![[at]](/mwf/v12/flags/at.png "Austria")
Greetings!
Sorry if I should have missed such a proposal, but seeing that GMs frequently manage to achieve good or even won positions against machines, only to lose them later on more or less gross blunders, wouldn't it make sense to introduce the "handicap" of allowing the GM to take back moves?
I'm thinking of something around 1-3 moves per game, at about the same number of "moves back".
For instance, GM may take back 2 moves per game, at a maximum of 2 moves back (for instance on move 38 take back to move 36).
Do you think that this would be too much of an advantage, or that it stretching the "touch-move" rule would be too much against tradition?
Karlheinz
Sorry if I should have missed such a proposal, but seeing that GMs frequently manage to achieve good or even won positions against machines, only to lose them later on more or less gross blunders, wouldn't it make sense to introduce the "handicap" of allowing the GM to take back moves?
I'm thinking of something around 1-3 moves per game, at about the same number of "moves back".
For instance, GM may take back 2 moves per game, at a maximum of 2 moves back (for instance on move 38 take back to move 36).
Do you think that this would be too much of an advantage, or that it stretching the "touch-move" rule would be too much against tradition?
Karlheinz
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
This would be too much of an advantage--master-class or lower players have used this advantage before to beat earlier Rybka versions.
In my opinion it would be too SMALL an advantage; I believe that a 2600 level GM would need a huge number of takebacks, not just 2 or 3, to have equal chances against the current Rybka on a Quad. This would of course not be an interesting match. If I believed that 2 or 3 takebacks would be enough to equalize, I might propose this idea, but I'm almost certain that it isn't even close to enough.
If we were talking about normal types of games against Rybka, such as the type we saw in the last Ehlvest match, I would agree--but the people who have succeeded in the past in winning against Rybka with 2 or 3 takebacks (I even recall someone saying he did it in a 5-minute game with only one takeback--I saw the game, and it basically involved a queenside pawn storm against Rybka 1.01 Beta 10d) have done it with either king attacks or some other "all or nothing" assault--i.e. the type of game where there are a few very critical positions and the rest are forced lines. Such an advantage is quite important in such games, but not important in very positionally oriented games, I would think.
That all depends on openings. Sure, if you can get Rybka to allow you to play some opening like the classical King's Indian with blocked pawns and clear attack plans, you might win a game now and then with a little luck and/or a couple takebacks. But as long as Rybka does not include such openings in its book for these human matches, this should not happen, especially if we include some anti-blocked pawn heuristic as we did in the two Ehlvest matches.
Interesting!
Is this based on your own assessment, or do you have feedback, from informal games or talk, where GMs played with takebacks against Rybka?
Is this based on your own assessment, or do you have feedback, from informal games or talk, where GMs played with takebacks against Rybka?
I guess it would be a big advantage for the human, i don't really know how many ELO that would worth but the most important is:
That rule would make the match uninteresting, i assure you, for the vast majority of Chess observers....
There is a point after that some handicaps make the game of Chess, well, not really Chess.....
Also the take back rule is against the overall character of the Chess game which is a war.
2 sides battling each other with their army.
Do you think that at a war the opponent will forgive your mistakes and let you correct them? :)
That rule would make the match uninteresting, i assure you, for the vast majority of Chess observers....
There is a point after that some handicaps make the game of Chess, well, not really Chess.....
Also the take back rule is against the overall character of the Chess game which is a war.
2 sides battling each other with their army.
Do you think that at a war the opponent will forgive your mistakes and let you correct them? :)
Well, I for one would certainly be interested in such a "takeback" match. Everyone of us has played this way against machines (and won this way on occasion, of course with numerous takebacks). It would be interesting to see, at least for me, whether only a couple of takebacks are sufficient for a good or top GM or not.
Of course, given the war analogy, it breaks the tradition hard, but for some reason I have never seen chess this way - albeit I might have played games that surely remind one of dirty war, rather than intellectual pastime. ;-)
Of course, given the war analogy, it breaks the tradition hard, but for some reason I have never seen chess this way - albeit I might have played games that surely remind one of dirty war, rather than intellectual pastime. ;-)
![[hu]](/mwf/v12/flags/hu.png "Hungary")
I'd estimate 50 to 75 Elo for two takebacks per game.
For what it's worth, in both of the Ehlvest matches, I can't think of any moves which he would clearly want to take back.
Vas
For what it's worth, in both of the Ehlvest matches, I can't think of any moves which he would clearly want to take back.
Vas
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill