 Qd8 29. Kh3 Rb7 30. c5 Rb5 (30... Rb8 31. cxd6 Bxd6 32. g5 hxg5 33. hxg5 a5
(33... Qd7 34. Rc6) 34. Qg3) (30... Nf6 31. c6 (31. g5 hxg5 (31... Nxe4 32.
Qxe4 hxg5 33. c6 Rb5 34. hxg5 Qc8 35. Rg4) 32. Qxg5 Bf8 33. c6 Nxe4 34. Qxd8
Nxf2+ (34... Rxd8 35. cxb7 Rb8 36. Be1 Rxb7 37. Rg4) 35. Kg2 Rxd8 36. cxb7 Rb8
37. Kxf2 Rxb7 38. f6)) 31. cxd6 Bxd6 32. g5 hxg5 33. hxg5) 28. Rg1 Qd8 29. f6
Bxf6 (29... Nxf6 30. Bf5 Rdc7 (30... Nh7 31. g5 hxg5 32. hxg5 g6 33. Bh3)) 30.
g5 hxg5 (30... Nxg5 31. hxg5 Bxg5 32. Rxg5 Qxg5 (32... hxg5 33. Bf5 Rdc7 34.
Kg2 Qf6 (34... Rb8 35. Rh1 Rcb7 (35... Qf6 36. Qh3 g6 37. Qh7+ Kf8 38. Qh8+
Qxh8 39. Rxh8+ Ke7 40. Rxb8 gxf5 41. Rxb4) (35... g6 36. Qh3 Qf6 37. Qh7+ Kf8
38. Qh8+ Qxh8 39. Rxh8+ Ke7 40. Rxb8 gxf5 41. Rxb4) 36. Qh3) 35. Bxc8 Rxc8 36.
Qh3) 33. Qxg5 hxg5 34. Bf5) 31. Bxh7+ Kxh7 32. hxg5 Be7 33. Qh3+ Kg8 34. Rcf1
g6 (34... Bf8 35. g6 fxg6 36. Bc5 Qe8 37. Kg2 Rf7 38. Rh1 Rf4 39. Be3) (34...
Bxg5 35. Rxg5 Qxg5 36. Qxd7) 35. Be3 Bf8 36. Kg2 Bg7 37. Rh1 Kf8 38. Qh7) 27...
Qc7 {0.52/18 122} 28. Kg2 {(Ted1) 10} a5 {0.61/17 174} 29. Kh3 {(Th1) 371} Qd8
{0.50/18 195} 30. Qd2 {(Ted1) 11} Rdc7 {0.52/18 125} 31. Rcd1 {(Ted1) 66} Bf6 {
0.52/18 136} 32. Re2 {(Tc1) 134} Rd7 {0.55/17 101} 33. Qd3 {(Tc1) 31} Be7 {
0.51/16 27} 34. a3 {(Dd2) 47} bxa3 {0.45/17 39} 35. Ra1 {43} Qf8 {0.29/18 0}
36. Rxa3 {55} Bd8 {0.31/18 0 Rxa3 55 Bd8 0.31/18 0} 37. Kg2 {1339} Rb8 {
0.30/22 37} 38. Re1 {(Tea2) 109} Rdb7 {0.23/20 80} 39. c5 {55} Rb4 {0.23/18 8}
40. c6 {(Dd1) 81} Qe7 {0.12/15 41} 41. Bg3 {(Dd2) 179} Nf6 {0.09/16 32} 42. g5
{194} hxg5 {0.17/18 1} 43. hxg5 {25} Ne8 {0.00/18 22} 44. Qd2 {(g6) 14} Rxb3 {
-0.01/16 37} 45. Rxb3 {9} Rxb3 {-0.01/16 0} 46. g6 {284} Bb6 {0.00/18 2} 47.
Qa2 {27} Rb4 {0.00/17 9} 48. Rb1 {(Te4) 34} fxg6 {0.00/17 53} 49. fxg6 {10} Qg5
{0.00/18 24} 50. Rxb4 {11} axb4 {0.00/18 2} 51. Qb1 {(Dc4) 30} Qd2+ {
0.00/19 107} 52. Kf1 {411} Qe3 {0.00/19 49} 53. Qf5 {33} Qg1+ {0.00/22 0} 54.
Ke2 {9} Qe3+ {0.00/22 0} 55. Kd1 {(Kf1) 30} Qb3+ {0.00/21 40} 56. Kd2 {(Ke1) 41
} Qc3+ {0.00/20 38} 57. Kd1 {8} Qb3+ {0.00/22 75} 58. Ke1 {11} Qe3+ {0.00/23 37
} 59. Kd1 {(Kf1) 10} Qb3+ {0.00/24 94} 1/2-1/2
I think something was wrong with Rybka in the 10th game.....
Here are the moves i was talking about on Playchess that seem to lead to a forced win for Rybka! Yet Rybka failed to find them....
27.Kh2->Rg1 is the key.....
[Event "Blitz:10'+10"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.09.27"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Rybka"]
[Black "Zappa Mexico X64 Remote X Rem"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A30"]
[Annotator "George"]
[PlyCount "118"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
[TimeControl "600+10"]
{4MB, ZapM X Black.ctg, ZAPPA} 1. Nf3 {0} Nf6 {B/0 0} 2. c4 {11} e6 {B/0 0} 3.
Nc3 {8} c5 {B/0 0} 4. g3 {8} b6 {B/0 0} 5. Bg2 {10} Bb7 {B/0 0} 6. O-O {8} Be7
{B/0 0} 7. Re1 {8} d6 {B/0 0} 8. e4 {9} a6 {B/0 0} 9. d4 {8} cxd4 {B/0 0} 10.
Nxd4 {8} Qc7 {B/0 0} 11. Be3 {8} Nbd7 {B/0 0} 12. f4 {8} Rc8 {B/0 0} 13. Rc1 {9
} O-O {B/0 0} 14. f5 {10} e5 {0.42/19 289} 15. Nb3 {13} Qb8 {B/0 0} 16. Qe2 {
151} Rc7 {0.39/19 245} 17. Nd2 {554} Rfc8 {0.37/21 0} 18. g4 {(a4) 153} h6 {
0.43/20 233} 19. h4 {12} Nh7 {0.48/19 228} 20. Bf2 {10} Bc6 {0.48/20 498} 21.
Nd5 {131} Bxd5 {0.48/20 1} 22. exd5 {20} b5 {0.49/19 212} 23. b3 {40} b4 {
0.52/19 129} 24. Qe3 {109} Nc5 {0.51/19 43} 25. Ne4 {117} Nxe4 {0.54/19 113}
26. Bxe4 {14} Rd7 {0.58/19 424} 27. Bf3 {(Kh1) 179} (27. Kh2 Qc7 (27... Re8 28.
Rg1 Qd8 29. Kh3 Rb7 30. c5 Rb5 (30... Rb8 31. cxd6 Bxd6 32. g5 hxg5 33. hxg5 a5
(33... Qd7 34. Rc6) 34. Qg3) (30... Nf6 31. c6 (31. g5 hxg5 (31... Nxe4 32.
Qxe4 hxg5 33. c6 Rb5 34. hxg5 Qc8 35. Rg4) 32. Qxg5 Bf8 33. c6 Nxe4 34. Qxd8
Nxf2+ (34... Rxd8 35. cxb7 Rb8 36. Be1 Rxb7 37. Rg4) 35. Kg2 Rxd8 36. cxb7 Rb8
37. Kxf2 Rxb7 38. f6)) 31. cxd6 Bxd6 32. g5 hxg5 33. hxg5) 28. Rg1 Qd8 29. f6
Bxf6 (29... Nxf6 30. Bf5 Rdc7 (30... Nh7 31. g5 hxg5 32. hxg5 g6 33. Bh3)) 30.
g5 hxg5 (30... Nxg5 31. hxg5 Bxg5 32. Rxg5 Qxg5 (32... hxg5 33. Bf5 Rdc7 34.
Kg2 Qf6 (34... Rb8 35. Rh1 Rcb7 (35... Qf6 36. Qh3 g6 37. Qh7+ Kf8 38. Qh8+
Qxh8 39. Rxh8+ Ke7 40. Rxb8 gxf5 41. Rxb4) (35... g6 36. Qh3 Qf6 37. Qh7+ Kf8
38. Qh8+ Qxh8 39. Rxh8+ Ke7 40. Rxb8 gxf5 41. Rxb4) 36. Qh3) 35. Bxc8 Rxc8 36.
Qh3) 33. Qxg5 hxg5 34. Bf5) 31. Bxh7+ Kxh7 32. hxg5 Be7 33. Qh3+ Kg8 34. Rcf1
g6 (34... Bf8 35. g6 fxg6 36. Bc5 Qe8 37. Kg2 Rf7 38. Rh1 Rf4 39. Be3) (34...
Bxg5 35. Rxg5 Qxg5 36. Qxd7) 35. Be3 Bf8 36. Kg2 Bg7 37. Rh1 Kf8 38. Qh7) 27...
Qc7 {0.52/18 122} 28. Kg2 {(Ted1) 10} a5 {0.61/17 174} 29. Kh3 {(Th1) 371} Qd8
{0.50/18 195} 30. Qd2 {(Ted1) 11} Rdc7 {0.52/18 125} 31. Rcd1 {(Ted1) 66} Bf6 {
0.52/18 136} 32. Re2 {(Tc1) 134} Rd7 {0.55/17 101} 33. Qd3 {(Tc1) 31} Be7 {
0.51/16 27} 34. a3 {(Dd2) 47} bxa3 {0.45/17 39} 35. Ra1 {43} Qf8 {0.29/18 0}
36. Rxa3 {55} Bd8 {0.31/18 0 Rxa3 55 Bd8 0.31/18 0} 37. Kg2 {1339} Rb8 {
0.30/22 37} 38. Re1 {(Tea2) 109} Rdb7 {0.23/20 80} 39. c5 {55} Rb4 {0.23/18 8}
40. c6 {(Dd1) 81} Qe7 {0.12/15 41} 41. Bg3 {(Dd2) 179} Nf6 {0.09/16 32} 42. g5
{194} hxg5 {0.17/18 1} 43. hxg5 {25} Ne8 {0.00/18 22} 44. Qd2 {(g6) 14} Rxb3 {
-0.01/16 37} 45. Rxb3 {9} Rxb3 {-0.01/16 0} 46. g6 {284} Bb6 {0.00/18 2} 47.
Qa2 {27} Rb4 {0.00/17 9} 48. Rb1 {(Te4) 34} fxg6 {0.00/17 53} 49. fxg6 {10} Qg5
{0.00/18 24} 50. Rxb4 {11} axb4 {0.00/18 2} 51. Qb1 {(Dc4) 30} Qd2+ {
0.00/19 107} 52. Kf1 {411} Qe3 {0.00/19 49} 53. Qf5 {33} Qg1+ {0.00/22 0} 54.
Ke2 {9} Qe3+ {0.00/22 0} 55. Kd1 {(Kf1) 30} Qb3+ {0.00/21 40} 56. Kd2 {(Ke1) 41
} Qc3+ {0.00/20 38} 57. Kd1 {8} Qb3+ {0.00/22 75} 58. Ke1 {11} Qe3+ {0.00/23 37
} 59. Kd1 {(Kf1) 10} Qb3+ {0.00/24 94} 1/2-1/2
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
Rybka's loss is all our gains. There is nothing that prods people to greater achievement than the imperative of fierce competition, with pride and egoism acting as multipliers. After this exciting and surprising match I expect Rybka to improve in many areas. Rybka 3.0 will be awesome. If I read Vas right he isn't making excuses; he's privately swearing "that will never happen again".
I'm still of the opinion that Rybka is the stronger engine, but it is clear the Zappa on eight processors with a long time control, augmented by one of the premium bookers in the business, gives Rybka a very strong run for its money.
Congratulations to the noble combatants.
I'm still of the opinion that Rybka is the stronger engine, but it is clear the Zappa on eight processors with a long time control, augmented by one of the premium bookers in the business, gives Rybka a very strong run for its money.
Congratulations to the noble combatants.
![[il]](/mwf/v12/flags/il.png "Israel")
The result of the match may give Anthony motivation to improve zappa and Vasik has no chance in case that anthony is a better programmer
because everything that Vas is going to do Anthony is going to do better.
Vasik may improve rybka but he cannot swear that "this will never happen again".
I am also not sure that the result of this match will give vasik more motivation to improve rybka.
The opposite is also possible because success may give you motivation to keep it when failure may push you not to try hard because of feeling that you have no chance.
My opinion is that Vasik's motivation is not going to be changed in the near future.
Uri
because everything that Vas is going to do Anthony is going to do better.
Vasik may improve rybka but he cannot swear that "this will never happen again".
I am also not sure that the result of this match will give vasik more motivation to improve rybka.
The opposite is also possible because success may give you motivation to keep it when failure may push you not to try hard because of feeling that you have no chance.
My opinion is that Vasik's motivation is not going to be changed in the near future.
Uri
>The result of the match may give Anthony motivation to improve zappa and Vasik has no chance in case that anthony is a better programmer
>because everything that Vas is going to do Anthony is going to do better.
In case he is a better programmer. But we don't know this of course and it's rather the opposite that happens judging from Rybka's success.....
>My opinion is that Vasik's motivation is not going to be changed in the near future.
Why do you say that? I think the opposite. I think that Vasik's motivation to make a better Rybka will increase....
And i think that definitely Rybka would not lose again(anyway in most times, since we can never be so sure to say again) a game like 4, and will never(again i mean most times, since never is a strong word also) make a blunder like f4? and will win games like the 10th.....
The question is not rybka's success but rybka's success per time.
Vasik works full time job on rybka when anthony does not work full time job on zappa.
You cannot say who is the better programmer only based on results without considering the time that they invested on it.
Uri
Vasik works full time job on rybka when anthony does not work full time job on zappa.
You cannot say who is the better programmer only based on results without considering the time that they invested on it.
Uri
"The result of the match may give Anthony motivation to improve zappa and Vasik has no chance in case that anthony is a better programmer
because everything that Vas is going to do Anthony is going to do better."
Well, what do you need to create a good chess-program? Being "a good programmer" means knowing how to structure code in some language on some platform, or?
I guess these things are as important:
- Chess knowledge: Of course...
- Mathematical skills: You need to understand the search tree in an abstract statistical way and also quantify your chess knowledge.
- Scientific skills: You have to do a lot of research and developing theories
- Creativity: If you want to be the best you need to find the new ideas
- etc.
I have seen a lot of "good programmers" that had little understanding about the business logic or the user-value of the produced code :-)
By the way, this match didn't prove that Zappa is the better program. It was just one match for the public with a lot of random factors involved.
because everything that Vas is going to do Anthony is going to do better."
Well, what do you need to create a good chess-program? Being "a good programmer" means knowing how to structure code in some language on some platform, or?
I guess these things are as important:
- Chess knowledge: Of course...
- Mathematical skills: You need to understand the search tree in an abstract statistical way and also quantify your chess knowledge.
- Scientific skills: You have to do a lot of research and developing theories
- Creativity: If you want to be the best you need to find the new ideas
- etc.
I have seen a lot of "good programmers" that had little understanding about the business logic or the user-value of the produced code :-)
By the way, this match didn't prove that Zappa is the better program. It was just one match for the public with a lot of random factors involved.
Yes,.first I'd like to congratulate the Zappa team on a fine victory.I still feel that Rybka is the strongest engine based on test results from CEGT and CCRL,we all know Rybka is the strongest.The problem was the implementation of 8 cores to Rybka's environment.Once Vas figures out to get better scaling from 8 or above cores no one will be able to touch Rybka.There were also unforeseen technical problems and maybe cockiness,who would have thought of a Rybka defeat(Intagrand hit it right on the button),all of this will make for an even stronger version when released,a MONSTER of a program is coming up folks(in Rybka) so watch out!Rybka is STILL number 1 in my book.
Programmers can get better.
Your programming (for instance) is much {even dramatically} better that when you first started.
Don't forget Vasik's advantage: He is the better chess player. The remarkable thing is that {supposedly at least} Ryka has the better search and Zappa has the better eval. If this is the case, then which of the two (Anthony/Vasik) has the most to gain in that department, and who is the most capable?
I guess that the outcome of the experiment is a lot more nebulous than you think. I also guess that someday there will be a new Rybka and a new Zappa that will stun everyone like these programs did. For quite a while, Shredder looked totally unbeatable. Now, Shredder sees fierce competition and the uphill climb that Shredder's opponents used to see.
I think that as humans we have trouble seeing the present, and are notoriously poor at predicting the future.
IMO-YMMV.
Your programming (for instance) is much {even dramatically} better that when you first started.
Don't forget Vasik's advantage: He is the better chess player. The remarkable thing is that {supposedly at least} Ryka has the better search and Zappa has the better eval. If this is the case, then which of the two (Anthony/Vasik) has the most to gain in that department, and who is the most capable?
I guess that the outcome of the experiment is a lot more nebulous than you think. I also guess that someday there will be a new Rybka and a new Zappa that will stun everyone like these programs did. For quite a while, Shredder looked totally unbeatable. Now, Shredder sees fierce competition and the uphill climb that Shredder's opponents used to see.
I think that as humans we have trouble seeing the present, and are notoriously poor at predicting the future.
IMO-YMMV.
![[cr]](/mwf/v12/flags/cr.png "Costa Rica")
In any case, I think that Vas cannot lose his motivation only because he lose a very short match of 10 games by a very small margin. This doesn't make sense and would not be very intelligent of his part.
Regards,
Gambito.
Regards,
Gambito.
But while Vas is certainly a very good programmer, there are many better programmers out there. Yet Rybka was still irrefutably the best chess program in the world for almost two years. Not only does Vas have great programming skills, he also has great chess skills, and for those two to be combined in one brain, you have much more efficiency in improving a chess program than exists in other chess programming circles. Also, the others don't have Larry on their team.
I don´t know whether Anthony or Vas is a better programmer, it´s like asking whether Anand or Kramnik is a better chessplayer, but if they are of equal skill Rybka will improve much faster, because Anthony only does this part time as a graduate student while Vas does it full time. Also, since I do the evaluation work, Vas can devote full time to the search and other aspects that are programming related rather than chess related, whereas Anthony must do both himself.
![[za]](/mwf/v12/flags/za.png "South Africa")
"because Anthony only does this part time as a graduate student while Vas does it full time".
I respect Anthony, he gave Rybka a good run for her money and a strong competition, having worked on the engine for 8 only days. Though I still believe Rybka is the stronger of the 2 engines. I believe this is one of those lessons that the Rybka team have learnt. Next time, no more surprises, you can test on stronger machines and improve the engine.
I admired the way Zappa performed and I believe it is one of the gretest engines. I just don't like the idea that it plays well on the PCs with many processors. I don't think this is good for bussiness. How many of us have such powerful machines?
Anyway, improve the engine, test thoroughly, get rid of the bugs and take your time to release Rybka 3. We are looking forward to a very great program (Rybka 3).
I respect Anthony, he gave Rybka a good run for her money and a strong competition, having worked on the engine for 8 only days. Though I still believe Rybka is the stronger of the 2 engines. I believe this is one of those lessons that the Rybka team have learnt. Next time, no more surprises, you can test on stronger machines and improve the engine.
I admired the way Zappa performed and I believe it is one of the gretest engines. I just don't like the idea that it plays well on the PCs with many processors. I don't think this is good for bussiness. How many of us have such powerful machines?
Anyway, improve the engine, test thoroughly, get rid of the bugs and take your time to release Rybka 3. We are looking forward to a very great program (Rybka 3).
You are correct about the past that Anthony does this as part time but
I suspect that the result of this match may push Anthony to leave university and start working full time job on zappa
in case of getting an offer for a match against humans.
Uri
I suspect that the result of this match may push Anthony to leave university and start working full time job on zappa
in case of getting an offer for a match against humans.
Uri
I doubt this very much. Of course if an offer includes a huge sum of money for Zappa, he might do so, but I think this is quite unlikely.
![[hu]](/mwf/v12/flags/hu.png "Hungary")
HI Uri!
Like normally, You are very negative against the Rybka, against Vasik and against the Rybka fans...
We know, that You have direct contact with God, so You know everything perfectly, never accept another ones opinion...
(Personally, I think its a foolish attitude... but its Yours, no problem)
I think, We will not cry, If We can avoid Your negative ideas.........
anyway,
Congrat for Anthony!!! Nice performance from Zappa!
I am sure, a hard competitor will help and motivate the Rybka Team, to reach better result! (like in Athletics, if the Champion cannot feel, that somebody near behind him/her, no chance for record!)
Regards,
Kraszni
Like normally, You are very negative against the Rybka, against Vasik and against the Rybka fans...
We know, that You have direct contact with God, so You know everything perfectly, never accept another ones opinion...
(Personally, I think its a foolish attitude... but its Yours, no problem)
I think, We will not cry, If We can avoid Your negative ideas.........
anyway,
Congrat for Anthony!!! Nice performance from Zappa!
I am sure, a hard competitor will help and motivate the Rybka Team, to reach better result! (like in Athletics, if the Champion cannot feel, that somebody near behind him/her, no chance for record!)
Regards,
Kraszni
I am not very negative against rybka.
I prefered to see rybka winning the match and I was disappointed from the result.
Uri
I prefered to see rybka winning the match and I was disappointed from the result.
Uri
Hello , you are dead wrong about Uri. I think he doesnt deserve this treatment of yours.
Best
Wayne
Best
Wayne
What! Are you telling me Uri is the New Nostradamus who can predict Vas's motivations and insights-cut me some slack will you! I might be hard nosed but not stupid!
What the hell are you selling? What in heaven's name makes you think Anthony is a better programmer than Vas-
I am surprised that you could even have the gall to make such a sill presentment.
I am surprised that you could even have the gall to make such a sill presentment.
![[no]](/mwf/v12/flags/no.png "Norway")
What metric were you going to be measuring "better programmer" by? Heck, you haven't even seen their code...
Honestly, the discussion strikes me as rather pointless.
/* Steinar */
Honestly, the discussion strikes me as rather pointless.
/* Steinar */
Well, it seems pointless to me too! It's ridiculous! It's totally presumptuous!
I don't care if they write in hieroglyphics!
I don't care if they write in hieroglyphics!
The question is "not" whether one is better than the other- It is how far one is willing to go to pursue his dream and at what cost.
The trouble with teams is that you have to instill in them and hope that they share in your dream.
So! Uri, go take that home with you and think about it when you are writing code for "Movei".
I do not know but I see no reason to consider it as silly.
Considering the fact that anthony does not work full time job on zappa the speculation that he is the better programmer
is not a silly speculation.
Uri
Considering the fact that anthony does not work full time job on zappa the speculation that he is the better programmer
is not a silly speculation.
Uri
After some more analysis of some moves that resisted for black, i'm convinced that 27.Kh2 and then 28.Rg1 wins for white. White just has an unstoppable attack!
[Event "Blitz:10'+10"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.09.27"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Rybka"]
[Black "Zappa Mexico X64 Remote X Rem"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A30"]
[Annotator "George"]
[PlyCount "118"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
[TimeControl "600+10"]
{4MB, ZapM X Black.ctg, ZAPPA} 1. Nf3 {0} Nf6 {B/0 0} 2. c4 {11} e6 {B/0 0} 3.
Nc3 {8} c5 {B/0 0} 4. g3 {8} b6 {B/0 0} 5. Bg2 {10} Bb7 {B/0 0} 6. O-O {8} Be7
{B/0 0} 7. Re1 {8} d6 {B/0 0} 8. e4 {9} a6 {B/0 0} 9. d4 {8} cxd4 {B/0 0} 10.
Nxd4 {8} Qc7 {B/0 0} 11. Be3 {8} Nbd7 {B/0 0} 12. f4 {8} Rc8 {B/0 0} 13. Rc1 {9
} O-O {B/0 0} 14. f5 {10} e5 {0.42/19 289} 15. Nb3 {13} Qb8 {B/0 0} 16. Qe2 {
151} Rc7 {0.39/19 245} 17. Nd2 {554} Rfc8 {0.37/21 0} 18. g4 {(a4) 153} h6 {
0.43/20 233} 19. h4 {12} Nh7 {0.48/19 228} 20. Bf2 {10} Bc6 {0.48/20 498} 21.
Nd5 {131} Bxd5 {0.48/20 1} 22. exd5 {20} b5 {0.49/19 212} 23. b3 {40} b4 {
0.52/19 129} 24. Qe3 {109} Nc5 {0.51/19 43} 25. Ne4 {117} Nxe4 {0.54/19 113}
26. Bxe4 {14} Rd7 {0.58/19 424} 27. Bf3 {(Kh1) 179} (27. Kh2 Qc7 (27... Re8 28.
Rg1 Qd8 29. Kh3 Rb7 (29... Rc7 30. Rg2 Nf6 (30... Rc8 31. Rcg1 Nf6 32. Bb1 e4 (
32... Nh7 33. g5) 33. Qf4) 31. Rcg1 Nxe4 32. Qxe4 Qd7 33. Kh2 f6 (33... Bd8 34.
g5 hxg5 35. Be3 f6 (35... Rb7 36. Bxg5 Bxg5 37. Rxg5 f6 38. Rg6) 36. hxg5 fxg5
(36... g6 37. Rg3 Qxf5 38. Qxf5 gxf5 39. gxf6+ Kh8 40. Rh3+ Rh7 41. Bh6 Bxf6
42. Rg6 Bd8 43. Bg7+ Kg8 44. Bxe5+ Kf7 45. Rxd6) 37. Bxg5 Rf8 38. Bxd8 Qxd8 39.
Rg5 Rcf7 (39... Kf7 40. Rxg7+ Ke8 41. R1g6 Rxg7 42. Rxg7 Rh8+ 43. Kg2 Qh4 44.
Qxh4 Rxh4 45. Ra7) 40. Rh5 Qf6 41. c5)) (29... Nf6 30. g5 Nxe4 31. Qxe4 hxg5
32. Qg4 Rb7 (32... f6 33. Rh1 Rb7 (33... Rc7 34. Qh5 g4+ 35. Qxg4 Bf8 (35...
Qd7 36. Rhg1 Bd8 37. h5 Kh8 38. Rg3) 36. h5) 34. Kg3 Qd7 35. hxg5 fxg5 36. Qh5
Bf6 (36... Reb8 37. c5 Qb5 38. Rc4) 37. c5) (32... Qc8 33. Be3 g6 (33... Rb7
34. hxg5 g6 35. f6) 34. Bxg5) 33. hxg5 Qd7 (33... Qc8 34. Rh1) 34. Rh1 g6 35.
f6) 30. c5 Rb5 (30... Rb8 31. cxd6 Bxd6 32. g5 hxg5 33. hxg5 a5 (33... Qd7 34.
Rc6) 34. Qg3) (30... Nf6 31. c6 (31. g5 hxg5 (31... Nxe4 32. Qxe4 hxg5 33. c6
Rb5 34. hxg5 Qc8 35. Rg4) 32. Qxg5 Bf8 33. c6 Nxe4 34. Qxd8 Nxf2+ (34... Rxd8
35. cxb7 Rb8 36. Be1 Rxb7 37. Rg4) 35. Kg2 Rxd8 36. cxb7 Rb8 37. Kxf2 Rxb7 38.
f6)) 31. cxd6 Bxd6 32. g5 hxg5 33. hxg5) 28. Rg1 Qd8 29. f6 Bxf6 (29... Nxf6
30. Bf5 Rdc7 (30... Nh7 31. g5 hxg5 32. hxg5 g6 33. Bh3)) 30. g5 hxg5 (30...
Nxg5 31. hxg5 Bxg5 32. Rxg5 Qxg5 (32... hxg5 33. Bf5 Rdc7 34. Kg2 Qf6 (34...
Rb8 35. Rh1 Rcb7 (35... Qf6 36. Qh3 g6 37. Qh7+ Kf8 38. Qh8+ Qxh8 39. Rxh8+ Ke7
40. Rxb8 gxf5 41. Rxb4) (35... g6 36. Qh3 Qf6 37. Qh7+ Kf8 38. Qh8+ Qxh8 39.
Rxh8+ Ke7 40. Rxb8 gxf5 41. Rxb4) 36. Qh3) 35. Bxc8 Rxc8 36. Qh3) 33. Qxg5 hxg5
34. Bf5) 31. Bxh7+ Kxh7 32. hxg5 Be7 33. Qh3+ Kg8 34. Rcf1 g6 (34... Bf8 35. g6
fxg6 36. Bc5 Qe8 37. Kg2 Rf7 38. Rh1 Rf4 39. Be3) (34... Bxg5 35. Rxg5 Qxg5 36.
Qxd7) 35. Be3 Bf8 36. Kg2 Bg7 37. Rh1 Kf8 38. Qh7) 27... Qc7 {0.52/18 122} 28.
Kg2 {(Ted1) 10} a5 {0.61/17 174} 29. Kh3 {(Th1) 371} Qd8 {0.50/18 195} 30. Qd2
{(Ted1) 11} Rdc7 {0.52/18 125} 31. Rcd1 {(Ted1) 66} Bf6 {0.52/18 136} 32. Re2 {
(Tc1) 134} Rd7 {0.55/17 101} 33. Qd3 {(Tc1) 31} Be7 {0.51/16 27} 34. a3 {
(Dd2) 47} bxa3 {0.45/17 39} 35. Ra1 {43} Qf8 {0.29/18 0} 36. Rxa3 {55} Bd8 {
0.31/18 0 Rxa3 55 Bd8 0.31/18 0} 37. Kg2 {1339} Rb8 {0.30/22 37} 38. Re1 {
(Tea2) 109} Rdb7 {0.23/20 80} 39. c5 {55} Rb4 {0.23/18 8} 40. c6 {(Dd1) 81} Qe7
{0.12/15 41} 41. Bg3 {(Dd2) 179} Nf6 {0.09/16 32} 42. g5 {194} hxg5 {0.17/18 1}
43. hxg5 {25} Ne8 {0.00/18 22} 44. Qd2 {(g6) 14} Rxb3 {-0.01/16 37} 45. Rxb3 {9
} Rxb3 {-0.01/16 0} 46. g6 {284} Bb6 {0.00/18 2} 47. Qa2 {27} Rb4 {0.00/17 9}
48. Rb1 {(Te4) 34} fxg6 {0.00/17 53} 49. fxg6 {10} Qg5 {0.00/18 24} 50. Rxb4 {
11} axb4 {0.00/18 2} 51. Qb1 {(Dc4) 30} Qd2+ {0.00/19 107} 52. Kf1 {411} Qe3 {
0.00/19 49} 53. Qf5 {33} Qg1+ {0.00/22 0} 54. Ke2 {9} Qe3+ {0.00/22 0} 55. Kd1
{(Kf1) 30} Qb3+ {0.00/21 40} 56. Kd2 {(Ke1) 41} Qc3+ {0.00/20 38} 57. Kd1 {8}
Qb3+ {0.00/22 75} 58. Ke1 {11} Qe3+ {0.00/23 37} 59. Kd1 {(Kf1) 10} Qb3+ {
0.00/24 94} 1/2-1/2
[Event "Blitz:10'+10"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.09.27"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Rybka"]
[Black "Zappa Mexico X64 Remote X Rem"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A30"]
[Annotator "George"]
[PlyCount "118"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
[TimeControl "600+10"]
{4MB, ZapM X Black.ctg, ZAPPA} 1. Nf3 {0} Nf6 {B/0 0} 2. c4 {11} e6 {B/0 0} 3.
Nc3 {8} c5 {B/0 0} 4. g3 {8} b6 {B/0 0} 5. Bg2 {10} Bb7 {B/0 0} 6. O-O {8} Be7
{B/0 0} 7. Re1 {8} d6 {B/0 0} 8. e4 {9} a6 {B/0 0} 9. d4 {8} cxd4 {B/0 0} 10.
Nxd4 {8} Qc7 {B/0 0} 11. Be3 {8} Nbd7 {B/0 0} 12. f4 {8} Rc8 {B/0 0} 13. Rc1 {9
} O-O {B/0 0} 14. f5 {10} e5 {0.42/19 289} 15. Nb3 {13} Qb8 {B/0 0} 16. Qe2 {
151} Rc7 {0.39/19 245} 17. Nd2 {554} Rfc8 {0.37/21 0} 18. g4 {(a4) 153} h6 {
0.43/20 233} 19. h4 {12} Nh7 {0.48/19 228} 20. Bf2 {10} Bc6 {0.48/20 498} 21.
Nd5 {131} Bxd5 {0.48/20 1} 22. exd5 {20} b5 {0.49/19 212} 23. b3 {40} b4 {
0.52/19 129} 24. Qe3 {109} Nc5 {0.51/19 43} 25. Ne4 {117} Nxe4 {0.54/19 113}
26. Bxe4 {14} Rd7 {0.58/19 424} 27. Bf3 {(Kh1) 179} (27. Kh2 Qc7 (27... Re8 28.
Rg1 Qd8 29. Kh3 Rb7 (29... Rc7 30. Rg2 Nf6 (30... Rc8 31. Rcg1 Nf6 32. Bb1 e4 (
32... Nh7 33. g5) 33. Qf4) 31. Rcg1 Nxe4 32. Qxe4 Qd7 33. Kh2 f6 (33... Bd8 34.
g5 hxg5 35. Be3 f6 (35... Rb7 36. Bxg5 Bxg5 37. Rxg5 f6 38. Rg6) 36. hxg5 fxg5
(36... g6 37. Rg3 Qxf5 38. Qxf5 gxf5 39. gxf6+ Kh8 40. Rh3+ Rh7 41. Bh6 Bxf6
42. Rg6 Bd8 43. Bg7+ Kg8 44. Bxe5+ Kf7 45. Rxd6) 37. Bxg5 Rf8 38. Bxd8 Qxd8 39.
Rg5 Rcf7 (39... Kf7 40. Rxg7+ Ke8 41. R1g6 Rxg7 42. Rxg7 Rh8+ 43. Kg2 Qh4 44.
Qxh4 Rxh4 45. Ra7) 40. Rh5 Qf6 41. c5)) (29... Nf6 30. g5 Nxe4 31. Qxe4 hxg5
32. Qg4 Rb7 (32... f6 33. Rh1 Rb7 (33... Rc7 34. Qh5 g4+ 35. Qxg4 Bf8 (35...
Qd7 36. Rhg1 Bd8 37. h5 Kh8 38. Rg3) 36. h5) 34. Kg3 Qd7 35. hxg5 fxg5 36. Qh5
Bf6 (36... Reb8 37. c5 Qb5 38. Rc4) 37. c5) (32... Qc8 33. Be3 g6 (33... Rb7
34. hxg5 g6 35. f6) 34. Bxg5) 33. hxg5 Qd7 (33... Qc8 34. Rh1) 34. Rh1 g6 35.
f6) 30. c5 Rb5 (30... Rb8 31. cxd6 Bxd6 32. g5 hxg5 33. hxg5 a5 (33... Qd7 34.
Rc6) 34. Qg3) (30... Nf6 31. c6 (31. g5 hxg5 (31... Nxe4 32. Qxe4 hxg5 33. c6
Rb5 34. hxg5 Qc8 35. Rg4) 32. Qxg5 Bf8 33. c6 Nxe4 34. Qxd8 Nxf2+ (34... Rxd8
35. cxb7 Rb8 36. Be1 Rxb7 37. Rg4) 35. Kg2 Rxd8 36. cxb7 Rb8 37. Kxf2 Rxb7 38.
f6)) 31. cxd6 Bxd6 32. g5 hxg5 33. hxg5) 28. Rg1 Qd8 29. f6 Bxf6 (29... Nxf6
30. Bf5 Rdc7 (30... Nh7 31. g5 hxg5 32. hxg5 g6 33. Bh3)) 30. g5 hxg5 (30...
Nxg5 31. hxg5 Bxg5 32. Rxg5 Qxg5 (32... hxg5 33. Bf5 Rdc7 34. Kg2 Qf6 (34...
Rb8 35. Rh1 Rcb7 (35... Qf6 36. Qh3 g6 37. Qh7+ Kf8 38. Qh8+ Qxh8 39. Rxh8+ Ke7
40. Rxb8 gxf5 41. Rxb4) (35... g6 36. Qh3 Qf6 37. Qh7+ Kf8 38. Qh8+ Qxh8 39.
Rxh8+ Ke7 40. Rxb8 gxf5 41. Rxb4) 36. Qh3) 35. Bxc8 Rxc8 36. Qh3) 33. Qxg5 hxg5
34. Bf5) 31. Bxh7+ Kxh7 32. hxg5 Be7 33. Qh3+ Kg8 34. Rcf1 g6 (34... Bf8 35. g6
fxg6 36. Bc5 Qe8 37. Kg2 Rf7 38. Rh1 Rf4 39. Be3) (34... Bxg5 35. Rxg5 Qxg5 36.
Qxd7) 35. Be3 Bf8 36. Kg2 Bg7 37. Rh1 Kf8 38. Qh7) 27... Qc7 {0.52/18 122} 28.
Kg2 {(Ted1) 10} a5 {0.61/17 174} 29. Kh3 {(Th1) 371} Qd8 {0.50/18 195} 30. Qd2
{(Ted1) 11} Rdc7 {0.52/18 125} 31. Rcd1 {(Ted1) 66} Bf6 {0.52/18 136} 32. Re2 {
(Tc1) 134} Rd7 {0.55/17 101} 33. Qd3 {(Tc1) 31} Be7 {0.51/16 27} 34. a3 {
(Dd2) 47} bxa3 {0.45/17 39} 35. Ra1 {43} Qf8 {0.29/18 0} 36. Rxa3 {55} Bd8 {
0.31/18 0 Rxa3 55 Bd8 0.31/18 0} 37. Kg2 {1339} Rb8 {0.30/22 37} 38. Re1 {
(Tea2) 109} Rdb7 {0.23/20 80} 39. c5 {55} Rb4 {0.23/18 8} 40. c6 {(Dd1) 81} Qe7
{0.12/15 41} 41. Bg3 {(Dd2) 179} Nf6 {0.09/16 32} 42. g5 {194} hxg5 {0.17/18 1}
43. hxg5 {25} Ne8 {0.00/18 22} 44. Qd2 {(g6) 14} Rxb3 {-0.01/16 37} 45. Rxb3 {9
} Rxb3 {-0.01/16 0} 46. g6 {284} Bb6 {0.00/18 2} 47. Qa2 {27} Rb4 {0.00/17 9}
48. Rb1 {(Te4) 34} fxg6 {0.00/17 53} 49. fxg6 {10} Qg5 {0.00/18 24} 50. Rxb4 {
11} axb4 {0.00/18 2} 51. Qb1 {(Dc4) 30} Qd2+ {0.00/19 107} 52. Kf1 {411} Qe3 {
0.00/19 49} 53. Qf5 {33} Qg1+ {0.00/22 0} 54. Ke2 {9} Qe3+ {0.00/22 0} 55. Kd1
{(Kf1) 30} Qb3+ {0.00/21 40} 56. Kd2 {(Ke1) 41} Qc3+ {0.00/20 38} 57. Kd1 {8}
Qb3+ {0.00/22 75} 58. Ke1 {11} Qe3+ {0.00/23 37} 59. Kd1 {(Kf1) 10} Qb3+ {
0.00/24 94} 1/2-1/2
While I was watching the game on Playchess,one could see the idea it's very simple.Move the king out of the way and Bring your rooks over to G1 or H1 and start pushing g pawn,very simple.I even mentioned this in chat.I KNEW one of the rooks HAD to come over.Why didn't Rybka see this?Instead Rybka kept making long moves with her rooks as I remember as if lost.Another missed win and especially after Zappa closed off c file with no counterplay.
Move the king out of the way and Bring your rooks over to G1 or H1 and start pushing g pawn,very simpleIt is certain that it seemed better, but it was not so simple like you believe.
Can you give us the exact line where Rybka miss the win?
I cannot see any 'simple' line to the victory.
Regards,
Gambito.
Can you find a refutation for black in the PGN i give?
Really every good human Chess player would play Kh2 or Kh1 and then Rg1 and would be sure it wins....
You have to expect from Rybka and every other program to do that. It's not a super idea. It's a common and the most logical idea.
[Event "Blitz:10'+10"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.09.27"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Rybka"]
[Black "Zappa Mexico X64 Remote X Rem"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A30"]
[Annotator "George"]
[PlyCount "118"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
[TimeControl "600+10"]
{4MB, ZapM X Black.ctg, ZAPPA} 1. Nf3 {0} Nf6 {B/0 0} 2. c4 {11} e6 {B/0 0} 3.
Nc3 {8} c5 {B/0 0} 4. g3 {8} b6 {B/0 0} 5. Bg2 {10} Bb7 {B/0 0} 6. O-O {8} Be7
{B/0 0} 7. Re1 {8} d6 {B/0 0} 8. e4 {9} a6 {B/0 0} 9. d4 {8} cxd4 {B/0 0} 10.
Nxd4 {8} Qc7 {B/0 0} 11. Be3 {8} Nbd7 {B/0 0} 12. f4 {8} Rc8 {B/0 0} 13. Rc1 {9
} O-O {B/0 0} 14. f5 {10} e5 {0.42/19 289} 15. Nb3 {13} Qb8 {B/0 0} 16. Qe2 {
151} Rc7 {0.39/19 245} 17. Nd2 {554} Rfc8 {0.37/21 0} 18. g4 {(a4) 153} h6 {
0.43/20 233} 19. h4 {12} Nh7 {0.48/19 228} 20. Bf2 {10} Bc6 {0.48/20 498} 21.
Nd5 {131} Bxd5 {0.48/20 1} 22. exd5 {20} b5 {0.49/19 212} 23. b3 {40} b4 {
0.52/19 129} 24. Qe3 {109} Nc5 {0.51/19 43} 25. Ne4 {117} Nxe4 {0.54/19 113}
26. Bxe4 {14} Rd7 {0.58/19 424} 27. Bf3 {(Kh1) 179} (27. Kh2 $1 Qc7 (27... Re8
28. Rg1 Qd8 29. Kh3 Rb7 (29... Rc7 30. Rg2 Nf6 (30... Rc8 31. Rcg1 Nf6 32. Bb1
e4 (32... Nh7 33. g5) 33. Qf4) 31. Rcg1 Nxe4 32. Qxe4 Qd7 33. Kh2 f6 (33... Bd8
34. g5 hxg5 35. Be3 f6 (35... Rb7 36. Bxg5 Bxg5 37. Rxg5 f6 38. Rg6) 36. hxg5
fxg5 (36... g6 37. Rg3 Qxf5 38. Qxf5 gxf5 39. gxf6+ Kh8 40. Rh3+ Rh7 41. Bh6
Bxf6 42. Rg6 Bd8 43. Bg7+ Kg8 44. Bxe5+ Kf7 45. Rxd6) 37. Bxg5 Rf8 38. Bxd8
Qxd8 39. Rg5 Rcf7 (39... Kf7 40. Rxg7+ Ke8 41. R1g6 Rxg7 42. Rxg7 Rh8+ 43. Kg2
Qh4 44. Qxh4 Rxh4 45. Ra7) 40. Rh5 Qf6 41. c5)) (29... Nf6 30. g5 Nxe4 31. Qxe4
hxg5 32. Qg4 Rb7 (32... f6 33. Rh1 Rb7 (33... Rc7 34. Qh5 g4+ 35. Qxg4 Bf8 (
35... Qd7 36. Rhg1 Bd8 37. h5 Kh8 38. Rg3) 36. h5) 34. Kg3 Qd7 35. hxg5 fxg5
36. Qh5 Bf6 (36... Reb8 37. c5 Qb5 38. Rc4) 37. c5) (32... Qc8 33. Be3 g6 (
33... Rb7 34. hxg5 g6 35. f6) 34. Bxg5) 33. hxg5 Qd7 (33... Qc8 34. Rh1) 34.
Rh1 g6 35. f6) 30. c5 Rb5 (30... Rb8 31. cxd6 Bxd6 32. g5 hxg5 33. hxg5 a5 (
33... Qd7 34. Rc6) 34. Qg3) (30... Nf6 31. c6 (31. g5 hxg5 (31... Nxe4 32. Qxe4
hxg5 33. c6 Rb5 34. hxg5 Qc8 35. Rg4) 32. Qxg5 Bf8 33. c6 Nxe4 34. Qxd8 Nxf2+ (
34... Rxd8 35. cxb7 Rb8 36. Be1 Rxb7 37. Rg4) 35. Kg2 Rxd8 36. cxb7 Rb8 37.
Kxf2 Rxb7 38. f6)) 31. cxd6 Bxd6 32. g5 hxg5 33. hxg5) (27... Rb7 28. Rg1 Bd8
29. Qh3 Rcc7 (29... Qa8 30. Be3) (29... a5 30. Be3 f6 31. g5 hxg5 32. hxg5 fxg5
33. f6 gxf6 34. Qe6+ Kg7 35. Rcf1 Re7 36. Qf5 Kh8 37. Kg3) 30. Be3) 28. Rg1 Qd8
29. f6 Bxf6 (29... Nxf6 30. Bf5 Rdc7 (30... Nh7 31. g5 hxg5 32. hxg5 g6 33. Bh3
) 31. Bxc8 Rxc8 32. g5 hxg5 33. hxg5 (33. Qxg5 g6 34. h5 (34. Qg2 Kg7) 34...
Nxd5 35. Qf5 Qf8 36. hxg6 Qh6+ 37. Kg2 Nf4+ 38. Kf3 Qh3+ 39. Qxh3 Nxh3 40.
gxf7+ Kxf7 41. Rg2 Nxf2 42. Rxf2) 33... Nh7 34. Bh4) 30. g5 hxg5 (30... Nxg5
31. hxg5 Bxg5 32. Rxg5 Qxg5 (32... hxg5 33. Bf5 Rdc7 34. Kg2 Qf6 (34... Rb8 35.
Rh1 Rcb7 (35... Qf6 36. Qh3 g6 37. Qh7+ Kf8 38. Qh8+ Qxh8 39. Rxh8+ Ke7 40.
Rxb8 gxf5 41. Rxb4) (35... g6 36. Qh3 Qf6 37. Qh7+ Kf8 38. Qh8+ Qxh8 39. Rxh8+
Ke7 40. Rxb8 gxf5 41. Rxb4) 36. Qh3) 35. Bxc8 Rxc8 36. Qh3) 33. Qxg5 hxg5 34.
Bf5) 31. Bxh7+ Kxh7 32. hxg5 Be7 33. Qh3+ Kg8 34. Rcf1 g6 (34... Bf8 35. g6
fxg6 36. Bc5 Qe8 37. Kg2 Rf7 38. Rh1 Rf4 39. Be3) (34... Bxg5 35. Rxg5 Qxg5 36.
Qxd7) 35. Be3 Bf8 36. Kg2 Bg7 37. Rh1 Kf8 38. Qh7) (27. f6 Nxf6 28. Bf5 Rdc7
29. g5 hxg5 30. hxg5 Nh5 31. Qh3 g6 32. Bxc8 Nf4 $11) 27... Qc7 {0.52/18 122}
28. Kg2 {(Ted1) 10} a5 {0.61/17 174} 29. Kh3 {(Th1) 371} Qd8 {0.50/18 195} 30.
Qd2 {(Ted1) 11} Rdc7 {0.52/18 125} 31. Rcd1 {(Ted1) 66} Bf6 {0.52/18 136} 32.
Re2 {(Tc1) 134} Rd7 {0.55/17 101} 33. Qd3 {(Tc1) 31} Be7 {0.51/16 27} 34. a3 {
(Dd2) 47} bxa3 {0.45/17 39} 35. Ra1 {43} Qf8 {0.29/18 0} 36. Rxa3 {55} Bd8 {
0.31/18 0 Rxa3 55 Bd8 0.31/18 0} 37. Kg2 {1339} Rb8 {0.30/22 37} 38. Re1 {
(Tea2) 109} Rdb7 {0.23/20 80} 39. c5 {55} Rb4 {0.23/18 8} 40. c6 {(Dd1) 81} Qe7
{0.12/15 41} 41. Bg3 {(Dd2) 179} Nf6 {0.09/16 32} 42. g5 {194} hxg5 {0.17/18 1}
43. hxg5 {25} Ne8 {0.00/18 22} 44. Qd2 {(g6) 14} Rxb3 {-0.01/16 37} 45. Rxb3 {9
} Rxb3 {-0.01/16 0} 46. g6 {284} Bb6 {0.00/18 2} 47. Qa2 {27} Rb4 {0.00/17 9}
48. Rb1 {(Te4) 34} fxg6 {0.00/17 53} 49. fxg6 {10} Qg5 {0.00/18 24} 50. Rxb4 {
11} axb4 {0.00/18 2} 51. Qb1 {(Dc4) 30} Qd2+ {0.00/19 107} 52. Kf1 {411} Qe3 {
0.00/19 49} 53. Qf5 {33} Qg1+ {0.00/22 0} 54. Ke2 {9} Qe3+ {0.00/22 0} 55. Kd1
{(Kf1) 30} Qb3+ {0.00/21 40} 56. Kd2 {(Ke1) 41} Qc3+ {0.00/20 38} 57. Kd1 {8}
Qb3+ {0.00/22 75} 58. Ke1 {11} Qe3+ {0.00/23 37} 59. Kd1 {(Kf1) 10} Qb3+ {
0.00/24 94} 1/2-1/2
Really every good human Chess player would play Kh2 or Kh1 and then Rg1 and would be sure it wins....
You have to expect from Rybka and every other program to do that. It's not a super idea. It's a common and the most logical idea.
[Event "Blitz:10'+10"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.09.27"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Rybka"]
[Black "Zappa Mexico X64 Remote X Rem"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A30"]
[Annotator "George"]
[PlyCount "118"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
[TimeControl "600+10"]
{4MB, ZapM X Black.ctg, ZAPPA} 1. Nf3 {0} Nf6 {B/0 0} 2. c4 {11} e6 {B/0 0} 3.
Nc3 {8} c5 {B/0 0} 4. g3 {8} b6 {B/0 0} 5. Bg2 {10} Bb7 {B/0 0} 6. O-O {8} Be7
{B/0 0} 7. Re1 {8} d6 {B/0 0} 8. e4 {9} a6 {B/0 0} 9. d4 {8} cxd4 {B/0 0} 10.
Nxd4 {8} Qc7 {B/0 0} 11. Be3 {8} Nbd7 {B/0 0} 12. f4 {8} Rc8 {B/0 0} 13. Rc1 {9
} O-O {B/0 0} 14. f5 {10} e5 {0.42/19 289} 15. Nb3 {13} Qb8 {B/0 0} 16. Qe2 {
151} Rc7 {0.39/19 245} 17. Nd2 {554} Rfc8 {0.37/21 0} 18. g4 {(a4) 153} h6 {
0.43/20 233} 19. h4 {12} Nh7 {0.48/19 228} 20. Bf2 {10} Bc6 {0.48/20 498} 21.
Nd5 {131} Bxd5 {0.48/20 1} 22. exd5 {20} b5 {0.49/19 212} 23. b3 {40} b4 {
0.52/19 129} 24. Qe3 {109} Nc5 {0.51/19 43} 25. Ne4 {117} Nxe4 {0.54/19 113}
26. Bxe4 {14} Rd7 {0.58/19 424} 27. Bf3 {(Kh1) 179} (27. Kh2 $1 Qc7 (27... Re8
28. Rg1 Qd8 29. Kh3 Rb7 (29... Rc7 30. Rg2 Nf6 (30... Rc8 31. Rcg1 Nf6 32. Bb1
e4 (32... Nh7 33. g5) 33. Qf4) 31. Rcg1 Nxe4 32. Qxe4 Qd7 33. Kh2 f6 (33... Bd8
34. g5 hxg5 35. Be3 f6 (35... Rb7 36. Bxg5 Bxg5 37. Rxg5 f6 38. Rg6) 36. hxg5
fxg5 (36... g6 37. Rg3 Qxf5 38. Qxf5 gxf5 39. gxf6+ Kh8 40. Rh3+ Rh7 41. Bh6
Bxf6 42. Rg6 Bd8 43. Bg7+ Kg8 44. Bxe5+ Kf7 45. Rxd6) 37. Bxg5 Rf8 38. Bxd8
Qxd8 39. Rg5 Rcf7 (39... Kf7 40. Rxg7+ Ke8 41. R1g6 Rxg7 42. Rxg7 Rh8+ 43. Kg2
Qh4 44. Qxh4 Rxh4 45. Ra7) 40. Rh5 Qf6 41. c5)) (29... Nf6 30. g5 Nxe4 31. Qxe4
hxg5 32. Qg4 Rb7 (32... f6 33. Rh1 Rb7 (33... Rc7 34. Qh5 g4+ 35. Qxg4 Bf8 (
35... Qd7 36. Rhg1 Bd8 37. h5 Kh8 38. Rg3) 36. h5) 34. Kg3 Qd7 35. hxg5 fxg5
36. Qh5 Bf6 (36... Reb8 37. c5 Qb5 38. Rc4) 37. c5) (32... Qc8 33. Be3 g6 (
33... Rb7 34. hxg5 g6 35. f6) 34. Bxg5) 33. hxg5 Qd7 (33... Qc8 34. Rh1) 34.
Rh1 g6 35. f6) 30. c5 Rb5 (30... Rb8 31. cxd6 Bxd6 32. g5 hxg5 33. hxg5 a5 (
33... Qd7 34. Rc6) 34. Qg3) (30... Nf6 31. c6 (31. g5 hxg5 (31... Nxe4 32. Qxe4
hxg5 33. c6 Rb5 34. hxg5 Qc8 35. Rg4) 32. Qxg5 Bf8 33. c6 Nxe4 34. Qxd8 Nxf2+ (
34... Rxd8 35. cxb7 Rb8 36. Be1 Rxb7 37. Rg4) 35. Kg2 Rxd8 36. cxb7 Rb8 37.
Kxf2 Rxb7 38. f6)) 31. cxd6 Bxd6 32. g5 hxg5 33. hxg5) (27... Rb7 28. Rg1 Bd8
29. Qh3 Rcc7 (29... Qa8 30. Be3) (29... a5 30. Be3 f6 31. g5 hxg5 32. hxg5 fxg5
33. f6 gxf6 34. Qe6+ Kg7 35. Rcf1 Re7 36. Qf5 Kh8 37. Kg3) 30. Be3) 28. Rg1 Qd8
29. f6 Bxf6 (29... Nxf6 30. Bf5 Rdc7 (30... Nh7 31. g5 hxg5 32. hxg5 g6 33. Bh3
) 31. Bxc8 Rxc8 32. g5 hxg5 33. hxg5 (33. Qxg5 g6 34. h5 (34. Qg2 Kg7) 34...
Nxd5 35. Qf5 Qf8 36. hxg6 Qh6+ 37. Kg2 Nf4+ 38. Kf3 Qh3+ 39. Qxh3 Nxh3 40.
gxf7+ Kxf7 41. Rg2 Nxf2 42. Rxf2) 33... Nh7 34. Bh4) 30. g5 hxg5 (30... Nxg5
31. hxg5 Bxg5 32. Rxg5 Qxg5 (32... hxg5 33. Bf5 Rdc7 34. Kg2 Qf6 (34... Rb8 35.
Rh1 Rcb7 (35... Qf6 36. Qh3 g6 37. Qh7+ Kf8 38. Qh8+ Qxh8 39. Rxh8+ Ke7 40.
Rxb8 gxf5 41. Rxb4) (35... g6 36. Qh3 Qf6 37. Qh7+ Kf8 38. Qh8+ Qxh8 39. Rxh8+
Ke7 40. Rxb8 gxf5 41. Rxb4) 36. Qh3) 35. Bxc8 Rxc8 36. Qh3) 33. Qxg5 hxg5 34.
Bf5) 31. Bxh7+ Kxh7 32. hxg5 Be7 33. Qh3+ Kg8 34. Rcf1 g6 (34... Bf8 35. g6
fxg6 36. Bc5 Qe8 37. Kg2 Rf7 38. Rh1 Rf4 39. Be3) (34... Bxg5 35. Rxg5 Qxg5 36.
Qxd7) 35. Be3 Bf8 36. Kg2 Bg7 37. Rh1 Kf8 38. Qh7) (27. f6 Nxf6 28. Bf5 Rdc7
29. g5 hxg5 30. hxg5 Nh5 31. Qh3 g6 32. Bxc8 Nf4 $11) 27... Qc7 {0.52/18 122}
28. Kg2 {(Ted1) 10} a5 {0.61/17 174} 29. Kh3 {(Th1) 371} Qd8 {0.50/18 195} 30.
Qd2 {(Ted1) 11} Rdc7 {0.52/18 125} 31. Rcd1 {(Ted1) 66} Bf6 {0.52/18 136} 32.
Re2 {(Tc1) 134} Rd7 {0.55/17 101} 33. Qd3 {(Tc1) 31} Be7 {0.51/16 27} 34. a3 {
(Dd2) 47} bxa3 {0.45/17 39} 35. Ra1 {43} Qf8 {0.29/18 0} 36. Rxa3 {55} Bd8 {
0.31/18 0 Rxa3 55 Bd8 0.31/18 0} 37. Kg2 {1339} Rb8 {0.30/22 37} 38. Re1 {
(Tea2) 109} Rdb7 {0.23/20 80} 39. c5 {55} Rb4 {0.23/18 8} 40. c6 {(Dd1) 81} Qe7
{0.12/15 41} 41. Bg3 {(Dd2) 179} Nf6 {0.09/16 32} 42. g5 {194} hxg5 {0.17/18 1}
43. hxg5 {25} Ne8 {0.00/18 22} 44. Qd2 {(g6) 14} Rxb3 {-0.01/16 37} 45. Rxb3 {9
} Rxb3 {-0.01/16 0} 46. g6 {284} Bb6 {0.00/18 2} 47. Qa2 {27} Rb4 {0.00/17 9}
48. Rb1 {(Te4) 34} fxg6 {0.00/17 53} 49. fxg6 {10} Qg5 {0.00/18 24} 50. Rxb4 {
11} axb4 {0.00/18 2} 51. Qb1 {(Dc4) 30} Qd2+ {0.00/19 107} 52. Kf1 {411} Qe3 {
0.00/19 49} 53. Qf5 {33} Qg1+ {0.00/22 0} 54. Ke2 {9} Qe3+ {0.00/22 0} 55. Kd1
{(Kf1) 30} Qb3+ {0.00/21 40} 56. Kd2 {(Ke1) 41} Qc3+ {0.00/20 38} 57. Kd1 {8}
Qb3+ {0.00/22 75} 58. Ke1 {11} Qe3+ {0.00/23 37} 59. Kd1 {(Kf1) 10} Qb3+ {
0.00/24 94} 1/2-1/2
![[ph]](/mwf/v12/flags/ph.png "Philippines")
27.Kh2->Rg1 is the key....."I was amazingly happy to draw the 10th game. Rybka had a very good position very quickly and Zappa then proceeded to kill whatever counterplay it had on the queenside with b4?. At that point its score slowly started rising, but Rybka played very poorly. At one point in particular Zappa was expecting Kh1 + Rg1 with a very nasty attack. Black cannot do anything at all. Fortunately Rybka played a3, giving Zappa its counterplay on the queenside again, and Zappa managed to draw.
I would hardly say Zappa crushed Rybka in the match, but at least it was close enough that with a bit of luck it was able to win.
anthony"
from http://www.hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=254&start=120&sid=dd34667766881efe080d283c3aaada8f
"I actually think this match showcases the differences between Rybka and Zappa quite well. Zappa's knowledge is in its evaluation and its relatively accurate guesses about positions. Rybka's knowledge is in its intelligent search which lets it see very deeply very quickly. Interestingly most people associate a gradual score rise with a superiority in evaluation, when in fact it usually indicates a superiority in search, as the opponent is making many little blunders. In contrast when one engine has a superiority in evaluation the score will usually rise sharply after a move because suddenly the engine can secure a positional advantage (whatever the term is that the other engine is unaware of).
Two years ago I would have told you that a good evaluation is more important than a good search, but now I am not so sure. At the very least Rybka has proven that even today's engines on big hardware (Zappa) still make many search errors, especially at such quick timecontrols as 60+20.
cheers,
anthony"
Even because 5,5 x 4,5 in 10 games doesn't crown any as champion.
Uri right here in the forum he made a statistical esplanação that can prove that. It is a margin very it narrows. They are few games.
The data are inconsistent to determine with 95% of certainty that Zappa is better than Rybka.
What do the statistics say?
Uri right here in the forum he made a statistical esplanação that can prove that. It is a margin very it narrows. They are few games.
The data are inconsistent to determine with 95% of certainty that Zappa is better than Rybka.
What do the statistics say?
Assuming half the games are drawn, as they were, the margin needed for 95% confidence of superiority would be more than 7-3, assuming that there were no other factors influencing the results (like opening choices and books for example). A score of 5.5-4.5 has very little meaning statistically. If two programs were exactly equal, one of them must win by at least this margin unless the score is tied, which is pretty unlikely.
![[gr]](/mwf/v12/flags/gr.png "Greece")
I think Rybka 2.3.2h3 changes made it actually make those big mistakes.
In this last game it played the awful move a3?. In a closed position, with black having absolutely NO targets and counterplay, a3 opens the b file, creates a weak b3 pawn, creates conterplay for black and
the worst part is that the logical plan (Kh2 Rg1...g5 and so on OR organise c5) is now very dangerous as black can always sac the a pawn (a5-a4) to open the b file and go into white territory.
The version of Rybka i own does not consider a3 and it should not consider it.
From what i saw from Zappas pondering , the variations it produces are BAD, very BAD.
Rybka is VERY VERY VERY BAD at the ending. It lacks super basic endgame knowledge.
For example the game from mexico (aronian grichuk i think) an rook endgame with white having 2 pawns more (an A pawn f2-g3-h4 pawn and black g6 h5 pawns). this is an easy draw. Can a computer see it. No.
Why? Using Search it will never find a draw. But with knowledge it can.
The Rybka mistake (f4???? , actually not f4 but Rxe5 because Rd4+ still wins) is INEXUSABLE. You dont have to search to find its a draw. You cant find it by searching. ONLY with knowledge.
Opposite collor bishops + Pawns connected + pawns on the same color of bishop+ No progress (using search it can see no pawn moves in ply 25 so this means danger!!) .
ALL those are a signal for a draw. So a score of -0.5 could be easily reached using knowledge and ofcourse AVOID playing f4.
Rybka has so much ground for endgame improvement. Having analysed many games using ChessAssistant and Rybka, i can say MOST rybkas endame analysis is useless.
In this last game it played the awful move a3?. In a closed position, with black having absolutely NO targets and counterplay, a3 opens the b file, creates a weak b3 pawn, creates conterplay for black and
the worst part is that the logical plan (Kh2 Rg1...g5 and so on OR organise c5) is now very dangerous as black can always sac the a pawn (a5-a4) to open the b file and go into white territory.
The version of Rybka i own does not consider a3 and it should not consider it.
From what i saw from Zappas pondering , the variations it produces are BAD, very BAD.
Rybka is VERY VERY VERY BAD at the ending. It lacks super basic endgame knowledge.
For example the game from mexico (aronian grichuk i think) an rook endgame with white having 2 pawns more (an A pawn f2-g3-h4 pawn and black g6 h5 pawns). this is an easy draw. Can a computer see it. No.
Why? Using Search it will never find a draw. But with knowledge it can.
The Rybka mistake (f4???? , actually not f4 but Rxe5 because Rd4+ still wins) is INEXUSABLE. You dont have to search to find its a draw. You cant find it by searching. ONLY with knowledge.
Opposite collor bishops + Pawns connected + pawns on the same color of bishop+ No progress (using search it can see no pawn moves in ply 25 so this means danger!!) .
ALL those are a signal for a draw. So a score of -0.5 could be easily reached using knowledge and ofcourse AVOID playing f4.
Rybka has so much ground for endgame improvement. Having analysed many games using ChessAssistant and Rybka, i can say MOST rybkas endame analysis is useless.
To be fair, if you ignore the worst blunders, Zappa's end game evaluation did not generally seem to be very much better. Endgames are just very hard for current computers.
/* Steinar */
/* Steinar */
![[kw]](/mwf/v12/flags/kw.png "Kuwait")
Yes I think Rybka missed a forced win ... black's only counterplay was pushing the a pawn and that was simply way too slow. moving King of the g file and putting one or two rooks there with bishops and queen ready to pounce really looked like a smothermate situation since black's pieces cannot do anything. Unfortunately that did not materialize and I think the same factor that sometimes makes Rybka vulnerable to kingside attacks did not allow Rybka to see this. As soon as I saw that Rybka analyzing the c pawn push I knew this game was not going to be won. But I wouldn't worry about that ... it is very hard to program an engine to "feel" when an attack is ripe without totally screwing up it's evaluation in other sectors of the game which would make it play weaker. Deep Junior might have played this position well ... but Deep Junior fails miserably in most other static situations. Personally I think it is ok to accept such draws for Rybka for now ... much more important issues need to be addressed such as endgame knowledge and efficient MP implementation.
>The Rybka mistake (f4???? , actually not f4 but Rxe5 because Rd4+ still wins) is INEXUSABLE.
71...f4? is the mistake.
72...Rd4+ does not win but only draws.
Here is the analysis(you have to copy it to Chessbase GUI or any other GUI that accepts variations to see it):
[Event "Blitz:10'+15"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.09.26"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Zappa Mexico X64"]
[Black "Rybka"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B17"]
[PlyCount "180"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
[TimeControl "600+15"]
{4MB, ZapM X Wihte.ctg, ZAPPA} 1. e4 {B/0 0} c6 {8} 2. d4 {B/0 0} d5 {6} 3. Nc3
{B/0 0} dxe4 {11} 4. Nxe4 {B/0 0} Nd7 {7} 5. Bc4 {B/0 0} Ngf6 {10} 6. Ng5 {
B/0 0} e6 {9} 7. Qe2 {B/0 0} Nb6 {9} 8. Bd3 {B/0 0} h6 {9} 9. N5f3 {B/0 0} c5 {
10} 10. dxc5 {B/0 0} Bxc5 {8} 11. Ne5 {B/0 0} Nbd7 {9} 12. Ngf3 {B/0 0} Nxe5 {
13} 13. Nxe5 {B/0 0} O-O {7} 14. O-O {B/0 0} b6 {8} 15. Bf4 {B/0 0} Qd4 {707}
16. Bg3 {0.38/18 160} Bb7 {190} 17. c4 {0.39/19 0} Qd8 {74} 18. Rad1 {
0.41/19 50} Qe7 {104} 19. Kh1 {0.38/19 58} Rfd8 {136} 20. a3 {0.27/18 130} Bd4
{(Sd7) 127} 21. Bh4 {0.24/18 278} Rd6 {(Lxe5) 73} 22. f4 {0.30/18 169} Rad8 {
(a5) 10} 23. Bb1 {0.28/17 186} Kf8 {35} 24. Rd3 {0.28/17 103} Qc7 {12} 25. b4 {
0.26/17 118} a5 {(La6) 72} 26. Re1 {0.12/17 165} Ba1 {99} 27. Rc1 {0.19/18 314}
Rd4 {(axb4) 72} 28. Rcd1 {0.16/17 134} Rxd3 {18} 29. Bxd3 {0.00/18 187} Bc3 {9}
30. bxa5 {-0.09/18 144} Bxa5 {64} 31. Bg3 {-0.06/18 33} Kg8 {61} 32. Bf2 {
-0.20/18 72} Bc3 {(Se4) 59} 33. Bg1 {-0.23/18 132} Ne4 {196} 34. Qc2 {
-0.19/20 0} Bxe5 {321} 35. fxe5 {-0.16/21 0} Qxe5 {(Sc5) 45} 36. Bxb6 {
-0.24/18 159} Rd6 {(Td7) 9} 37. Bg1 {-0.14/18 104} Qh5 {(Td7) 23} 38. Be3 {
-0.21/17 108} Ng3+ {(Lc6) 10} 39. Kg1 {0.28/7 1} Nf5 {(De5) 22} 40. Bf4 {
-0.80/17 131} Rd4 {458} 41. Be2 {-0.96/19 26} Qh4 {13} 42. Bc1 {-0.95/18 102}
Qd8 {10} 43. Rf1 {-0.95/18 114} Qc7 {11} 44. Rf2 {-0.96/18 118} Rh4 {18} 45. h3
{-0.95/19 105} Nd4 {32} 46. Qb2 {-0.96/19 107} Nxe2+ {8} 47. Qxe2 {-0.96/19 30}
Re4 {25} 48. Qf1 {-0.96/18 4} Rxc4 {(La6) 33} 49. Bf4 {-0.91/17 34} Qc6 {11}
50. Rb2 {-0.89/17 27} Rc3 {44} 51. Qb5 {-0.99/18 0} Qxb5 {14} 52. Rxb5 {
-1.04/18 0} Bd5 {21} 53. Bd6 {-1.03/18 19} Rc1+ {30} 54. Kf2 {-1.11/18 6} Rc2+
{13} 55. Ke1 {-1.10/19 72} Rxg2 {(Lxg2) 14} 56. Rc5 {-1.25/18 34} g5 {11} 57.
Rc3 {-1.32/18 18} Ra2 {16} 58. h4 {-1.36/18 29} f5 {(gxh4) 12} 59. hxg5 {
-1.24/17 31} hxg5 {7} 60. Rg3 {-1.25/18 22} g4 {26} 61. Rc3 {-1.43/18 3} Kf7 {
30} 62. Be5 {-1.74/18 24} Kg6 {(Lf3) 37} 63. Rc8 {-1.95/18 47} Rxa3 {(Lf3) 29}
64. Rg8+ {-1.61/17 29} Kf7 {15} 65. Rg7+ {-1.61/18 0} Kf8 {13} 66. Kd2 {
-1.93/18 38} Ra4 {(Ta5) 9} 67. Kc3 {-1.93/17 59} Re4 {(Ta1) 11} 68. Bf6 {
-1.92/16 1} Bc4 {(Tc4+) 18} 69. Kd2 {-2.14/18 48} Be2 {14} 70. Rg5 {-2.34/18 35
} Kf7 {(Lf3) 10} 71. Bh8 {-2.49/18 42} f4 {(Lf3) 35} 72. Re5 {-1.98/19 35} Rxe5
{(Lf3) 29} (72... Rd4+ 73. Kxe2 f3+ (73... Rd8 74. Re4 f3+ 75. Kf2 Rxh8 (75...
Rd2+ 76. Kg1 Rg2+ 77. Kf1 Ke7 78. Be5 $11) 76. Rxg4 $11) 74. Kf1 g3 (74... Rd1+
75. Re1 Rxe1+ 76. Kxe1 $11) (74... Rd8 75. Re4 Rxh8 76. Rxg4 $11) 75. Rf5+ exf5
76. Bxd4 $11) 73. Bxe5 {-1.98/12 1} f3 {10} 74. Ke3 {-2.15/26 26} Kg6 {10} 75.
Bd6 {-2.15/26 30} Kf6 {(Kf5) 56} 76. Bg3 {-2.15/26 24} Kf5 {(Kg5) 136} 77. Bh2
{-2.15/28 42} e5 {12} 78. Bg3 {-2.15/28 0} Bc4 {(Ld1) 64} 79. Bh4 {-2.15/30 60}
Ba6 {(Lb3) 56} 80. Bg3 {-2.15/28 35} Ke6 {(Kf6) 49} 81. Be1 {-2.15/27 23} Kd5 {
(Kf6) 47} 82. Bh4 {-2.15/29 40} Bb5 {(Ke6) 11} 83. Be1 {-2.15/27 30} Be2 {
(Lc6) 95} 84. Bf2 {-2.15/28 27} Bc4 {94} 85. Be1 {-2.15/28 0} Bb3 {(Ke6) 83}
86. Kd3 {-2.15/26 22} Kc6 {(Lc4+) 41} 87. Ke4 {-2.15/23 22} Kd6 {13} 88. Bb4+ {
-2.15/24 9} Kd7 {(Ke6) 24} 89. Be1 {-2.15/25 24} Ke6 {13} 90. Ke3 {-2.15/27 8}
Bc2 {(Ld5) 44} 1/2-1/2
1)From my perspective Rybka gave the match win to Zappa.
It really played terrible in many situations, something that the normal Rybka we knew from before wouldn't do.
2)This match was strange. The wins did not come from the winner's good play, but from the loser's really stupid mistakes....
Game 1: Zappa tried to attack, Rybka equalized, it even tried to find a win, Zappa defended well and a logical draw. Nothing bad so far.
Game 2: Rybka managed to achieve a Pawn more, but followed IMO a wrong plan giving her Pawns on the Queenside. Perhaps there was not a better plan but i doubt. Anyway after Zappa made the 57...Be1? error (57...Bxe5 would probably draw) Rybka was able to take the win. This error is not easy to find for the computers(although it should be) so it was not a super mistake.
Game 3: Rybka played 15...Nc6?! after thinking for 86 seconds only and put the Knight on a5 in the next move. From then it was forced to follow Zappa's good play until it lost.
Game4: Rybka after a rather slightly good position after the opening, managed to make it better and it had to find 52.Qe1! winning. It failed to do that but Qe1 is not an easy move so i can't say Rybka could win easily. But then Rybka gave half a point to Zappa with her bad decision to try for a win and give her Pawns.
Game 5: In a normal game which was equal and drawish, Rybka decided to play 61...f4?! and avoid draw.... Then it played 66...Qxe5 and went to lose. In my opinion 66...b5 which after the forced 67.Rxf5 exf5 68.Qg8 Rf7 black has better chances to survive but i understand that after 66...Qxe5 the win is very deep for programs to see....
Yet, 61...f4 was a stupid move again by Rybka.
Game 6: A book draw so nothing to say....
Game 7: A rather complicated position where Zappa outplayed Rybka and reached a win position but missed the win playing 51.Ra3? missing 51.hxg7.
So Zappa returned the favor to Rybka for giving it half points in game 4, and gave Rybka half point.....
Game 8: Complicated game again, Zappa found a way to equalize and even be better but Rybka's 56.b5 was good, Zappa fall into the trap playing Qxb5 instead of e4 and we reached a drawn game. Zappa due to time trouble played the endgame badly and lost....
Game 9: Rybka clearly outplayed Zappa, reached an easily won endgame and gave it with the very bad 71...f4??
Game 10: Rybka was better out of the opening and played better than Zappa and reached a won position, by having only to attack to the King. It played bad moves, really bad moves, and gave the chance to Zappa to draw....
It really played terrible in many situations, something that the normal Rybka we knew from before wouldn't do.
2)This match was strange. The wins did not come from the winner's good play, but from the loser's really stupid mistakes....
Game 1: Zappa tried to attack, Rybka equalized, it even tried to find a win, Zappa defended well and a logical draw. Nothing bad so far.
Game 2: Rybka managed to achieve a Pawn more, but followed IMO a wrong plan giving her Pawns on the Queenside. Perhaps there was not a better plan but i doubt. Anyway after Zappa made the 57...Be1? error (57...Bxe5 would probably draw) Rybka was able to take the win. This error is not easy to find for the computers(although it should be) so it was not a super mistake.
Game 3: Rybka played 15...Nc6?! after thinking for 86 seconds only and put the Knight on a5 in the next move. From then it was forced to follow Zappa's good play until it lost.
Game4: Rybka after a rather slightly good position after the opening, managed to make it better and it had to find 52.Qe1! winning. It failed to do that but Qe1 is not an easy move so i can't say Rybka could win easily. But then Rybka gave half a point to Zappa with her bad decision to try for a win and give her Pawns.
Game 5: In a normal game which was equal and drawish, Rybka decided to play 61...f4?! and avoid draw.... Then it played 66...Qxe5 and went to lose. In my opinion 66...b5 which after the forced 67.Rxf5 exf5 68.Qg8 Rf7 black has better chances to survive but i understand that after 66...Qxe5 the win is very deep for programs to see....
Yet, 61...f4 was a stupid move again by Rybka.
Game 6: A book draw so nothing to say....
Game 7: A rather complicated position where Zappa outplayed Rybka and reached a win position but missed the win playing 51.Ra3? missing 51.hxg7.
So Zappa returned the favor to Rybka for giving it half points in game 4, and gave Rybka half point.....
Game 8: Complicated game again, Zappa found a way to equalize and even be better but Rybka's 56.b5 was good, Zappa fall into the trap playing Qxb5 instead of e4 and we reached a drawn game. Zappa due to time trouble played the endgame badly and lost....
Game 9: Rybka clearly outplayed Zappa, reached an easily won endgame and gave it with the very bad 71...f4??
Game 10: Rybka was better out of the opening and played better than Zappa and reached a won position, by having only to attack to the King. It played bad moves, really bad moves, and gave the chance to Zappa to draw....
Game 8: Zappa missed 58.... c3! because he only goes to depth 16. Ten seconds later in depth 17 he finds c3, which is clearly drawing.
![[fr]](/mwf/v12/flags/fr.png "France")
> Game 8: Zappa missed 58.... c3! because he only goes to depth 16. Ten seconds later in depth 17 he finds c3, which is clearly drawing.
How do you know?
With multiprocessor, maybe Zappa finds it at depth 17, but perhaps only at depth 18 or 19... or 20...
Maybe in one of the tries, it even finds it at depth 16!
Only way to know is by doing 20, 30 tries and looking at the results...
Erdo tested it in Mexico.
> Erdo tested it in Mexico.
I suppose God/Erdo knows perfectly how to test multiprocessors...
Regarding game 5, 61...f4 was not played to avoid a draw, but rather because Rybka felt she was in trouble if she just waited. This may have been a wrong decision, but it is very hard for a program to judge that passive defense in a poor position is enough for a draw.
sorry but its extremely easy to embed such endgame knowledge to a computer program.
Opposite Bishops + NoOther pieces + Panws at Own Color + Next 20-30 plies are only King or Bishop Moves (an indication of a horizon effect)
All that can easily make a +4 score to +1 or less to indicate that f4 is a BLUNDER (f4 is a blunder because f3 then is forced)
Opposite Bishops + NoOther pieces + Panws at Own Color + Next 20-30 plies are only King or Bishop Moves (an indication of a horizon effect)
All that can easily make a +4 score to +1 or less to indicate that f4 is a BLUNDER (f4 is a blunder because f3 then is forced)
![[fi]](/mwf/v12/flags/fi.png "Finland")
> Opposite Bishops + NoOther pieces + Panws at Own Color + Next 20-30 plies are only King or Bishop Moves (an indication of a horizon effect)
No. You'd still have to search _every_ line to the next 20-30 plies (resulting in a tree explosion) when the main lines finally start failing low by several pawns. The search would just favour variations with fewer extensions.
And you'd have to modify the hashing method to account for path-dependent scores.
No you are simply wrong.
If all your variations are simply King or Bishop Moves (in this positions for as many moves as you want only King and Bishop moves) this is an indication of a possible draw
There is not such thing as EveryLine..
For example you may have a function to count Non King-Bishop Moves (only in opposite color bishop endings). If you get 0,0,0,0 then you have an INDICATION.
You dont want a proof to avoid playing f4. From simply 10-15 plies you may suspect something is wrong. I said 20-30 plies because rubka in the final position hit 40plies.
Numbers are just a hint.
It really very easy to put such rules.
Also such easy rules exist for rook endings to avoid horizon effect
If all your variations are simply King or Bishop Moves (in this positions for as many moves as you want only King and Bishop moves) this is an indication of a possible draw
There is not such thing as EveryLine..
For example you may have a function to count Non King-Bishop Moves (only in opposite color bishop endings). If you get 0,0,0,0 then you have an INDICATION.
You dont want a proof to avoid playing f4. From simply 10-15 plies you may suspect something is wrong. I said 20-30 plies because rubka in the final position hit 40plies.
Numbers are just a hint.
It really very easy to put such rules.
Also such easy rules exist for rook endings to avoid horizon effect
>There is not such thing as EveryLine..
Approximately 2x sqrt(perft(depth)) nodes.
>For example you may have a function to count Non King-Bishop Moves (only in opposite color bishop endings). If you get 0,0,0,0 then you have an INDICATION.
Problem is, it's hard to count that many moves for every position (how else would you know? Those endings are often won if you're several pawns up even if they're blocked - king marchs are a common motif) for 30 plies. It'd wreck Rybka's pruning.
>Also such easy rules exist for rook endings to avoid horizon effect
Implemented in which engine? How strong? A link to a paper, please?
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill