Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Vas: great help by Rybka in our win
- - By noctiferus (***) [it] Date 2007-01-13 14:36
The game on between the World and the Correspondence Grandmaster Arno Nickel (the one who defeated 2 times Hydra in correspondence games) has now ended: GM Nickel resigned after our 41 move.
It was a tremendous analysis effort: human analysts taking raw engines analysis as a basis, modifying and proposing alternatives, rechecking with engines ...,for a global value of much more than 1000 pages of comments. The number of  hours of engines analysis is more difficult to quantify, bur surely is of the order of some ten thousand.
You will be glad to know that most of these analyses were done by Rybka, that gave us a substantial help in this victory.
Thanks again, Vas, for this great engine.
Parent - By noctiferus (***) [it] Date 2007-01-14 09:20
If anybody is interested in looking at the game, this is the link:
Parent - - By PCMorphy72 (**) [it] Date 2007-01-14 10:21 Edited 2007-01-14 10:23
An interesting sicilian, more deep in analysis than the similar Kasparov vs World game in 1999, I think (surely that "majority internet voting" system was inferior to give winning chances than this "everyone with Rybka" system).
Do you think Kasparov would have probably won against such effort you have given in this challenge? (even if Kasparov having White pieces as in 1999).
Parent - By noctiferus (***) [it] Date 2007-01-14 11:05
I did not participate to Kasparov-world match, so I don't know which voting system they used.

Maybe it is useful I describe the voting system used in this match: after each Nickel's move, we had 2 days for posting our individual votes: it was an open system, in the sense that current standings between candidate moves were shown and updated in real time. it gave us some problems in the beginning of the match, because lots of people just dropped in, looked at the current first best, and voted it. What could happen is that, if a "bad" , unanalyzed moved got by chance a good start, this effect amplified its advantage, and it was hard to invert this tendency. Later, random voters disappeared , and remained voters of two cathegories: people actively involved in analysis, and  people who simply read the bulk of analyses, and voted on the basis of an informed decision.

It was not a "everyone with Rybka" system: there was a great organization system, starting from move 10: first, raw computer analysis by rybka (30-35 plys), for main variants, hosted in the forum of a member of the team (RandomVisitor), then the coordinator (Twinlark) assigned each line to specific variation forums of some members: in each of these, human and engine analists modified and proposed variants  to the specific line in an interactive way (human to engine, then engine results reported to human,  and so on, in an iterative process). Summaries were reported in the main forum. 

<Do you think Kasparov would have probably won against such effort >: I really don't know: definitely I believe that he would have had some hard days: GM Nickel lamented that he would have needed some more time for deeper analyses to stand against this gigantic effort: in fact, he only chose some 2 or 3 weak moves (not blunders), that gave slight edges to the world, and these edges accumulated to a win position.

It's almost sure we will have to play again with GM Nickel this year, this time with black.
Parent - - By Vasik Rajlich (Silver) [hu] Date 2007-01-15 13:26
Very nice. Thanks for the link. :)

Parent - - By noctiferus (***) [it] Date 2007-01-15 14:01
Even if it is not completely in the theme of this forum, let me post here this really flattering comment by GM Nickel:

"I would suggest, that White managed to play on a 2700-2800 level (ICCF Elo)"
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Vas: great help by Rybka in our win

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill