1
2
Dear Vas,
sorry for asking you this, but I think that our community is nervy and will know when the newst update will come out.
Or please give us a time time interval, after Eastern?
Best wishes
Steppenwolf
sorry for asking you this, but I think that our community is nervy and will know when the newst update will come out.
Or please give us a time time interval, after Eastern?
Best wishes
Steppenwolf
![[dk]](/mwf/v12/flags/dk.png "Denmark")
No nerves here ;) She comes when she comes!
Hopefully not for awhile yet...
I just found a bug in Rybka 2.3.1 and reported it in a thread here "a real Rybka 2.3.1 crash!". It is reproducible and others have confirmed it.
So that one will need to be fixed, still, and maybe others.
I just found a bug in Rybka 2.3.1 and reported it in a thread here "a real Rybka 2.3.1 crash!". It is reproducible and others have confirmed it.
So that one will need to be fixed, still, and maybe others.
Agree.
![[il]](/mwf/v12/flags/il.png "Israel")
time interval
06.04.2007-01.01.2008
I did not ask Vas about it but I guess that Vas will agree with that time interval.
06.04.2007-01.01.2008
I did not ask Vas about it but I guess that Vas will agree with that time interval.
![[ro]](/mwf/v12/flags/ro.png "Romania")
HI !
Are they any problem here ?????
Rybka seems to be an entremely sick project & engine after the posts in this forum.A lot of defects in opening, middlegame , endgame & not only.The envious-a true Klu-Klux-Klan of computer chess-are ready to lynch it. Rybka is a true cancer for some vain glorious engine authors & not only.Despite their hopeless efforts Rybka is no.1 in all rating lists and in most big engine tournaments from December 2005.
What disaster !!!!!!!!!!!
It's a true comedy to see sach great names in computer chess hardly working without any chance to dethrone Rybka .The explanation is simple: they doesn't KNOW how to built a better engine.You can see around this project all the defects of the human nature.So sorry !
Better Rybka 2.3.2 never exist.
Regards,
SilvianR
Are they any problem here ?????
Rybka seems to be an entremely sick project & engine after the posts in this forum.A lot of defects in opening, middlegame , endgame & not only.The envious-a true Klu-Klux-Klan of computer chess-are ready to lynch it. Rybka is a true cancer for some vain glorious engine authors & not only.Despite their hopeless efforts Rybka is no.1 in all rating lists and in most big engine tournaments from December 2005.
What disaster !!!!!!!!!!!
It's a true comedy to see sach great names in computer chess hardly working without any chance to dethrone Rybka .The explanation is simple: they doesn't KNOW how to built a better engine.You can see around this project all the defects of the human nature.So sorry !
Better Rybka 2.3.2 never exist.
Regards,
SilvianR
By Michael Waesch ![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
Date 2007-04-06 07:43
After running a lot of local tournaments, it became quite obvious that Rybka only has one substantial advantage over other engines: It plays very well in late middle-game, outplaying most of its competitors. That´s all. Most other engines can effortlessly compete with Rybka up to this point. Once this advantage is gone, the superiority of Rybka is also gone.
Mike
Mike
![[cz]](/mwf/v12/flags/cz.png "Czech Republic")
Rybka 2.3.2 out after 7e International CSVN Tournament (ICT) 18-20 May in Leiden Netherlands, maybe.
http://www.csvn.nl
http://f27.parsimony.net/forum67828/messages/5432.htm
http://www.csvn.nl
http://f27.parsimony.net/forum67828/messages/5432.htm
![[hu]](/mwf/v12/flags/hu.png "Hungary")
I should no-comment even that one :)
Seriously, it's not that far away. Please be patient.
Vas
Seriously, it's not that far away. Please be patient.
Vas
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
All right, all you Rajlichologists, let's carefully parse the phrase "it's not that far away". Could it be days? A week? A few weeks? A month? A few months? A year? A few years? What is Vasik's time reference? Is it based on earth chronological time, is it more metaphoric or metaphysic in nature, or is it indicative of a "tomorrow / tomorrow / tomorrow is soon enough for me" outlook? Is Vasik in our same time continuum?
And beyond 2.3.2 lies the great intergalactic time-void to 3.0, which must seem many millions of light-years away to the denizens of this forum.
And beyond 2.3.2 lies the great intergalactic time-void to 3.0, which must seem many millions of light-years away to the denizens of this forum.
By Michael Waesch
Date 2007-04-06 16:53
My insights may be provoking, may be as usual, but I see it that way:
Why on earth can´t we simply wait until we get it? Are we all kids who can not wait until Christmas for opening our presents. What for do we need always brand-hot-just-compiled new releases of chess engines? Why? There is absolutely no need for that:
1) Engine gamers: If you got it, everyone else got it. No edge for you!
2) Correspondence Chess: I simply consider this form of chess as Cheating-Chess, unless both players use their own brains. If not, why the hell interfere at all? Just go to Playchess/ICC/FICS and let it play.
3) Analysis of human games: Well, now hands up! Who of you has grandmaster level, so that you really realize the difference in playing strength between the "old" version and the "new" distribution of that fine engine?
Mike
Why on earth can´t we simply wait until we get it? Are we all kids who can not wait until Christmas for opening our presents. What for do we need always brand-hot-just-compiled new releases of chess engines? Why? There is absolutely no need for that:
1) Engine gamers: If you got it, everyone else got it. No edge for you!
2) Correspondence Chess: I simply consider this form of chess as Cheating-Chess, unless both players use their own brains. If not, why the hell interfere at all? Just go to Playchess/ICC/FICS and let it play.
3) Analysis of human games: Well, now hands up! Who of you has grandmaster level, so that you really realize the difference in playing strength between the "old" version and the "new" distribution of that fine engine?
Mike
I do not need to be GM strength to know that there are positions when rybka is wrong in them including my own games.
Based on my experience these position happen mainly in the endgame and there was a case when rybka needed a long time to find a winning move that I played and in another case when I missed a win in time trouble rybka also could not see easily that I win the game.
Uri
Based on my experience these position happen mainly in the endgame and there was a case when rybka needed a long time to find a winning move that I played and in another case when I missed a win in time trouble rybka also could not see easily that I win the game.
Uri
By Michael Waesch
Date 2007-04-06 18:08
In both cases you seem to have already had the correct judgement of the position. So why would you need an engine anyway?
I was referring to positions that are unclear and where you seek help from the engine. Rybka may be the strongest out there by now, but is by far not unbeatable. It´s like the doctors. Ask 10 engines for their "evaluation" and you get 11 different opinions. Now choose. In addition to that I think Chess has evolved into something totally perverted. Faster, higher, deeper, jump, run, do make. That´s simply not what Chess was meant for. Nowadays people use computers for help and force others to do the same in order to stay competitive. Tomorrow we use brain implants and force others to do the same and so on having only the ones to win which can afford the best OS for their brains-implants and the engines and RAM installed. And then, when we all mutated into zombies, totally being controlled by machines - while Chess already has lost its permittance to our lives and is only played by our brain implants for money, "honor", prestige and power - yes, then Chess will eventually be solved, rendering even the remnants of a totally abused games futile...
But of course, the implants will stay and send their reports to their masters for evaluation of future controlling of humans besides "Chess"...
Chess is a game! Not more not less. Even learning opening theory is putting in way too much energy which should be better be spent for more serious things.
Mike
I was referring to positions that are unclear and where you seek help from the engine. Rybka may be the strongest out there by now, but is by far not unbeatable. It´s like the doctors. Ask 10 engines for their "evaluation" and you get 11 different opinions. Now choose. In addition to that I think Chess has evolved into something totally perverted. Faster, higher, deeper, jump, run, do make. That´s simply not what Chess was meant for. Nowadays people use computers for help and force others to do the same in order to stay competitive. Tomorrow we use brain implants and force others to do the same and so on having only the ones to win which can afford the best OS for their brains-implants and the engines and RAM installed. And then, when we all mutated into zombies, totally being controlled by machines - while Chess already has lost its permittance to our lives and is only played by our brain implants for money, "honor", prestige and power - yes, then Chess will eventually be solved, rendering even the remnants of a totally abused games futile...
But of course, the implants will stay and send their reports to their masters for evaluation of future controlling of humans besides "Chess"...
Chess is a game! Not more not less. Even learning opening theory is putting in way too much energy which should be better be spent for more serious things.
Mike
![[cr]](/mwf/v12/flags/cr.png "Costa Rica")
:-) The answer is very simple.
We are addicts to the chess game, we always want to have the best chess program of the chess world. It doesn't import so much our level.
Regards,
Gambitto.
What am I to make of the latest Waeschian dystopia? Brain-implants, zombies...good heavens!
Chess is a game which, when played without machine involvement, requires certain mental attributes to play well.
When played with machine assistance, it requires a different set of mental attributes to play well, assuming the opponent is also receiving machine assistance. (If you don't believe that ask the Freestyle champion how human intervention was critical many times during the tournament, and how many different things had to be managed, arranged, processed, prepared.)
When played between machines, it requires mainly a big wallet to play well and to a lesser extent a lot of time.
In all cases chess is being played, and it is a game. In all cases the parties involved receive enjoyment and diversion--otherwise they would not do it. So here's my question: why are you so critical of people who get enjoyment in their own way? My brain-implanted zombie-friends want to know.
Chess is a game which, when played without machine involvement, requires certain mental attributes to play well.
When played with machine assistance, it requires a different set of mental attributes to play well, assuming the opponent is also receiving machine assistance. (If you don't believe that ask the Freestyle champion how human intervention was critical many times during the tournament, and how many different things had to be managed, arranged, processed, prepared.)
When played between machines, it requires mainly a big wallet to play well and to a lesser extent a lot of time.
In all cases chess is being played, and it is a game. In all cases the parties involved receive enjoyment and diversion--otherwise they would not do it. So here's my question: why are you so critical of people who get enjoyment in their own way? My brain-implanted zombie-friends want to know.
Michael's missives always remind me of the self-flagulation scene from "The Holy Grail":
Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem.
[bonk]
Pie Iesu domine,...
[bonk]
...dona eis requiem.
[bonk]
Pie Iesu domine,...
[bonk]
...dona eis requiem.
[bonk]
This time I learn that correspondance chess is really Cheating Chess UNLESS BOTH PLAYERS USE THEIR OWN BRAINS. What if only one player uses his own brain? And why are some Cheating Chess players better than others? I am hoping to learn the answers to these questions and more in Michael's future posts.
Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem.
[bonk]
Pie Iesu domine,...
[bonk]
...dona eis requiem.
[bonk]
Pie Iesu domine,...
[bonk]
...dona eis requiem.
[bonk]
This time I learn that correspondance chess is really Cheating Chess UNLESS BOTH PLAYERS USE THEIR OWN BRAINS. What if only one player uses his own brain? And why are some Cheating Chess players better than others? I am hoping to learn the answers to these questions and more in Michael's future posts.
Why am I not surprised that you'd cite this movie, probably the one I have seen more often than any other?
Bravely Bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die, oh Brave Sir Robin.
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways.
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!
He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp.
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken.
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, Brave Sir Robin.
His head smashed in
And his heart cut out
And his liver removed
And his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped
And his bottom burnt off
And his penis split... ("That's--that's enough music for now, lads!")
Bravely Bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die, oh Brave Sir Robin.
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways.
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!
He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp.
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken.
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, Brave Sir Robin.
His head smashed in
And his heart cut out
And his liver removed
And his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped
And his bottom burnt off
And his penis split... ("That's--that's enough music for now, lads!")
Nelson,
Michael has pretty much trashed all of my hobbies. After giving this more thought, I've convinced myself that all hobbies, not just mine, are, in the big scheme of things, a complete waste of time; So becoming one of these monks seems likes my only reasonable alternative. By the way, this is of course the beginning of the She's a Witch scene, which should be required reading for all classes on logical fallacies.
The Tale of Sir Robin is also certainly one of the best parts of the movie, but my favorite part of the song was after he met the three headed knight and Bravely Ran Away Away.
Alan
Michael has pretty much trashed all of my hobbies. After giving this more thought, I've convinced myself that all hobbies, not just mine, are, in the big scheme of things, a complete waste of time; So becoming one of these monks seems likes my only reasonable alternative. By the way, this is of course the beginning of the She's a Witch scene, which should be required reading for all classes on logical fallacies.
The Tale of Sir Robin is also certainly one of the best parts of the movie, but my favorite part of the song was after he met the three headed knight and Bravely Ran Away Away.
Alan
By Michael Waesch
Date 2007-04-07 07:53
Leave the brain implants and the zombies aside and you also could ask your question Emanuel Lasker who also wrote that Chess never should given the rank of more serious things in human life. If someone wants to heal cancer he may put in as much energy and computer calculation force he wishes, but for chess it´s just heating up your room and the world´s atmosphere for almost nothing - while you could also get pretty good results using your own brain, board, pieces, pencil and a score sheet.
Some years ago, during the reign of the Fritzies, someone told me that Deep Fritz 8 and his dual is a nice thing. Then I ask him, if his overkill machines and his Deep versions would make him win. His answer: "No, but it keeps my room nice warm in the winters."...
I just see not much sense having two toasters corresponding with each other producing a whole lot of data nobody really needs. Hands down. We already discussed all the flaws of engines, opening book formats and idiotic book making strategies. Now if one argues that I shouldn´t be that critical with people having fun their own way - the same is true for me having fun looking at all the futile efforts of people in their strive to get an edge on Playchess/ICC or whereever.
Must I really go into detail again?
I. If you use the Chessbase´s native CTG-format for your books, you are dead meat. It will just play the move that has been most played according to its statistics and not the moves that may have higher winning percentage but weren´t played that often. I think that just this covers 90% of all engine gamers in their to no avail efforts in engine chess.
II. Now there are even people using 64 (or even more) processors for chess! Do you think you have a chance using your measly 8-way comp? Think again!
III. No one will ever have a persisting successful opening book. No one. Just go ahead an turn your life into a book-editing and machine serving thingy, but you will fail nevertheless. A new version comes out and you start from scratch. Your engine is discontinued and you start from scratch. A competitive engine becomes better than the recent top dog and you start from scratch.
IV. You simply can´t do anything against coincidential winning streaks of your opponents draining your "precious" rating. You can not counter measure luck by science or work. That simple.
V. And if you really are into professional book-editing, people just copy your lines on Playchess easily and effortlessly and have them in their books too. I already mentioned that on ICC you have the ability to slow down that process because you can block out kiebitzers completely. But in the end it´s just a slowdown.
It all comes down that people play a vast amount of automated games, never really to be watched and enjoyed, only struggling to keep on top of the things, putting in more data that will be copied and used by others who didn´t work for it - and maintain at least a somewhat high rating so that people are willing to play your comp.
And my opinions on engine chess are more directed to people who still aren´t too deeply envolved right now for thinking if it´s not the better way to just play on their own, using their own brain, improving their own play! And although I always was very critical I always let you have your downloads from my site until it needed to be worked over which I simply can not do presently due to heavy health complications.
So now ask Mr. Hernandez who already works on a big non-ctg database which meets all the requirements that CTG fails to provide, who does very well on Playchess or saying it in his own words "I am on average 8 moves longer in book than the guys on Playchess" - yes, ask the man with an obsessively large database of high quality games if he shares them with you! And if you are at it, don´t forget also to ask who provided him with quite a lot of games, often even not asking for something in return.
Mike
Some years ago, during the reign of the Fritzies, someone told me that Deep Fritz 8 and his dual is a nice thing. Then I ask him, if his overkill machines and his Deep versions would make him win. His answer: "No, but it keeps my room nice warm in the winters."...
I just see not much sense having two toasters corresponding with each other producing a whole lot of data nobody really needs. Hands down. We already discussed all the flaws of engines, opening book formats and idiotic book making strategies. Now if one argues that I shouldn´t be that critical with people having fun their own way - the same is true for me having fun looking at all the futile efforts of people in their strive to get an edge on Playchess/ICC or whereever.
Must I really go into detail again?
I. If you use the Chessbase´s native CTG-format for your books, you are dead meat. It will just play the move that has been most played according to its statistics and not the moves that may have higher winning percentage but weren´t played that often. I think that just this covers 90% of all engine gamers in their to no avail efforts in engine chess.
II. Now there are even people using 64 (or even more) processors for chess! Do you think you have a chance using your measly 8-way comp? Think again!
III. No one will ever have a persisting successful opening book. No one. Just go ahead an turn your life into a book-editing and machine serving thingy, but you will fail nevertheless. A new version comes out and you start from scratch. Your engine is discontinued and you start from scratch. A competitive engine becomes better than the recent top dog and you start from scratch.
IV. You simply can´t do anything against coincidential winning streaks of your opponents draining your "precious" rating. You can not counter measure luck by science or work. That simple.
V. And if you really are into professional book-editing, people just copy your lines on Playchess easily and effortlessly and have them in their books too. I already mentioned that on ICC you have the ability to slow down that process because you can block out kiebitzers completely. But in the end it´s just a slowdown.
It all comes down that people play a vast amount of automated games, never really to be watched and enjoyed, only struggling to keep on top of the things, putting in more data that will be copied and used by others who didn´t work for it - and maintain at least a somewhat high rating so that people are willing to play your comp.
And my opinions on engine chess are more directed to people who still aren´t too deeply envolved right now for thinking if it´s not the better way to just play on their own, using their own brain, improving their own play! And although I always was very critical I always let you have your downloads from my site until it needed to be worked over which I simply can not do presently due to heavy health complications.
So now ask Mr. Hernandez who already works on a big non-ctg database which meets all the requirements that CTG fails to provide, who does very well on Playchess or saying it in his own words "I am on average 8 moves longer in book than the guys on Playchess" - yes, ask the man with an obsessively large database of high quality games if he shares them with you! And if you are at it, don´t forget also to ask who provided him with quite a lot of games, often even not asking for something in return.
Mike
Mike, people can always play Freestyle chess :-)
In a sense, I think the main problem is the repetitive nature of the engine room. No game or occasion stands out, it is just game after game after game leading to no "highs".
If you think of it, human or GM chess would be just as boring if it only consisted of endless sessions of blitz chess, at least eventually. Nothing would stand out, except for a number on a blitz rating list.
Instead, humans only play a limited number of long games and then bring all their preparation and training to the table. The games get noticed, they can be a satisfactory culmination to a lot of hard (and fun) work, and recognition is achieved.
Perhaps you could consider engine chess not as an end in itself, but rather as a fun way to prepare for Freestyle chess tournaments that share the same positive characteristics.
In a sense, I think the main problem is the repetitive nature of the engine room. No game or occasion stands out, it is just game after game after game leading to no "highs".
If you think of it, human or GM chess would be just as boring if it only consisted of endless sessions of blitz chess, at least eventually. Nothing would stand out, except for a number on a blitz rating list.
Instead, humans only play a limited number of long games and then bring all their preparation and training to the table. The games get noticed, they can be a satisfactory culmination to a lot of hard (and fun) work, and recognition is achieved.
Perhaps you could consider engine chess not as an end in itself, but rather as a fun way to prepare for Freestyle chess tournaments that share the same positive characteristics.
Thank you, Dagh. There you have it, the #1 and #2 finishers in the recent Freestyle in total agreement.
Item I. While I agree totally that .ctg format books are woefully sub-optimal (putting it nicely), a lot of people use them and do rather well if they have the hardware. And if they don't have the hardware they reach their own level. However insensibly, the level of play in the Playchess engine room has increased dramatically in the past six years due to technology and better software...all for the good, I think. This has happened even with most people using execrable .ctg books.
Item II. As Dagh and the Cato team demonstrated you don't need 64 processors or even 8 processors to be successful at Freestyle. Or even blitz. So your comment is just hyperbole.
Item III. I very much disagree with you. This is just statistically and conceptually incorrect (though I am not going to refute your argument as my opening book theorizing is not for public discussion). You have never really understood where opening books fit into the whole picture and what is reasonable to expect from them (and not expect).
Item IV. Very true, and totally irrelevant. Not everyone cares about ELO. People play for their own reasons. I realized very early on that ELO-hunting is pointless and ephemeral. Being #1 in the ELO rankings is an empty and fleeting achievement. So there must be something else that motivates you.
Item V. It's even worse than you say, Michael. So far this year I have only played 35 games on the Playchess server precisely for the reason you cite. And half of them were Freestyle, and I didn't even personally play those games! So I am REALLY obsessive about not sharing games. I might add, the "eight moves deeper" remark is pure b.s. without proper explanatory qualifiers, but again, I won't offer those qualifiers. Cast not pearls.
For me this hobby is all about Freestyle: pure competition against the brightest minds in the hobby. Arguably my team is in the top five in the world now. That's really an achievement, and it is the product of years of intense work. It's very easy for you to snipe on the sidelines and diminish the work of others but this habit of yours begs some questions which I am too much of a gentleman to ask.
Item II. As Dagh and the Cato team demonstrated you don't need 64 processors or even 8 processors to be successful at Freestyle. Or even blitz. So your comment is just hyperbole.
Item III. I very much disagree with you. This is just statistically and conceptually incorrect (though I am not going to refute your argument as my opening book theorizing is not for public discussion). You have never really understood where opening books fit into the whole picture and what is reasonable to expect from them (and not expect).
Item IV. Very true, and totally irrelevant. Not everyone cares about ELO. People play for their own reasons. I realized very early on that ELO-hunting is pointless and ephemeral. Being #1 in the ELO rankings is an empty and fleeting achievement. So there must be something else that motivates you.
Item V. It's even worse than you say, Michael. So far this year I have only played 35 games on the Playchess server precisely for the reason you cite. And half of them were Freestyle, and I didn't even personally play those games! So I am REALLY obsessive about not sharing games. I might add, the "eight moves deeper" remark is pure b.s. without proper explanatory qualifiers, but again, I won't offer those qualifiers. Cast not pearls.
For me this hobby is all about Freestyle: pure competition against the brightest minds in the hobby. Arguably my team is in the top five in the world now. That's really an achievement, and it is the product of years of intense work. It's very easy for you to snipe on the sidelines and diminish the work of others but this habit of yours begs some questions which I am too much of a gentleman to ask.
By Michael Waesch
Date 2007-04-08 07:33
Sorry, but #2 definetely wasn´t aimed at the freestyle tournaments which never attracted me. It´s just like a school exam where everyone is allowed to use any method to get the answers. I simply see no point in that. Yes, the prizes, okay - but it´s not for me. I was talking about guys who use more than 64 processor computers - just for chess while serious laboratories often lack of proper equipment to do research which could help us all... Now you will surely tell me all your well prepared stories of how humans are and that it has been like that since the dawn of man and therefore why not just accept it. Sometimes I just think you believe all this what you say.
#3: I am as long into engine chess as you are, probably longer. It´s certainly not very polite to just assume that I have no clue. What ever you do in you top secret matter of national security statistics you will never ever come beyond the fact that there are no absolute truths in chess. Your statistics can give you some good guesses and if you really only play few games even a theoretical edge. Now so what? May be you have some good lines, but whenever it comes to actual game play you must fear they get simply copied.
Mike
#3: I am as long into engine chess as you are, probably longer. It´s certainly not very polite to just assume that I have no clue. What ever you do in you top secret matter of national security statistics you will never ever come beyond the fact that there are no absolute truths in chess. Your statistics can give you some good guesses and if you really only play few games even a theoretical edge. Now so what? May be you have some good lines, but whenever it comes to actual game play you must fear they get simply copied.
Mike
A school exam where everyone is allowed to use any method to get the answers is kind of like work isn't it?
Anyway, its well known that freestyle requires more than just chess knowledge to win. Nelson's team has better database tools than anyone else and a more extensive database too. Since he rarely plays, the number of lines that are available to be copied is a miniscule fraction of the total. The effectiveness of his teams technique is easy to judge by its effectiveness in making the finals and doing well in them. Its hard to argue with success.
Alan
Anyway, its well known that freestyle requires more than just chess knowledge to win. Nelson's team has better database tools than anyone else and a more extensive database too. Since he rarely plays, the number of lines that are available to be copied is a miniscule fraction of the total. The effectiveness of his teams technique is easy to judge by its effectiveness in making the finals and doing well in them. Its hard to argue with success.
Alan
By Michael Waesch
Date 2007-04-08 10:17
Sounds like a rich man who always is in frustrating fear of robbers ...
And I do not doubt that he has some sort of success, I am just criticizing the relation between the work/energy put in and the result which I simply look at as something being proven that absolutely needn´t to be proven.
My point was that I think that the game of Chess is developing sometimes in a totally wrong, futile and perverted direction which just leads nowhere and when the best of all these cases just yields the extinction of the game itself, I just think that I have a point criticizing it no matter if people like it or not.
Chess has a limited set of legal moves - no matter if homo inferior has the capabilities to check them all or not. Putting more and more computer power into researching these possibilities will eventually lead to a solve of the game and might completely destroy it.
Let me cite the movie "Wargames".
Dr. Falken: "Have you ever played Tic-Tac-Toe?"
Jennifer: "Yes."
Dr. Falken: "But now, you don´t play it any longer. Why?"
Jennifer: "Well, It´s boring! You can´t win! It´s always a stalemate!".
Well, just forgive me my bad translation into English, but I think you all got the point.
IMO Chess is a game for humans. Invented by humans for humans. Humans are supposed to deal with the game and sharpen their logical abilities - have fun with the game and try out new ways in a playful way. Setting brute computer calculation force on it can do only harm to the game. I absolutely do not believe in arguments that computers bring us forwards in chess. Yes, they showed us new ways, refuted old ones and de-throwned man already. Well, let me say it very drastically: I simply sh*t on all that. I couldn´t care less! It´s a game of man and I refuse to let it be taken away by a machine which is supposed to serve me - not the other way round!
I have fun playing Chess and sometimes I am even able to improve my play and learn from mistakes - the human way. I sh*t on all computer found moves that might be 0.00000000000000x better than my move, but resulting in a position I do not like, I can not handle and therefore I can not play. I am a human and have no TB big storage devices or the already mentioned brain implants that stores all the necessary information for me (not yet, but surely Mr. Hernandez´ efforts will make it happen one day), so I need to have a repertoire of openings I feel comfortable with.
Sure, I am a Patzer, but I have fun with the game. I enjoy playing, making it a part of my life. It keeps my spirits flowing, it helps my creativity in other fields too.
Mike
And I do not doubt that he has some sort of success, I am just criticizing the relation between the work/energy put in and the result which I simply look at as something being proven that absolutely needn´t to be proven.
My point was that I think that the game of Chess is developing sometimes in a totally wrong, futile and perverted direction which just leads nowhere and when the best of all these cases just yields the extinction of the game itself, I just think that I have a point criticizing it no matter if people like it or not.
Chess has a limited set of legal moves - no matter if homo inferior has the capabilities to check them all or not. Putting more and more computer power into researching these possibilities will eventually lead to a solve of the game and might completely destroy it.
Let me cite the movie "Wargames".
Dr. Falken: "Have you ever played Tic-Tac-Toe?"
Jennifer: "Yes."
Dr. Falken: "But now, you don´t play it any longer. Why?"
Jennifer: "Well, It´s boring! You can´t win! It´s always a stalemate!".
Well, just forgive me my bad translation into English, but I think you all got the point.
IMO Chess is a game for humans. Invented by humans for humans. Humans are supposed to deal with the game and sharpen their logical abilities - have fun with the game and try out new ways in a playful way. Setting brute computer calculation force on it can do only harm to the game. I absolutely do not believe in arguments that computers bring us forwards in chess. Yes, they showed us new ways, refuted old ones and de-throwned man already. Well, let me say it very drastically: I simply sh*t on all that. I couldn´t care less! It´s a game of man and I refuse to let it be taken away by a machine which is supposed to serve me - not the other way round!
I have fun playing Chess and sometimes I am even able to improve my play and learn from mistakes - the human way. I sh*t on all computer found moves that might be 0.00000000000000x better than my move, but resulting in a position I do not like, I can not handle and therefore I can not play. I am a human and have no TB big storage devices or the already mentioned brain implants that stores all the necessary information for me (not yet, but surely Mr. Hernandez´ efforts will make it happen one day), so I need to have a repertoire of openings I feel comfortable with.
Sure, I am a Patzer, but I have fun with the game. I enjoy playing, making it a part of my life. It keeps my spirits flowing, it helps my creativity in other fields too.
Mike
Well that's fine, don't use computers then. Freestyle chess is a way for people, ANYONE to play the highest level chess ever seen. It's still nowhere near perfect, but it's fun and takes a different set of skills than normal chess. If you just want to have fun playing, go to your local club and play. No one is stopping you.
Hush, Alan. I would never say I have a better book in 1.b3 than you. Other top players are certainly stronger in their own favorite lines, and they have their own formidable resources about which we know little. And finally, while an opening book is certainly an essential part of the arsenal, I rank it maybe fifth or sixth in importance. Every opening book in the world is vulnerable to innovation; the main function of a good book is to steer you away from early trouble--which is quite a lot, considering the caliber of the competition.
Do you know what I rank as the #1 most important element to success? Temperament. Ever seen a GM with manic-depression or anxiety attacks? Me neither. And certainly in the top five is mental/physical stamina. Concentrating intensely nine hours a day for three straight days is quite difficult to sustain; moreover it helps to have a capacious bladder and a cast-iron set of buttocks.
Do you know what I rank as the #1 most important element to success? Temperament. Ever seen a GM with manic-depression or anxiety attacks? Me neither. And certainly in the top five is mental/physical stamina. Concentrating intensely nine hours a day for three straight days is quite difficult to sustain; moreover it helps to have a capacious bladder and a cast-iron set of buttocks.
I've been through a few successful Freestyle events myself. Now I may not be the one to criticize you since I haven't actually won a Freestyle tournament, I'll give it a shot anyways. I think that the opening book is one of most important aspects of freestyle chess. Probably not the most important, choosing engines and how you use them is the most important, but I would say it's #2-#3 on my list. It's definately one that's easy to screw up, and it'll set apart the top tier teams(like yours) from the 2nd tier teams(like mine). After talking to a member of the ZachS team, I doubt they'd disagree with me. Our 5th round loss in the 2nd Freestyle to Hydra, for example, was a result of falling into a bad opening. But that's the beauty of it all, each team has their own way of playing/doing things, which is what makes freestyle worth playing:)
I don't disagree with any of your points (except after studying your Zor Champ game my first impression is not that you lost it straight out of the opening). I am only suggesting that there are other, more fundamental things that everyone takes for granted or overlooks entirely. The book is critical but it is only useful for 10 or 15 competition moves beyond which the data set is typically too thin to be relied upon when so much is at stake. As a general rule only the weakest players lose out of book; the rest are fighting to exit book with a one-tenth pawn advantage and maybe some extra time on the clock.
In the military they say that tactics is "doing things right" while strategy is "doing the right things". That is a good conceptual summation of how I look at Freestyle competition. You have to master both strategy and tactics, and each word implies a whole range of practical tools/actions/behaviors/insights that you assemble into an integrated whole that works for your team. (If I seem vague, that is by design!)
In the military they say that tactics is "doing things right" while strategy is "doing the right things". That is a good conceptual summation of how I look at Freestyle competition. You have to master both strategy and tactics, and each word implies a whole range of practical tools/actions/behaviors/insights that you assemble into an integrated whole that works for your team. (If I seem vague, that is by design!)
Hmmm, Bobby Fischer seems to fail the temperment test.
In any event, as you know very well, there is an enormous difference between having the right lines and being able to identify them in real time during a game. I would rate your team a clear first in the second category while agreeing that many other teams have more strength in particular lines (which you will carefully avoid). Of course there is more to the game than the opening, but the opening frequently narrows the possible outcomes from three to two so it can't be discounted. Other important factors in my opinion are search stratagy, teamwork (if you are playing on a team), and clock management (which is obviously highly correlated with the opening book). Chess knowledge is obviously important too, but it is far harder to improve than most of the other components.
Regards,
Alan
In any event, as you know very well, there is an enormous difference between having the right lines and being able to identify them in real time during a game. I would rate your team a clear first in the second category while agreeing that many other teams have more strength in particular lines (which you will carefully avoid). Of course there is more to the game than the opening, but the opening frequently narrows the possible outcomes from three to two so it can't be discounted. Other important factors in my opinion are search stratagy, teamwork (if you are playing on a team), and clock management (which is obviously highly correlated with the opening book). Chess knowledge is obviously important too, but it is far harder to improve than most of the other components.
Regards,
Alan
Bobby didn't play Freestyle. But he was a monomaniac, which fits perfectly.
Alan, you and I should co-author a book. Problem is, we'd have to pay people to read it.
Alan, you and I should co-author a book. Problem is, we'd have to pay people to read it.
Maybe something along the lines of the tried-and-true "Buy this book or we'll shoot this dog" marketing strategy?
Analyzing a position is usually a a constant exchange between machine and human. When the engine is wrong, one can figure this out (with the help of the engine, yes), but this takes more time. So, if the engine avoids suggestions that turn out to be incorrect later, it saves at least time, maybe also nerves :)
Jürgen
Jürgen
![[nz]](/mwf/v12/flags/nz.png "New Zealand")
But some of us are waiting for the PPC version and Vas has said this will come after 2.3.2.So the sooner this happens then people waiting for PPC version can be happy.The answer to this old riddle "What is always coming but never arrives" answer "tommorrow" might have a new answer "bug free Rybka".
![[br]](/mwf/v12/flags/br.png "Brazil")
What´s a PPC version?
Paulo Soares
Paulo Soares
PPC means Pocket PC.Should really say PDA as this includes Palm units.This has been promised from about October 2006 and has been kept on being delayed.
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
Yes. Everybody should say PDA as PPC really stands for PowerPC.
I read this originally thinking "What? Vas is producing Rybka for PowerPC?", but I'm glad I read on:)
Hi,
I hate to say it but I find myself agreeing with point 2 made by Michael ... I stopped playing correspondence chess back at the end of the 1980s when one of my games was published in a magazine and was edited by my opponent and one of his comments was " I have aquired Fritz 2?" and then quoted some of the machines analysis. Although the game was drawn it totally spoiled the idea of correspondence\E-mail chess for me ... The only form of that kind of `correspondence`??? online chess I play now is the game of Extinction Chess at www.itsyourturn.com ..... It is a shame that for all the good computers and chess engines have done for the game they have ruined correspondence chess at least in my humble opinion.
Regards
I hate to say it but I find myself agreeing with point 2 made by Michael ... I stopped playing correspondence chess back at the end of the 1980s when one of my games was published in a magazine and was edited by my opponent and one of his comments was " I have aquired Fritz 2?" and then quoted some of the machines analysis. Although the game was drawn it totally spoiled the idea of correspondence\E-mail chess for me ... The only form of that kind of `correspondence`??? online chess I play now is the game of Extinction Chess at www.itsyourturn.com ..... It is a shame that for all the good computers and chess engines have done for the game they have ruined correspondence chess at least in my humble opinion.
Regards
![[be]](/mwf/v12/flags/be.png "Belgium")
Video killed the radio star.... computers killed correspondence chess.
I couldn't agree with you more, BigBen!
(Now fortunately I use engines only and ONLY for analysing human-human games and trying to learn from my mistakes)
best regards,
Roger
I couldn't agree with you more, BigBen!
(Now fortunately I use engines only and ONLY for analysing human-human games and trying to learn from my mistakes)
best regards,
Roger
If someone or something killed correspondence chess, why does ICCF have more than 15,000 active players(played at least one game in last 5 years)?
Many posters here don't have a clue about correspondence chess.
Many posters here don't have a clue about correspondence chess.
Hi,
True correspondence chess is dead as in human v human ... I have friends who indeed play in the ICCF, BCCA and other organisations but computers are used by the great majority which is of course fine if that is what they want to do. So in fact it is now correspondence freestyle chess :) ... I used to subscribe to Tim Hardings correspondence magazine Chessmail http://www.chessmail.com/ but like many I became disillusioned and gave up that form of the game. It is human nature to want to win and you see weak OTB players with high correspondence grades and you know that they get there with computer aid ....
If you search the forum there are plenty who mention they want the best engine (hence Rybka) to help with correspondence chess ... Years ago players used to say they only used computers to JUST!! check they had not made a simple blunder, now many dont even understand the computer move they send to the opponent lol or am I being to cynical?
Regards
True correspondence chess is dead as in human v human ... I have friends who indeed play in the ICCF, BCCA and other organisations but computers are used by the great majority which is of course fine if that is what they want to do. So in fact it is now correspondence freestyle chess :) ... I used to subscribe to Tim Hardings correspondence magazine Chessmail http://www.chessmail.com/ but like many I became disillusioned and gave up that form of the game. It is human nature to want to win and you see weak OTB players with high correspondence grades and you know that they get there with computer aid ....
If you search the forum there are plenty who mention they want the best engine (hence Rybka) to help with correspondence chess ... Years ago players used to say they only used computers to JUST!! check they had not made a simple blunder, now many dont even understand the computer move they send to the opponent lol or am I being to cynical?
Regards
Hi,
I have one observation to make that you may agree with:
When corr. games are between human-human only, time usuage is not so incredibly crucial. Basically, if you, as a human, fail to see some move after having looked at a position for a long time, chances are that you also won't find it if you spent twice as much time. Of if this is wrong for a single position, I still think it would become true when a large number of positions are taken into the equation.
But when it is computer-assisted corr. chess, things are different. I tried this kind of chess a couple of times, but each time I grew incredibly frustrated. I would get some position that really didn't interest me. My human input (from a conceptual point of view) was <5%. "All" I "had" to do was assist my engine, as in Freestyle chess, and preferably do so for hours and hours in order to find the strongest and most tricky moves. I never had any doubt that I would be able to find the strongest move, or, at least, that more time spent would make my decision stronger. What I did have doubts about was whether this was a good way to spend my time. Invariably, I would escape the spell and overstep the time-limit.
Basically, this is why I love freestyle chess. You don't have to sacrifice your life in order to do your best.
I have one observation to make that you may agree with:
When corr. games are between human-human only, time usuage is not so incredibly crucial. Basically, if you, as a human, fail to see some move after having looked at a position for a long time, chances are that you also won't find it if you spent twice as much time. Of if this is wrong for a single position, I still think it would become true when a large number of positions are taken into the equation.
But when it is computer-assisted corr. chess, things are different. I tried this kind of chess a couple of times, but each time I grew incredibly frustrated. I would get some position that really didn't interest me. My human input (from a conceptual point of view) was <5%. "All" I "had" to do was assist my engine, as in Freestyle chess, and preferably do so for hours and hours in order to find the strongest and most tricky moves. I never had any doubt that I would be able to find the strongest move, or, at least, that more time spent would make my decision stronger. What I did have doubts about was whether this was a good way to spend my time. Invariably, I would escape the spell and overstep the time-limit.
Basically, this is why I love freestyle chess. You don't have to sacrifice your life in order to do your best.
By Michael Waesch
Date 2007-04-07 20:28
When we let our engines play chess and bragg with their achievement if they were ours, time is not so far away when we send our comps to the couch for letting them see our daily soaps, read our newspapers or let them collect stamps for us. May be, I am still hoping, when it comes that computers are supposed to eat our food for us, at least some notice that it will not function at all.
Mike
Mike
Hi,
I think you are correct a human can look at a position for an hour or a day and still play a bad move (even a total blunder) ... Most of the time the weaker the player the more basic the error but with a computer you dont get a really bad move.
Freestyle chess is a good idea you get to put your concepts into practice be it in the opening etc and you are not trying to fool anyone that it is you the human playing all the moves.
Regards
I think you are correct a human can look at a position for an hour or a day and still play a bad move (even a total blunder) ... Most of the time the weaker the player the more basic the error but with a computer you dont get a really bad move.
Freestyle chess is a good idea you get to put your concepts into practice be it in the opening etc and you are not trying to fool anyone that it is you the human playing all the moves.
Regards
Making a total blunder by humans after using long time is simply impossible if you think correctly.
Note that part of thinking correctly is making a list of all legal moves in every position that you analyze.
Of course it is impossible in normal chess because you have no time for it and you cannot remember everything but it is certainly possible if you decide to give hours for every move in correspondence game when computers are not allowed.
Uri
Note that part of thinking correctly is making a list of all legal moves in every position that you analyze.
Of course it is impossible in normal chess because you have no time for it and you cannot remember everything but it is certainly possible if you decide to give hours for every move in correspondence game when computers are not allowed.
Uri
Hi,
Blunders by humans happen often in correspondence chess when players do not use computers ... It may simply be a short combination that a player overlooks which loses material ...
Uri when you mention `correspondence games when computers are not allowed` that is the crux of the problem, PLAYERS USE COMPUTERS even if they are not suposed to and it is impossible to prove one way or the other in 99.9% of cases
Regards
Blunders by humans happen often in correspondence chess when players do not use computers ... It may simply be a short combination that a player overlooks which loses material ...
Uri when you mention `correspondence games when computers are not allowed` that is the crux of the problem, PLAYERS USE COMPUTERS even if they are not suposed to and it is impossible to prove one way or the other in 99.9% of cases
Regards
It is correct that blunders happen often in correspondence chess and the reason is that the players simply do not care much about the result or simply do not know how to think correctly(When I talk about blunders I do not mean to mistake when you need some complex combination to win but something that is easy to see).
Based on my experience computers are usually not used when computers are not allowed
otherwise I could not have better rating than 97% of the players in gameknot.com and I use computers only for database and I do not use chess engines for analysis in games that I play in that site.
Note that I also do not do the best that I can do without engines(I do not spend hours on thinking what move to play)
Uri
Based on my experience computers are usually not used when computers are not allowed
otherwise I could not have better rating than 97% of the players in gameknot.com and I use computers only for database and I do not use chess engines for analysis in games that I play in that site.
Note that I also do not do the best that I can do without engines(I do not spend hours on thinking what move to play)
Uri
Hi Uri,
I must admit to knowing nothing about gameknot.com ... I used to play at www.itsyourturn.com which I think has been about much longer and I think has a wide variety of games to play and many chess variants ... For me and please correct me if I am wrong but is not the ICCF the place to be with CC or at least one of the many postal clubs that have been going for many years such as (for in the UK) www.bcca.info/ which has been going for over 100 years and there are others but I have not checked for many years ... I remember www.letsplaychess.com which may be the biggest online with 400,000 members ... I understand the ease of playing online etc but I am set in my ways lol :) there was always something nice about waiting for your opponents latest move to be delivered by the postman (yeah some got lost) all I get these days are bills asking for money lol
I have to admit to be one of those who did take hours over moves which is prob why I am so against computers in correspondence chess. What may take me hours to figure out an opponent can prob let his engine find the answer in a few minutes lol or go have dinner and leave the engine searching for longer maybe even all night. It will never be the way it was and so things move on :)
Regards
I must admit to knowing nothing about gameknot.com ... I used to play at www.itsyourturn.com which I think has been about much longer and I think has a wide variety of games to play and many chess variants ... For me and please correct me if I am wrong but is not the ICCF the place to be with CC or at least one of the many postal clubs that have been going for many years such as (for in the UK) www.bcca.info/ which has been going for over 100 years and there are others but I have not checked for many years ... I remember www.letsplaychess.com which may be the biggest online with 400,000 members ... I understand the ease of playing online etc but I am set in my ways lol :) there was always something nice about waiting for your opponents latest move to be delivered by the postman (yeah some got lost) all I get these days are bills asking for money lol
I have to admit to be one of those who did take hours over moves which is prob why I am so against computers in correspondence chess. What may take me hours to figure out an opponent can prob let his engine find the answer in a few minutes lol or go have dinner and leave the engine searching for longer maybe even all night. It will never be the way it was and so things move on :)
Regards
Computers are allowed in ICCF so of course you can expect many people to use them.
They are not allowed in gameknot.com so not many use them.
Note that I take my games in gameknot.com seriously and I think maybe average time of 3 minutes per move or 10 minutes per move(dependent on the opponent and the position) but not hours per move.
I also play in the iccf and of course I use computers there.
I have now one game that I did not finish in the iccf games when I need half point for the GM norm but I have a better position in the endgame and I hope to win.
Uri
They are not allowed in gameknot.com so not many use them.
Note that I take my games in gameknot.com seriously and I think maybe average time of 3 minutes per move or 10 minutes per move(dependent on the opponent and the position) but not hours per move.
I also play in the iccf and of course I use computers there.
I have now one game that I did not finish in the iccf games when I need half point for the GM norm but I have a better position in the endgame and I hope to win.
Uri
1
2
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill