Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Forum RybkaChess Help Search Register Login
Up Topic The Rybka Lounge / Computer Chess / POLL:Man vs Machine ?
1 2 Previous Next  
- - By Sedat Canbaz (****) [tr] Date 2012-02-20 11:14
Hello Chess Friends,

For nowadays, what will be the Elo difference between Top MP Engines vs Top GM Players?
http://www.sedatcanbaz.com/chess/pollman-vs-machine/

I mean,if we run Top MP Engines at 40/120 (Rybka,Houdini,Critter on latest fast hardwares)
against Top Human GMs Players (e.g Kasparov,Kramnik,Carlsen,Topalov,Anand...)

1)More than 500 Elo
2)Less than 500 Elo

Thanks in advance,
Sedat Canbaz
Parent - By Quapsel (****) [de] Date 2012-02-20 13:12 Edited 2012-02-20 14:43
Let's do an interesting sequence of games between humans (av. 3 min/move) and Engines (av. 1 sec/move) on a normal 64bit-i7 with 4 cores.
Let's look what ELO-values engines can reach then.

Factor 180 means, that engines with tournament conditions might be 500 ELO stronger. ( 500=66,7*log2(180) )
I am convinced, that this would be a very interesting experiment. :cool:

Could enough good chess players be found then? With a winning chance te get the original 'asymmetric engine master'-title?
And maybe a nice and not too expensive material prize?

Eventually we could see a good and interesting comparison between engine- and human-strength.
Not that one, what we really want to get preferably, but a comparison which is much better(!!!) than everything we have since many years!

Quap
Parent - - By rocket (***) [se] Date 2012-02-20 13:18
The engines have not improved conciderably in calm positions compared to 2006, the ratings increase is mainly from open positions thanks to improved search.

You can't do anything about openings in chess, it's all memorized nowdays if the gm want's to score as many points as possible.
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Silver) [us] Date 2012-02-20 22:46

> You can't do anything about openings in chess, it's all memorized nowdays if the gm want's to score as many points as possible.


Profoundly wrong.
Parent - - By rocket (***) [se] Date 2012-02-21 05:57
Nelson if the computer team wants to win they need to take risks with the opening book, but computers don't play very well in unorthodox positions were strategy is involved so it doesn't work currently to break this.

And in conventional openings  there are for sure endless drawish variations to play in long time controlls.

And the gm can prepare the lines at home e.t.c
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Silver) [us] Date 2012-02-21 11:33
It is true that if a GM is actively pursuing drawish lines there is not a lot you can do about it, especially with black pieces.  But it is also true that a professional book can identify that strategy earlier and try to combat it.  My point being that a book can, most of the time, avoid a dead-drawn book-exit.
Parent - By Kappatoo (****) [de] Date 2012-02-21 13:34
I actually think it's very easy to get playable positions from the opening with black. Especially when you are not playing against someone with a huge opening book, but against a human being.
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-02-20 14:58
There is a Poll option on the forum, for the convenience of Rybka Forum members, would you like a poll to be added to this thread?
Parent - By Sedat Canbaz (****) [tr] Date 2012-02-20 18:09

>There is a Poll option on the forum, for the convenience of Rybka Forum members, would you like a poll to be added to this thread?


Dear Uly,

Actually its good idea....but its better to wait at least 1-2 weeks

And next time we should be more clear with some issues

Probably for the next poll,the question should be:

Rybka Cluster vs GMs  :wink:

Btw,the current poll results are in favor for less than 500 Elo:
Parent - - By Razor (****) [gb] Date 2012-02-20 17:28
What time limit are you giving GMs?

How many games over what period of time?  If only one game then which colour - if many games then equal white/black?

Would the GM be allowed to prepare against their opponents, i.e., get to know what their silicon opponent likes to play and would they know who they were playing or would this be kept from them?

Would the GM play OTB or in front of a screen?
Parent - - By Quapsel (****) [de] Date 2012-02-20 17:56

> Would the GM be allowed to prepare against their opponents, i.e., get to know what their silicon opponent likes to play


Surely the GMs should know, what engine will be their next opponent, and they should be allowed to prepare in detail.
Finally if the play against humans they can do the same things!

Quap

PS:
In consequence developers should be allowed to create an engine-switch like /opponent=kasparov
:-)
Parent - By Razor (****) [gb] Date 2012-02-20 18:00
I agree - I asked all those questions as the post did not state explicitly and depending on the answers posted will result in different answers from me!  :smile:
Parent - - By Sedat Canbaz (****) [tr] Date 2012-02-20 18:48
Just i'd like to mention again and to make it more clear...

When i said, if we run the top engines on 'latest fast machines' i was not meaning  about 1 core engines or quads or dual processors  or 10 years old processors
Or i was not meaning that we will use the same engines which are played 10-15 yeas ago...
Or i was not meaning too what will be the Elo engine performance using own books...
Or i was not meaning also about Rybka Cluter's performance vs GMs

I mean especially for top engine performance on latest fastest i7 6 core or i7 12 core high-overclocked machines
Plus,in case of top mp engines are using superior private strong book

Actually it's not so hard to estimate about what will be the Elo points between Human vs Engines

And i can give you another example about the current issue

I think the bellow engines are around on the same level as Top GM of 2700-2800 Elo human points,right ?:
Chess Tiger 2007,Fritz in Bahrain,Rebel...

So...in other words,if we will start to test Chess Tiger 2007 engine against Rybka,Houdini,Critter
(i mean if we run the Top MP engines on latest i7 6 core or 12 core machines via Auto232 mode or via online)

And after a such test at 40/120,can we expect the Elo difference to be less than 500 Elo ?
For example,engine match between Houdini 2.0c x64 6 core against Chess Tiger 2007 w32 1c

Lets take as example SSDF rating,which is very useful for a such comparison:
http://ssdf.bosjo.net/list.htm

Deep Rybka 4 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz   3216  32  -29  642  78%  3001
Chess Tiger 2007 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz   2786  22  -23  966  39%  2862

Note:the current SSDF Elo difference is 430 Elo,what will be the Rybka's Elo difference on 3 times faster machine ??

For example, if Rybka,Houdini Critter will be played on decent fast hardwares,e.g on i7 990X @ 4.60GHz
Note that in case of running MP engines, i7 990X @4.60 GHz is approx.3 times faster than Q6600 2.40GHz

That means you will get extra approx.130-150 Elo points

In other words,i expect the SSDF Rating to be:
1.Houdini 2.0c Pro x64 6 core i7 990X @4.60 GHz 3400 Elo
2.Deep Rybka 4.1 x64 6 core i7 990X @4.60 GHz   3350 Elo
3.Critter 1.4 x64 6 core i7 990X @4.60 GHz      3350 Elo
4.Chess Tiger 2007 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz   2786 Elo

Btw,SCCT Auto232's rating has almost same Elo points

I really wonder too,in case of participating the Top Human GM in SSDF Rating (e.g Kasparov,Kramnik,Carlsen,Topalov,Anand... )
Probably then, i expect the Top Human Players would be rated around 2700-2850 SSDF Elo points !

More than 10 years ago,we noticed that even the top single processor engines are started to play on GM levels,here is another proof:


Note:the above red comparison table (which is based on around 2000 years) is quite good indicator
It show us that 2000 years engines are started to play with same level as Top GM of 2700-2800 Elo human points

More details::
-Now we are in 2012 that means the current top engines play much stronger than 2000 years engines
-Many of the Top Engines have been improved to play stronger approx.200-300 Elo points (in that period of time)
-Plus 10 yeas ago,the processors were much slower... .e.g in those years,Fritz Benchmark kns values were around 500-1000 kns
-But nowadays, (on latest fast i7 machines) Fritz Benchmark tool generates around 20.000 kns values

In my estimation,the engines which are rated about 2700-2850 Elo points (based on SSDF,CCRL,SCCT... ratings) are expected to be rated almost same level as Top GMs

Just i'd like to mention again that 10-12 years ago, the top engines elo performance were around 2650-2750 Elo points

But nowadays,i mean exactly the same engine versions are improved to play stronger at least 200-300 Elo points

In 10 (ten) years period of time,the processors are become at least 15-20 times more faster
That means the top mp engines can gain extra at least 350-400 Elo points

Just imagine in 2012...what will be Elo difference between Top MP Engines vs GMs

Actually our comments are just estimations...

The best answer:its will be great,if there will be a serious mach (played with many games) -Man vs Machine 2012

Personally i guess,the Top MP Engines will be performed more than 500 Elo

We should not forget to mention the opening book's factor (not only the hardware speed or engine strength can effect the engine's performance)

From my experience i can say that the opening book is the key,which is playing a very important role to reach high elo engine performance
Depending on what kind of opening book usage,the engines can be performed approx. 0-200 elo points or even more...

And last,remember also that even some 2200-2300 Elo chess engines can play draws vs the Top GMs of 2700-2800 Elo

Hope this helps...

Greetings,
Sedat
Parent - - By kaseldop [gb] Date 2012-02-20 19:59
Good Question. I believe because of the Draw Factor. If a Top GM (2800) Prepared properly (which would never happen because they have to keep playing against Humans for income) would find find ways of Drawing fairly often(STILL LOSE MOSTLY) as white. They would steer game into openings with blocked centres etc. This would be enough to stop the elo gap from growing past 300-400.
Interesting poser tho', I would love to hear from GM on this question.
Parent - By Sedat Canbaz (****) [tr] Date 2012-02-20 20:29
Dear Friends,

Many thanks for all comments...

Of course its just estimations...i dont claim 100 % that i am right about there will be more than 500 Elo difference

I can be wrong...or maybe those friends can be wrong too :)

Just a simple question (for those,who estimate bellow than 500 Elo) :
-Do you believe that Top GMs of 2700-2800 Elo will perform 200-300 Elo points stronger than Fritz in Bahrain,Rebel,Chess Tiger 2007.1 ?

Please check the bellow table,which is based on GMs vs Machines results - played 6-7 years ago,where the difference is 190 Elo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-computer_chess_matches


Note:only Junior chess engine was defeated (only two loses by Junior engine,it seems Junior team was not so lucky)

See also the performance of Chess Tiger,Rebel... vs Humans:
http://www.rebel.nl/resu.htm

I know very well that for a better conclusion,thousands of games are needed,but anyway i impressed by the performance of the top chess programs
And i dont think that we can find a such sponsor,who will make a such event of running thousands of games between Man vs Machine

Personally for me it's will be a BIG surprise,in case of Houdini,Rybka,Critter will be performed 300-400 Elo stronger than top GMs

Best Wishes,
Sedat
Parent - - By Razor (****) [gb] Date 2012-02-20 20:51
Sedat,

If a 2750+ GM {e.g., those named} were given ample time to prepare, plenty of rest days, then over a 10-game match, with the same time control of 40/120 then I would say we would be looking at around 7-3 worse case or around 150 elo - depending on the GM it could be a lot closer than this as it will all be in the prep.  The chess engines ability to change its play OTB is zero so as long as the GM can prep then the games will be led in a particular way by the GM.  Time is the only enemy to the GM which is why I believe the GM will lose because of mistakes they play, not because the the chess engine can play better chess.  I suspect some of the moves played by the engines will be so poor that the GM will lose time just thinking about a poor move that they were not expecting and that this will be one of the reasons the GM will get in to time trouble.  Part of the prep is actually about the GM preparing themselves for the match.

So, based on the above, i.e., allow the GMs to prep, playing a 10 game match at 40/120, one game a day with ample rest days, will be, in my opinion, no worse than 150 elo and perhaps a bit closer, 6-4 or maybe even a drawn result would not be out of the question for some of the GMs.
Parent - - By Sedat Canbaz (****) [tr] Date 2012-02-20 21:21 Edited 2012-02-20 21:32
Dear Razor,

Ok..lets say that you are right about there will be 150 Elo points difference

Then just explain me this please:

1)Why we see a lot of points difference,approx.200 Elo (even 7-8 years ago,where the engines were much weaker and the processors were much slower)
Note:Rybka,Houdini,Critter were not participants (in those years of 2003,2004,2005,2006) ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-computer_chess_matches

2)Why in the early of 2000 years (based on red table standings),the GMs are performed on the same level as Fritz in Bahrain,Rebel...?

Note also that now we are in 2012,(in that period of time) the speed of the processors are changed,the strength of the engines are changed too
There is no doubt that Rybka,Houdini,Critter will be beast (under such conditions)

I wonder also,why in the latest 5-6 years,there is no any serious match - Man vs Machine ?

Is that can be the reason that there will be a lot of big differences in points-between Man vs Machine ?!

Best,
Sedat
Parent - - By Razor (****) [gb] Date 2012-02-20 21:36
Lots of reasons Sedat; mostly for the points I made, i.e., the amount of prep you give a GM, the amount of time they are given between games, the number of games to play, and so on.

I suspect the GMs in your list do not readily play chess engines, partly due to their own schedules {most of them are on the road going around the world preparing for and playing in tournaments for much of the year} and partly because without money on the table, what is in it for the GM?  No game against an engine will count towards their FIDE rating and without serious prep for such a match they will just end up losing due to time trouble blunders - not a pleasant thought for any GM and certainly not for some of those you mention who hate losing.
Parent - - By Sedat Canbaz (****) [tr] Date 2012-02-20 22:20 Edited 2012-02-20 22:38

>most of them are on the road going around the world preparing for and playing in tournaments for much of the year


Good :smile:

You can be right...but i dont think this is the main reason for all top GM players

There is a such possibility also that the chess engines are extremely strong

However i respect your opinion,but anyway i have different point of view (not like yours)

Some notes about the previous played matches-Man vs Machine:

1)In 1990 years = GMs were stronger than Chess Engines
2)In the early of 2000 years = GMs were equal to Chess Engines
3)In 2003/2004/2005/2006 = Chess Engines performed approx. 190 Elo  better than GMs
4)Now we are in 2012 = We have Houdini,Rybka,Critter and much faster hardwares than the past

Btw,you missed my previous question:
-Do you believe that Top GMs of 2700-2800 Elo will perform 200-300 Elo points stronger than Fritz in Bahrain,Rebel,Chess Tiger 2007.1 ?

Best,
Sedat
Parent - By Sedat Canbaz (****) [tr] Date 2012-02-20 22:32
It seems:
-In those years,the most of them were not on the road going around the world preparing for and playing in tournaments for much of the year

1)In 1990 years = GMs were stronger than Chess Engines
Parent - - By Labyrinth (****) [us] Date 2012-02-21 06:46
I think it is between 150 and 300.
Parent - By Sedat Canbaz (****) [tr] Date 2012-02-21 11:34
I respect all opinions over this issue,but i think its time to see the real facts

So...in other words,there is only one way-who is right ?!

I challenge any Top GM (including GMs of +2600 Elo) to play with me

I mean,my conditions will be:
Hardware:i7 980X @4.33GHz
Engine:Houdini/Rybka/Critter
Book:Perfect 16
TC:15m+10s or 60m+15s (i can't accept 120/40,due to we can't produce many games)

Who are interested for a such challenge, please feel free to contact me:
http://www.sedatcanbaz.com/chess/contact/

Best Regards,
Sedat Canbaz
Parent - By Razor (****) [gb] Date 2012-02-22 05:38
Shouldn't this be a topic for 'Computer Chess' and not 'Rybka Discussion'?
Parent - By Geomusic (*****) Date 2012-02-24 08:00 Edited 2012-02-24 08:09
Depends on the opening of course Sedat.

In these computer times an open tactical game against a 3300+ ELO monster at blitz is quite impossible for Novices and GMs alike. In-fact one doesn't play that much better than the other in these types of positions where there are just too many open attacking moves and permutations i.e. just getting the sequencing mis-arranged 8-10 moves deep will get you checkmated quickly. So a 2800+ FIDE rated player out of 10 games might be able to snake out 1 win maybe even 2 then drawing 2 or 3 times and lose the rest.

In closed games, GMs have the ability to draw upon their vast theoretical knowledge from all past games which spreads beyond the comparatively "small" tactical  horizon the real-time (C) search operates within.

Because of this fact they are able to draw many such games even against the worlds strongest (C) programs.
Again though on the wins they might only get 1 or possibly 2.

Very difficult to defeat these silicon beasts. Better for them to brew your coffee or build your car than to play one chess. HAL anyone? LOL.
Parent - - By Sedat Canbaz (****) [tr] Date 2012-02-29 23:02 Edited 2012-02-29 23:13
Dear Chess Friends,

My final words over this issue...

The bellow 2007/2008 data is based on handicapped games played by Rybka (without pawn) vs GMs average 2600 Elo



Dzindzichashvili vs Rybka
4.0 - 4.0 8 games
2.5 - 1.5 4 games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Dzindzichashvili

-----------------------------------------------------
Rybka: 4.5
Benjamin: 3.5
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=1883

-----------------------------------------------------
Rybka: 10.0
Ehlvest: 4.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaan_Ehlvest

-----------------------------------------------------

More Details (based on my testings):

Rybka 3 using a strong opening book performed approx. +200 Elo better than without using book
http://sedatchess.110mb.com/index.php?p=1_35

Rank Name                 Elo    +    -   games score oppo. draws
01 Ultra Blitz 3          3319   23   23   560   60%  3257   50%
70 NoBook                 3100   25   25   460   37%  3176   53%

*Note:NoBook is empty.ctg (Rybka 3 is played without using any opening book)

-----------------------------------------------------

Rybka with Full Performance (with all pieces) performed approx. +250 Elo better
http://www.sedatcanbaz.com/chess/ratings/scct-auto232/

Rank Name                         Elo    +    -   games score oppo. draws
  36 Rybka 4.1 x64 1c             3201   13   13  1725   48%  3217   49%
  52 Rybka 4.1 WP x64 1c          2954   29   29   470   61%  2875   27%

*Note:Rybka 4.1 WP x64 1c is played without using a full pawn

-----------------------------------------------------

In my estimation (based on the above data/sources)
1)Rybka +75 Elo
2)Private Strong Book / Endgames +150 Elo
3)Faster Hardware +150 Elo
4)Newer/Stronger version +150 Elo
5)Full Performance (with all pieces) +250 Elo
-----------------------------------------------------
FINAL CONCLUSION:
-Rybka 4.1 mp (on 2x Intel Xeon X5667 @ 4.60GHz)is expecting to be rated approx.750-800 Elo stronger than GMs of 2600 Elo points

Best Regards,
Sedat Canbaz
Parent - - By Dr.Wael Deeb (***) [jo] Date 2012-03-01 16:12
Thanks Sedat :cool:

A scary conclusion for humans :wink:
Cheers,
Dr.D
Parent - By Sedat Canbaz (****) [tr] Date 2012-03-01 16:21

>Thanks Sedat :cool:


>A scary conclusion for humans


Dear Wael,

Not at all...

It seems,there are some facts where mostly of the people are missed to notice

I hope my current collected data/facts (based on no comments) will be a good indicator for estimations

Greetings,
Sedat
- - By rocket (***) [se] Date 2012-02-21 07:58
The previous stats are from the time when humans felt they were equal enough to take risks and play for a win.. if we assume the gm is happy with draws the difference is much less.. perhaps 500 if they play for a win each game but that won't happen today.
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) [us] Date 2012-02-21 17:42
But that didn't happen in 2009, either, and Pocket Fritz 4 still had a performance of 2889 in a tournament.  I seem to remember that it performed even better in 2010.  Its SSDF rating is 2764, so even SSDF ratings are about 100 elo points below reality in that rating range--against IMs and GMs who you can be quite sure are aiming for draws (because a draw against the machine would be half a point better than their colleagues would be able to do).

Meanwhile, Deep Rybka 4 on a Q6600 is 450 elo points higher on the SSDF than the iPhone which is already 50 points stronger than any GM.  Furthermore, modern hardware would at least double this speed (another 60 points) and modern software (Houdini) would add another 50 elo points.  There is 600 points from the strongest GM right there.  You can apply Larry's 3/4 elo difference rule to still obtain 450 points.  This isn't too far away from 500, and will probably be 500 at the end of this year.  Of course, if you immediately upgrade to the Rybka Cluster, you add at least another 100 elo points (a VERY conservative estimate).

The CEGT list should have raised their base (such as making Shredder 9 on 1 CPU somewhere between 2800 and 2850) instead of lowering it.
Parent - - By Kappatoo (****) [de] Date 2012-02-21 17:54 Edited 2012-02-21 17:58
We just don't have enough data, wouldn't you agree on that? An overwhelming performance in two (or let's say a handful) of tournaments against clearly inferior opposition in just not enough to draw such conclusions.
You may be right, of course, it's just hard to say. But somehow I find it hard to  believe that one of the 'big four' would lose a match against Houdini or whatever 0-12, if they are well-prepared and motivated.

Edit: These were tournaments where the players had to play ten humans and one engine. These are clearly non-ideal conditions. Plus, you don't know whether they had any idea of how to play against an engine or whether they prepared for this game properly.
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) [us] Date 2012-02-21 21:38

> We just don't have enough data, wouldn't you agree on that?


I think that we have enough data to see that all of the data are showing the same picture.  If there were some data showing the rating lists (before the CEGT downgrade) to have overestimated computer elo, then I would agree that we don't have enough data, as the number of games is small enough that we don't know whether the poor showings are due to statistical fluctuations or not.  However, we don't have any showings that are poorer than the old rating lists.

> But somehow I find it hard to  believe that one of the 'big four' would lose a match against Houdini or whatever 0-12


I wouldn't find it hard to believe against the Rybka Cluster, which is generally going to be much quicker and stronger in tactics, and also much better positionally, than Houdini.  However, I certainly wouldn't discount your opinion, as I know that you're definitely a stronger player than I am, and thus better able to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the top players.

> Plus, you don't know whether they had any idea of how to play against an engine or whether they prepared for this game properly.


We can't make all of our data based on whether the person knows how to play against engines--this would be giving the engines a disadvantage.  The engines aren't necessarily programmed to play against particular human playing styles, either--they are simply programmed to attempt to find the best possible moves in given positions.  When Deep Blue lost in 1996, there wasn't a complaint about Deep Blue simply not knowing how to play against Kasparov.
Parent - - By Kappatoo (****) [de] Date 2012-02-21 22:29

> We can't make all of our data based on whether the person knows how to play against engines--this would be giving the engines a disadvantage.  The engines aren't necessarily programmed to play against particular human
> playing styles, either--they are simply programmed to attempt to find the best possible moves in given positions.  When Deep Blue lost in 1996, there wasn't a complaint about Deep Blue simply not knowing how to play against Kasparov.


Yes, but in this sense, today's engines still don't know this. I thought the question was whether one would see a 500 Elo difference in a direct match between a top player and a top engine. You can be assured that if there will ever again be such a match (I doubt it, though - Sedat's challenge is probably not a sufficient incentive for Magnus. :)), then the human will have an idea of how to play against the engine.
Don't get me wrong - I agree that today's engines are clearly superior to humans. But I don't see Kramnik losing every game with his Catalan, or his Berlin.
Okay, to give at least one argument for my claim: Humans (some of them) are still way superior to engines in some aspects. One of them is assessing which nominally better endgames offer winning chances and which do not. From time to time, this will cost the engine half a point.

On the strengths and weaknesses of the top players: I hope you don't mind the digression; this is quite unrelated to the topic (and certainly not a complaint directed at you). One thing I really hate about the rise of chess engines is how it led to a very dismissive attitudes towards GM's among the average spectator. I find it painful, when watching an elite tournament online, to read all that crap from engine-equipped patzers about Anand's incomprehensibly weak play or Carlsen's silly blunders. These people don't have any idea how incredibly strong a world class player is. I have been fortunate enough to have several strong GM's (i.e., between 2550 and 2700) as my teammates, and these guys are already extremely impressive - in terms of their knowledge, their understanding of the game, their ability to calculate, etc. But still, none of them was even close to being WC material (well, nominally Ivanchuk is now in my team, but we haven't played together yet).
Parent - - By Sedat Canbaz (****) [tr] Date 2012-02-21 23:44

>Sedat's challenge is probably not a sufficient incentive for Magnus. :))


No,i challenge any Top GM (including Magnus Carlsen)

But however, i dont think that any GM will have interest to play with me

The reason,they (GMs) know very well that the in case of such duel match...the Elo difference will be not less than 500 Elo

Really i have no patience for a such challenge...

Regards,
Sedat
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2012-02-21 23:51
Why should a top GM play? Unless you have a minimum of $500,000 in sponsorship?
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-02-22 00:21
And why are GMs charging that much for their crappy play? (when compared to engines)
Parent - By Sedat Canbaz (****) [tr] Date 2012-02-22 00:22 Edited 2012-02-22 00:26

>And why are GMs charging that much for their crappy play? (when compared to engines)


+1
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) [us] Date 2012-02-22 01:25
Why do track stars get so much from sponsors for their crappy speed? (when compared to [car] engines)
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-02-22 02:10
Yeah, and I've read they use enhancing drugs so their speed isn't true anyway.
Parent - By keoki010 (Bronze) [us] Date 2012-02-22 16:50
:lol: and engine cheaters sometimes use additives in their cars gasoline! :twisted:
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) [us] Date 2012-02-22 21:11
But nonetheless, people pay to watch them compete.

The price isn't overpriced if you're willing to pay it.  While half a million for a man vs. machine match is overpriced for most of us, it's not overpriced for the sponsors.
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-02-22 21:52

> While half a million for a man vs. machine match is overpriced for most of us, it's not overpriced for the sponsors.


What sponsors? If sponsors appear with the $500'000 and the match happens then I'd take back my overpricing claims, but I claim sponsors don't appear because of the overpricing.
Parent - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) [us] Date 2012-02-23 18:25
I claim sponsors don't appear because there is no interest in such a match.  We have the following:

(1) The GMs aren't interested in playing in such a match because the amount of money potentially offered isn't justified by all of the trouble in preparing for something very different from their normal schedule, and something that is likely very humiliating.

(2) The sponsors aren't willing to pay the price that GMs require to do this.  However, they clearly ARE willing to pay a higher price for Vishy Anand to play against someone who is not even among the world's top 15 current players.

Conclusion: there is really not significant interest in such a match by either side.  It's simple economics.

I think that something that would have a higher (but still low) probability of working would be something like the Hydra match terms, but with more money: in a 6-game match, every draw that the GM earns against the Rybka cluster will earn the GM $50,000 and every win earns the GM $100,000.  Perhaps the amount of money would need to be more--unlike the current situation, there would be powerful negotiating terms.  If the GM is able to draw or particularly if the GM is able to win, it would be a good game to watch, and it would make the sponsors more interested.  But no sponsor is willing to pay $500,000 just to watch a GM lose six games to a computer.  The chess itself has to be worth it.
Parent - - By Kappatoo (****) [de] Date 2012-02-22 09:28
Yeah, right. That's the kind of attitude I was talking about elsewhere in this thread.
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-02-22 16:04
I think my message was much more rough than I intended. I actually have respect and admiration for people with high OTB understanding of positions, but I still think their play isn't worth $500,000, probably not worth $20,000, even.

So they are highly overpriced, and yes, for what they charge, their play is crappy, if the money required to make them play was acceptable (or affordable) then I wouldn't critique their play.

It's like, you buy some shoes for $50, and you find them excellent, the years pass and they remain as good as new because they're well made. You'd still find them crappy if you paid $1000 for them.
Parent - - By Kappatoo (****) [de] Date 2012-02-22 16:22
Sorry, I don't get it. What do you mean by 'overpriced'? Are top tennis players overpriced, or football players, or ...? These guys earn a lot more than any chess player. What are your criteria for determining the value of what they do?
All of them are paid according to their market value, it's as simple as that.
And what do you mean by affordable - affordable for you? That's a strange standard, and an even stranger reason to criticize their play.
I stick to the following: I find it disrespectful to call the top players' play crappy, and apart from that totally unmotivated. It doesn't make sense to say that they are weak just because there are machines which are better than them.
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-02-22 16:31

> And what do you mean by affordable - affordable for you? That's a strange standard, and an even stranger reason to criticize their play.


Affordable for anyone. These players don't follow the "Demand and Supply" rule. Suppose that people want to have a match GM vs Houdini, that's the demand. The GM could supply by charging the highest amount of money that the side wanting the match can pay. They don't do that, they charge an amount of money nobody can pay, to ensure that the match will not happen. And that's what I dislike, finding unfair their prices and not correlated with their playing strength, they would charge the same if they were 500 elo weaker just for being the strongest human players, so the asked price is arbitrary.

Tennis players or football players that ask for an affordable price wouldn't enter this, if they reject a price because they have a better offer, that means their price was affordable (otherwise the better offer couldn't have been made.)
Parent - - By Kappatoo (****) [de] Date 2012-02-22 16:55 Edited 2012-02-22 17:02

> These players don't follow the "Demand and Supply" rule. Suppose that people want to have a match GM vs Houdini, that's the demand. The GM could supply by charging the highest amount of money that the side wanting the match > can pay. They don't do that, they charge an amount of money nobody can pay, to ensure that the match will not happen.


Sorry, I am seriously lost. That is like saying that Messi does not follow the 'demand and supply' rule because he does not play for a few bucks in your local football tournament.
These guys DO have better offers all the time. Why should they play against Houdini (and likely get demolished) if there is a lot more money (and prestige) for them to be earned in human tournaments?

Edit:

> and that's what I dislike, finding unfair their prices and not correlated with their playing strength, they would charge the same if they were 500 elo weaker just for being the strongest human players, so the asked price is arbitrary.


If the best human sprinters were 10 km/h slower, would they earn less? Would they earn more if there were 100 km/h faster, but everyone else was, too? And how exactly is this relevant?
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-02-22 17:22

> Sorry, I am seriously lost. That is like saying that Messi does not follow the 'demand and supply' rule because he does not play for a few bucks in your local football tournament.


But he gave an affordable price for whatever team was able to pay him. If Messi didn't play because no team was able to match his price, then I'd say Messi was overpriced. Suppose Messi asked for one billion dollars per game, so that no team could afford it. Then, I'd say he's a crappy player because his game isn't worth one billion dollars, even if he was the best player in the world, and there are no machines playing soccer better than him. It's the same thing with GMs and engine matches.

Nobody interested in it has enough money to pay a GM to play a match against Stockfish, then the GM is overpriced.

>Why should they play against Houdini (and likely get demolished)


Why would they be demolished? If they play so well? That they would get demolished if they played is what I meant with "crappy", unless they put an affordable price.

> And how exactly is this relevant?


See the shoes analogy, how much is charged creates expectations about the performance of the person, and no person on earth deserves $500'000 to be demolished by an engine. It would deserve those $500'000 if he demolished the engine. Otherwise it's just a human demolished by an engine and I could do it for free.
Parent - - By Kappatoo (****) [de] Date 2012-02-22 17:37

> But he gave an affordable price for whatever team was able to pay him.


Sure. The top chess players do the same, don't they? I see them play in tournaments all the time. In my analogy, the 'human vs. engine' match was the analogue of your local tournament. So, if no-one has enough money to pay Messi to play in some local tournament, then he is overpriced, yes?

> Why would they be demolished? If they play so well?


Why would Usain Bolt be demolished in a race against a Ferrari if he is so fast?

> See the shoes analogy, how much is charged creates expectations about the performance of the person, and no person on earth deserves $500'000 to be demolished by an engine. It would deserve those $500'000 if he
> demolished the engine. Otherwise it's just a human demolished by an engine and I could do it for free.


I just don't get it. If someone is ready the required money, deserved or not, then we will see such a match. If not, then we won't. If someone pays a million to see a race between Usain Bolt and a Ferrari, we will see this as well, I'm pretty sure about that.
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-02-22 18:01

> Sure. The top chess players do the same, don't they?


No, they put a price nobody can afford, with the result that you don't see a Match of top GM against Rybka Cluster.

>So, if no-one has enough money to pay Messi to play in some local tournament, then he is overpriced, yes?


As long as anyone can pay the price for Messi to play in a team, his price is fair. If nobody could match his price, he'd be overpriced.

As long as anyone can pay the price for a top GM to play a match against an engine, his price is fair. If nobody could match his price, he'd be overpriced.

People can get Messi to play in their teams, so the price is affordable.

People can't get a top GM to play against a chess engine, so the price is unaffordable.

Clear now?

>Why would Usain Bolt be demolished in a race against a Ferrari if he is so fast?


Nobody is interested in seeing Usain Bolt having a race against a Ferrari. People are interested in seeing a top GM play against an engine, this thread is proof of that, show me a thread for people wanting to see Usain Bolt race a Ferrari, or your analogy is really poor.

>If someone is ready the required money


But why is the "required money" set to an unattainable amount? Easily, if the GM asks for $500'000, and someone gathers the money, the GM can say "oh wait, nevermind, I want $1'000'000 now". At what point is the GM overpriced? He can ask for "the pearls of the virgin" and you'd consider his price fair at all times?
Up Topic The Rybka Lounge / Computer Chess / POLL:Man vs Machine ?
1 2 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill