![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
hi everyone i am having my computer updated with 8CPUs.i am wondering what rating such a setup would be like?
I guess since you're posting in the Rybka subforum, we can assume that you're wondering what rating Rybka would have :-). It would probably be between 3050-3100 elo with a good opening book (scaled to the FIDE list); Rybka 3 would be over 3100 elo on that system.
![[cr]](/mwf/v12/flags/cr.png "Costa Rica")
As a personal opinion, and a little bit out of topic, I think it would be very interesting to see Rybka playing in a very strong human chess tournament as Linares where the best humans are participating. This can clear some doubts about what can do an entity with that incredible and colossal elo strength.
Theoretically, with over 3100 elo, it could sweep easily all the humans and win without too much problems - something of laugh -, but in fact, I am not so sure this can happen. I have some doubts the program can finish a tournament like this with that incredible elo performance, or at least that it can always maintain this overall elo-performance in other several and quite strong human tournaments.
Do you really think that Rybka can play always at that high level against the strongest humans in the world, and also to maintain constantly their elo-performance in other tournaments?
Regards,
Gaмßito.
Theoretically, with over 3100 elo, it could sweep easily all the humans and win without too much problems - something of laugh -, but in fact, I am not so sure this can happen. I have some doubts the program can finish a tournament like this with that incredible elo performance, or at least that it can always maintain this overall elo-performance in other several and quite strong human tournaments.
Do you really think that Rybka can play always at that high level against the strongest humans in the world, and also to maintain constantly their elo-performance in other tournaments?
Regards,
Gaмßito.
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
I'd ask the question: Do humans want to play Rybka?
If I was a very strong human at the Linares tournament, I would refuse to play Rybka, since I came to play against other humans, so having to play a computer would just disrupt my play (or strategy, or would distract me, tire me etc.)
If I was a very strong human at the Linares tournament, I would refuse to play Rybka, since I came to play against other humans, so having to play a computer would just disrupt my play (or strategy, or would distract me, tire me etc.)
I know that humans always have a lot of excuses to avoid playing against computers. And that, It is possible that they do not want to play against Rybka at all. That is not anything strange.
Now, Imagine that humans cannot refuse to play against Rybka and they always agree to give their best try in those tournaments where Rybka will participate.
Could Rybka maintain their 300 points of difference over Anand, after several quite strong human tournaments?
Regards,
Gaмßito.
Now, Imagine that humans cannot refuse to play against Rybka and they always agree to give their best try in those tournaments where Rybka will participate.
Could Rybka maintain their 300 points of difference over Anand, after several quite strong human tournaments?
Regards,
Gaмßito.
> Could Rybka maintain their 300 points of difference over Anand, after several quite strong human tournaments?
In that hypothetical situation I don't think so, but (and I'll repeat myself) it's a problem with the ELO formula itself, as it doesn't manage 300 ratings points of difference properly (So, the stronger player has a great trouble trying to perform at its expected ELO, but against opposition of about the same level, the task is easier.)
![[il]](/mwf/v12/flags/il.png "Israel")
I think that it is the sponsors who do not want rybka to play.
If the sponsors decide that the prizes are the same and the players have to play against rybka then
I see no reason for human players to refuse to play.
If 2700 players agree to play X games against humans for expected money of f(X)$ then I see no reason for them to refuse to play X-1 games against humans and 1 game against rybka for expected money of f(X)$
Uri
If the sponsors decide that the prizes are the same and the players have to play against rybka then
I see no reason for human players to refuse to play.
If 2700 players agree to play X games against humans for expected money of f(X)$ then I see no reason for them to refuse to play X-1 games against humans and 1 game against rybka for expected money of f(X)$
Uri
I agree, especially if the rule is in place ahead of time that Rybka is not to be awarded money (other than possibly an appearance fee for the Rybka team, though I think that the publicity of such an event at this point would be enough). If a player wants to show himself to be the strongest player in the tournament, there is not reason for him not to show it with one of the opponents being a computer--some lower-rated players may play better against a computer than some higher-rated players, and this should be taken into account.
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
Several years ago, Junior played in the super tournament in Dortmund (I just looked it up. It was in 2000, and Junior achieved 4,5/9). After that, some players complained that it's difficult to adjust when you play 8 games against humans and one against a computer (which, if you take it seriously, requires special preparation). They also said their game against Junior affected their play against the human participants. If Rybka played in Linares, it would most likely win the tournament, which would probably diminish the 'human winner's' achievement in public perception. One more aspect: Especially Kasparov and Kramink received very much money for playing against computers, a lot more than in a normal tournament. These facts taken together, I don't think the top players would outrightly refuse to play in such a 'mixed' tournament, but they would most likely demand a lot more money for it
"it's difficult to adjust when you play 8 games against humans and one against a computer"
Maybe it was a good reason in the Junior case but it is not a good reason today.
The computer is a clear favourite to win and humans can do best by spending more energy about the games against humans
and not making special preperation against the machine.
"their game against Junior affected their play against the human participants."
Not convincing accuse.
I assume humans do their best and if preparing against the computer is going to cause them problem against humans then they will not prepare against the computer.
"If Rybka played in Linares, it would most likely win the tournament, which would probably diminish the 'human winner's' achievement in public perception."
The last sentence is the only logical reason that I see for GM's to refuse to play against rybka but this is based on the assumption that people are stupid and expect rybka not to win the tournament by a big margin.
I see no reason that is not about money to refuse to play against rybka and this reason is clearly about money because maybe GM's are afraid that if rybka wins by a big margin the prizes for humans are going to be smaller in the future.
Uri
Maybe it was a good reason in the Junior case but it is not a good reason today.
The computer is a clear favourite to win and humans can do best by spending more energy about the games against humans
and not making special preperation against the machine.
"their game against Junior affected their play against the human participants."
Not convincing accuse.
I assume humans do their best and if preparing against the computer is going to cause them problem against humans then they will not prepare against the computer.
"If Rybka played in Linares, it would most likely win the tournament, which would probably diminish the 'human winner's' achievement in public perception."
The last sentence is the only logical reason that I see for GM's to refuse to play against rybka but this is based on the assumption that people are stupid and expect rybka not to win the tournament by a big margin.
I see no reason that is not about money to refuse to play against rybka and this reason is clearly about money because maybe GM's are afraid that if rybka wins by a big margin the prizes for humans are going to be smaller in the future.
Uri
"I assume humans do their best and if preparing against the computer is going to cause them problem against humans then they will not prepare against the computer."
Well, if this is what they'll do, then what's the point of such a tournament? Additionally, this reasoning only shows why such a tournament will be really expensive. It is quite embarassing to be butchered by a computer, and this is just what can be expected if you are not prepared (although it's hard to avoid with serious preparation, too). Kramnik can make a lot of money by playing computers AND demand match conditions which clearly favor him. How much money do you think will convince him to play a game where he knows he does not stand a chance? Many world class players have big egos ...
"[...] that people are stupid and expect rybka not to win the tournament by a big margin."
Many people are still not aware of the superiority of computers compared to humans. No need to call this stupid. But even if everybody is aware of this: The coverage of the tournament will most likely focus on the winner of the tournament, and report less about the 'best human'. I don't think it's irrational if the best players expect to get the attention they (think they) deserve.
Well, if this is what they'll do, then what's the point of such a tournament? Additionally, this reasoning only shows why such a tournament will be really expensive. It is quite embarassing to be butchered by a computer, and this is just what can be expected if you are not prepared (although it's hard to avoid with serious preparation, too). Kramnik can make a lot of money by playing computers AND demand match conditions which clearly favor him. How much money do you think will convince him to play a game where he knows he does not stand a chance? Many world class players have big egos ...
"[...] that people are stupid and expect rybka not to win the tournament by a big margin."
Many people are still not aware of the superiority of computers compared to humans. No need to call this stupid. But even if everybody is aware of this: The coverage of the tournament will most likely focus on the winner of the tournament, and report less about the 'best human'. I don't think it's irrational if the best players expect to get the attention they (think they) deserve.
That's exactly it. The way the tournament is set up now, the whole story-line is one human player/personality or another. Stick one computer into the mix, which inevitably would be the strongest player, and the entire focus of attention shifts and the humans, as players and as a species, are degraded.
Of course the prize money would have to go up, and not by a small amount. In effect the players would be selling a piece of their reputations if they were getting thrashed by a machine and surrendering their traditional preeminence in these tournaments. What's more, human chess generally would be diminished.
Of course the prize money would have to go up, and not by a small amount. In effect the players would be selling a piece of their reputations if they were getting thrashed by a machine and surrendering their traditional preeminence in these tournaments. What's more, human chess generally would be diminished.
I think this goes back to another one of Uri's arguments, though--everyone knows that computers are far stronger than the top GMs, so there shouldn't be much reputation loss at stake. On the contrary, the GM would gain in reputation among fellow chess players if he's even able to so much as get a draw, and if someone actually succeeds in winning, then we're dealing with something different altogether.
I disagree with your premise. Everyone does not know that desktop computers equipped with off-the-shelf software are far stronger than the top grandmasters. This is a legacy from the Kasparov years, where at every turn he was dismissive of computer capabilities and people believed him. At the time he was half-right, in spite of the fact that he used computers more extensively than anyone from a very early stage.
If the knowledge that a $2000 computer equipped with $50 software could resoundingly thrash the top grandmasters time after time permeated the global chess community I have to think it would be subversive to the game generally. Look at how subversive it is when unrated players equipped with some hardware can routinely beat grandmasters aided by computers! All of these trends tend to dilute the value of human skill.
If the knowledge that a $2000 computer equipped with $50 software could resoundingly thrash the top grandmasters time after time permeated the global chess community I have to think it would be subversive to the game generally. Look at how subversive it is when unrated players equipped with some hardware can routinely beat grandmasters aided by computers! All of these trends tend to dilute the value of human skill.
But people read about the Kramnik-Deep Fritz match and how he lost, which was significant in that it was running software that anyone can buy on a computer that anyone can buy (and can now buy for $600). Of course, they didn't read that there was a bug causing Deep Fritz 10 to perform at about the same level as if it was 1 CPU, but I don't see that knowledge as necessary.
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
> All of these trends tend to dilute the value of human skill.
Skill at chess, that is. Contrariwise, they show the power of human intellect to concoct a suitable out-sourcing agent, capable of handling most of their chess concerns.
That is the enlightened way of thinking about it. Computers are a monumental human achievement, the result of billions of people working to advance technology in direct and indirect ways in a huge number areas over thousands of years.
Feeling bad because a human cannot compete with a computer is like feeling bad because an army equipped with swords and javelins cannot compete with an army with automatic rifles. There is little place for sentimentality in the march of technological progress.
Feeling bad because a human cannot compete with a computer is like feeling bad because an army equipped with swords and javelins cannot compete with an army with automatic rifles. There is little place for sentimentality in the march of technological progress.
![[ca]](/mwf/v12/flags/ca.png "Canada")
i liked your estimate "billions of people" hehehe...
I was referring to all of mankind since the dawn of man.
oh, i misread that and thought you meant that billions are involved with IT :)
Directly or indirectly, they all have been. Every contribution to knowledge, no matter how seemingly unrelated, contributes to the whole in some way. You wouldn't think that the discovery of fire contributes directly to IT, but obviously it does, just as the ending position in a game of chess comes from the opening position. Likewise people had to produce children so that their offspring, many generations on, could make their contribution. The present is a recapitulation of the past.
![[dk]](/mwf/v12/flags/dk.png "Denmark")
Play it again Sam :)
*sniff* It's a shame that my great-grandfather's poor Model T Ford cannot compete with today's Corvettes...
Well, I would drive the Model T anytime. Maybe not on an Interstate.
No top 20 GM should have to make a large amount of "extra" preparation against computers in this day and age--they all use them for analysis and opening preparation, and so they all know the various nuances of the different programs. Uri is right--that excuse could have been made back in 2000, but not now. Any GM using that as an excuse now either either making stuff up to try to hide other reasons, or is not a serious GM.
In the style of the British Parliament, "I refer the gentleman to the answer I gave a moment ago."
I think that from now on any computer - human play should be with computer assistance. While the hardware platform can be different humans definetely need something to close the gap against a fully stocked Rybka. Say a laptop dual core for human against unlimited hardware for the computer. Also a human in such a tournament should not lose any points for losing. This would make playing Rybka a lot less stressful and might give us some really beautiful games to look at. I am sure it would have tremendous interest and thus a good advertising boost for the tournament.
> I refer the gentleman to the answer I gave a moment ago
You need to put "honourable" before gentleman. With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.
"Gentleman" is far too politically incorrect these days. It's either "honourable" or "right honourable" (if privy councillor) member ...
Ok ok I'm putting my Hansard away now.
Ok ok I'm putting my Hansard away now.
I disagree
Using computers for analysis is not the same as playing them.
If you do extra preperation against computers then you look for positions that they do not understand when humans use computer to analyze line that they play that are usually not positions that programs do not understand.
Uri
Using computers for analysis is not the same as playing them.
If you do extra preperation against computers then you look for positions that they do not understand when humans use computer to analyze line that they play that are usually not positions that programs do not understand.
Uri
Really what I'm saying is that this "extra preparation" has basically already been done: the GM knows from experience which positions should be referred to the computer, and so he just uses reverse logic in actual matches.
No
The GM does not know it from experience.
The GM is using computer to analyze lines that he plays in practical games and not to analyze lines that he never plays and the computer is relatively weak at them.
Suppose that the GM can perform at level of 2700 in case of learning the line 1.e4 c5
Suppose that the GM can perform at level of 2600 in case of learning the line 1.e4 e6
Suppose that the computer can perform at level of 3000 in case of learning the line 1.e4 c5
Suppose that the computer can perfrom at level of 2600 in case of learning the line 1.e4 e6
It is a bad idea for the GM to invest time on 1.e4 e6 in case of playing against humans when
it is a good idea for the GM to learn this line if he prepares against the computer
Uri
The GM does not know it from experience.
The GM is using computer to analyze lines that he plays in practical games and not to analyze lines that he never plays and the computer is relatively weak at them.
Suppose that the GM can perform at level of 2700 in case of learning the line 1.e4 c5
Suppose that the GM can perform at level of 2600 in case of learning the line 1.e4 e6
Suppose that the computer can perform at level of 3000 in case of learning the line 1.e4 c5
Suppose that the computer can perfrom at level of 2600 in case of learning the line 1.e4 e6
It is a bad idea for the GM to invest time on 1.e4 e6 in case of playing against humans when
it is a good idea for the GM to learn this line if he prepares against the computer
Uri
I see--we're talking about different types of preparation--I was talking in terms of "preparation" in terms of knowing what lines to play against a computer, as opposed to detailed research into the intricacies of the said lines. The general preparation is something he already has; the detailed preparation may be something that he would need--but that is true against human opponents, too, and sometimes to an even greater extent if his opponent often plays some opening line(s) that he can somewhat force from the early positions.
![[gr]](/mwf/v12/flags/gr.png "Greece")
That's not right you have to play against other 7 players and get the highest possible score. It's not more comlicate.
But of course chess is a bussiness a little one compare to others but a business so a probable score for a progtam like 12/14 would be katastrof.
By the way i think the worst moment for computer chess history was Hydra performance over Adams. Humans don't let that happen again easily. If Hydra could do it once can be again and thats enough of a proof.
Of course a match with Hydra, although highly improbable, could be an indirect indicate.
But of course chess is a bussiness a little one compare to others but a business so a probable score for a progtam like 12/14 would be katastrof.
By the way i think the worst moment for computer chess history was Hydra performance over Adams. Humans don't let that happen again easily. If Hydra could do it once can be again and thats enough of a proof.
Of course a match with Hydra, although highly improbable, could be an indirect indicate.
I agree with gambito:
"As a personal opinion, and a little bit out of topic, I think it would be very interesting to see Rybka playing in a very strong human as Linares chess tournament where the best humans are participating. This can clear some doubts about what an entity can do with that incredible and eloquent colossal strength. "
The elo of Rybka is about engines chess, but with the top human of chess, this eloquent fall in value.
The match with Dzindzi shows that you can win and above all tie, although it with a pawn advantage.
"As a personal opinion, and a little bit out of topic, I think it would be very interesting to see Rybka playing in a very strong human as Linares chess tournament where the best humans are participating. This can clear some doubts about what an entity can do with that incredible and eloquent colossal strength. "
The elo of Rybka is about engines chess, but with the top human of chess, this eloquent fall in value.
The match with Dzindzi shows that you can win and above all tie, although it with a pawn advantage.
> although it with a pawn advantage.
Don't forget it was Pawn+Move.
where would one go to get a 8 Cpu computer? i'm in canada.... but even if it's an american website that would be nice
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill