![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
> I too would pay to see any of the top ten GMs play Rybka on even terms.
But you'd need to pay a huge amount of money.
never mind we all know what the result would be: a serious thrashing.
why anyone would pay to see an event which u already know what the outcome will be is beyond me.
why anyone would pay to see an event which u already know what the outcome will be is beyond me.
Because people have hope, and they think that the top 1 Grandmaster could actually beat Rybka in a normal match.
Also, you can't prove otherwise until a match like this happens.
Also, you can't prove otherwise until a match like this happens.
"Also, you can't prove otherwise until a match like this happens."
there's simply no evidence anand/kramnik could win a match of any reasonable length, even playing all-white against rybka on strong HW and strong opening book. so proof or not is kinda beside the point.
there's simply no evidence anand/kramnik could win a match of any reasonable length, even playing all-white against rybka on strong HW and strong opening book. so proof or not is kinda beside the point.
There's simply no evidence anand/kramnik could NOT win a match of any reasonable length.
There's just no evidence either way, just speculation. That's why people want to see this match.
There's just no evidence either way, just speculation. That's why people want to see this match.
kasparov vs junior? kramnik vs. fritz (twice)? adams vs. hydra? rybka vs. benjamin & ehlvest (w/ handicaps)?
sure u're not gonna dismiss the data gathered above has no value in predicting anand/kramnik vs. rybka, in a straight up match?
sure u're not gonna dismiss the data gathered above has no value in predicting anand/kramnik vs. rybka, in a straight up match?
This is probability versus prophecy :-D
> This is probability versus prophecy
Probability... What's the probability that Rybka wins such a match? 95%? 99%? 99.9%?
But it's not 100%, and this small percentage is what keeps people wanting to see such a match (Even if the GM is only able to draw, it would be a great achievement.)
I think that if the GM spends months studying the version of Rybka that he's going to play, he could develop an approach that works, and increase his winning chances considerably (to, say 20%.)
"What's the probability that Rybka wins such a match? 95%? 99%? 99.9%?"
win probability is dependent upon match length.
"...he could develop an approach that works, and increase his winning chances considerably (to, say 20%.)"
not for a sufficiently long enough match. plus u forgot about the fact that team rybka will in all likelihood bring a private opening book to the table. u cant study for that. finally, seeing how rybka is improving month by month, that would imply the megagrandmaster is always trying to hit a moving target. nevermind the fact few people want to give the mega-GM a bunch of advantages a la Kramnik/Fritz 2 (if we assume the goal is for rybka to thrash the mega-GM).
win probability is dependent upon match length.
"...he could develop an approach that works, and increase his winning chances considerably (to, say 20%.)"
not for a sufficiently long enough match. plus u forgot about the fact that team rybka will in all likelihood bring a private opening book to the table. u cant study for that. finally, seeing how rybka is improving month by month, that would imply the megagrandmaster is always trying to hit a moving target. nevermind the fact few people want to give the mega-GM a bunch of advantages a la Kramnik/Fritz 2 (if we assume the goal is for rybka to thrash the mega-GM).
> finally, seeing how rybka is improving month by month, that would imply the megagrandmaster is always trying to hit a moving target
That's why I said "the GM spends months studying the version of Rybka that he's going to play."
> plus u forgot about the fact that team rybka will in all likelihood bring a private opening book to the table. u cant study for that.
I didn't forget it, but I meant that with a good study of Rybka's losses, the MegaGM could be able to know what kind of positions Rybka is bad at playing, and try to reach those positions regardless of opening. Also, he could be able to develop a drawing plan just in case things go wrong. It's just that the top 1 GM doesn't have enough incentive to do this (He would basically need to stop playing chess for these 6 months and spend most of his time studying Rybka, and then again, I still said that Rybka'd have 80% chance of winning.)
"That's why I said "the GM spends months studying the version of Rybka that he's going to play.""
vas has said that his centaur team, even when knowing full well of rybka's weaknesses, still have immense trouble getting it into positions where it faulters. i see no reason why a mega-GM will be able to significantly improve upon this even after months of study.
..."and try to reach those positions regardless of opening."
nothing a kick-ass book cant fix. ;-)
"...and then again, I still said that Rybka'd have 80% chance of winning.)"
80% is far too low if we're talking about sufficiently enough games (e.g. world-championship format).
vas has said that his centaur team, even when knowing full well of rybka's weaknesses, still have immense trouble getting it into positions where it faulters. i see no reason why a mega-GM will be able to significantly improve upon this even after months of study.
..."and try to reach those positions regardless of opening."
nothing a kick-ass book cant fix. ;-)
"...and then again, I still said that Rybka'd have 80% chance of winning.)"
80% is far too low if we're talking about sufficiently enough games (e.g. world-championship format).
> 80% is far too low if we're talking about sufficiently enough games (e.g. world-championship format).
I base this on the fact that Zappa Mexico beat Rybka in a match, showing that anything is possible. So, perhaps that 20% chance of winning only holds in a "Hit or miss" match (That's the MegaGM only gets to play one game.)
"So, perhaps that 20% chance of winning only holds in a "Hit or miss" match (That's the MegaGM only gets to play one game.)"
1 game does not equal a "match."
1 game does not equal a "match."
> 1 game does not equal a "match."
I turns out that I was wrong, then. I should have said "Because people have hope, and they think that the top 1 Grandmaster could actually beat Rybka in a normal game."
If both sides, (The MegaGM and Rybka) put the best effort and preparation into this game, and the MegaGM wins, that would be enough to me.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill