** This post will be kept up-to-date during the match with all relevant information (corrections and additions are welcome!)
Clash of the Computer Titans. Press release from Convekta.
Rybka arrives, police is up in arms.
Rybka-Zappa press conference (video). Very interesting. Source: ChessVibes
Europe-Echecs: Match Rybka-Zappa (video)
Web broadcast by Convekta. Shows evaluation of current position by Rybka. Nice design.
Games are also broadcast on the ChessPlanet server. A new version of the client has been released which adds a window in which Rybka constantly monitors the game in infinite analysis mode (also used for the WCC-2007 games). More information here:
On-line Rybka evaluations and here.
The match will consist of 10 games, with a time control 60 minutes per game plus 20 seconds per move.
Games start at 15:30 UTC/GMT. (10:30 local time in Mexico, 11:30 AM EDT (US east coast), 17:30 CEST).
When two games are played on the same day, there will be a 10-15 minute break between the games.
20th Sep – Game 1: Pre-game info (Dagh) -- Zappa - Rybka 1/2-1/2
21st Sep – Game 2: Pre-game info (Dagh) -- Rybka - Zappa 1-0
22nd Sep – Game 3: Zappa - Rybka 1-0
22nd Sep – Game 4: Rybka - Zappa 0-1
23rd Sep – Game 5: Zappa - Rybka 1-0
24th Sep – Game 6: Rybka - Zappa 1/2-1/2
25th Sep – Game 7: Zappa - Rybka 1/2-1/2
26th Sep – Game 8: Rybka - Zappa 1-0
26th Sep – Game 9: Zappa - Rybka 1/2-1/2
27th Sep – Game 10: Rybka - Zappa 1/2-1/2
Zappa wins the match with 5,5 - 4,5.
and I would like to see the 9th round game. I cannot find it anywhere on the web.
> Given many believe the odds are strongly stacked against Zappa, I'd bet that Zappa wins with 5.5-4.5.
> I've seen a couple of examples where Zappa Mexico's evals were more accurate than Rybka's and Zappa was
> able to win. I've conducted no long tests, but those examples were enough to convince me that Zappa can
> defeat Rybka if the game strays into those kind of positions.
> Given the quality of Rybka's book, it will be unlikely, but I would still rather put my money on Zappa with
> better returns if the unlikely happens
So I think i will buy zappa program and wont rybka????
Do you know when Rybka 3 is coming out?
That wasn't just Rybka playing at Mexico but the pride of the strongest.
Il a déjà été expliqué x fois que le mode de calcul des nodes par Rybka est "différent" de celui des autres programmes (dans le code, il y a quelquepart une division par 14, ou une bidouille de ce genre...). Les nodes ou les nps ne sont donc pas comparables.
En plus du fait que de toute façon, on ne peut rien conclure de la force d'un programme par son nps.
> then I'd expect something near 1000 kn/s of the hardware used in Mexico.
On Playchess my modest C2D (250-300 kN/s) has been playing against other Rybka 2.3.2a's which displayed up to 600 kn/s. I assume that most of those were highly o/c'd Quads. Your estimation of near 1000 is probably right.
I did not mean the number of nodes / sec. that is not interesting indeed , but the comparison of this number under single processor & mp. for each engine... If this match was like running Zappa on a twice faster hardware, the result is quite logical...
> Why did Rybka agree to an 8 processor match, then?
Why should have Rybka not agreed with an 8 processor match?
Because they have fear? The chances are too bad?
Because they want to tell the world "we are strong, but only on a small machine!"
The guy who wants to be accepted as world-champion shouldn't shout
- the boxing gloves have to be green
- the boxingring has to be red
- and the gumshield of my opponent has to be yellow.
He should win and 'good it is!'.
No, IMO that decision was right, Rybka ist strong enough to do a match on every hardware.
And she has had a good chance, maybe her chance was larger than that of Zappa.
But Zappa has won. Engine, Book, luck? Who knows at this Moment.
Maybe private larger matches on such hardware will show more clear.
Rating-Lists createt with smaller machines are a lot in the net.
A result made on a hardware of the near future is the much more interesting thing, I think.
Perhaps Vas will have a look upon the parallel-Features of Rybka, maybe, he will do something.
Perhaps he thinks "No, other things are more effective.
Vas will know best then!
I agree that the programm has to have to be universal one to some extent.
For me the rating calculated of the mostly used machines is important because the rating on 64 processors
monster I will never (5 year period) buy has no meaning for me.
A few years ago I stupidly thought "Wow, machines with two Processors! Who would buy such a strange thing!"
And today even rather cheap PCs don't do it with only one core.
How many years, and a normal kiddy-gaming-Machine will have 16 Cores?
next year 4 Cores, in three years 8 and in 5 years 16?
Maybe, the PC you will buy in 5 Years will have such a core-Farm inside.
OK, 64 Cores might come 4 more years later, our over-next Machine :-). (OKOK, only speculation)
What think experts about it? When will come 16-Core-CPUs for normal Users who want CPU-Power for any reason?
I think that in 5 years period I will not need stronger PC but after five years I will be not able to buy single processor machine.
I want not to be a victim of the race for the processing power. I would like to have the pleasure of playing the chess and current level of Rybka is ok, from that point of view, the small adjustments in style.
The current view of topchess is not nice for me: game 15-20 moves from the book, then 5-6 moves from home computer analysis and then own play is starting. I think that future is in FRC and we all will be grateful to RJ Fischer.
I love the Rybka program that I purchased. I don't even have the latest version, but the version 1.2f that I use is still awesome. I have run so many computer versus computer matches and this version of Rybka beats all other engines that I own. In my testing there has been no contest. For me, Rybka rules!
Rybka 2.3.2a would have gotten creamed. The result would have been on the order of 7.5-2.5, I think.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill