The tentative plan is for a pawn odds match similar to the first Ehlvest match, but with a longer time control and increment (one hour + 30"). However, if the upcoming Ehlvest match proves to be close, we will attempt to find sponsorship for a match of that type instead.
I honestly think he is the most interesting out of the bunch you listed on a previous thread.
After Rybka has won the match don't forget to interview him about chess today and Rybka c/p Deep Blue etc - it makes an interesting read.
A request: please, no pawn odds, may be better, if Rybka lost to
GM Ehlvest, less time to the GM and/or a book. If Rybka wins,
no 3 moves book and more time for GM Benjamin or less time to Rybka.
> please, no pawn odds
I agree. To me pawn odds is not chess, it's just a variation in where one side has a pawn missing. It's like if they played chess 960... Or worse.
At least some positions are legal:
1. Nf3 Nc6 2. Ng5 Nb8 3. Nxh7 Nc6 4. Ng5 Nb8 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. Ng1 Nb8
But does that look like chess to you?
Could you give Joel a big reward for every game he draws / wins but play him at normal chess?
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Bc5 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bc4 O-O
That looks a lot more like chess to me, I say let Rybka choose what pawn to give up and how (I already explained how long time ago and went unnoticed).
Or you can even make an opening book in where in all lines Rybka sacrifices a pawn or two, then that's still handicap and is still chess.
As for choosing gambits instead, obviously we can't use normal gambits, because then it wouldn't be a handicap. We could devise clearly unsound gambits, but the result would not necessarily be better than just removing a pawn, I think.
Please feel free to restate your old idea, I don't recall it.
>> As for choosing gambits instead, obviously we can't use normal gambits, because then it wouldn't be a handicap. We could devise clearly unsound gambits, but the result would not necessarily be better than just removing a pawn, I think.
The "better" result is psychological for all the persons (me included) that don't like pawn handicaps, and I don't because the starting position is not a legal chess one (Or reaching it requires cooperation from both players). So reaching a position with pawn handicap from the starting position would be the solution (For all the persons that dislike piece handicaps for this reason).
>> Please feel free to restate your old idea, I don't recall it.
The idea was about "evaluation handicap", that is, we don't base the handicap on the material on the board, but on Rybka's evaluation. Let's say we want a -1.0 handicap, then Rybka would play bad moves on purpose until her score is -1.0 or higher, then she would play the strongest moves possible for the rest of the game (A book that already does this would be better).
This was a solution at a time in where 78% of the people wanted standard chess ( http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=7316 ), but that would lead to Rybka crushing every time or to Rybka being weak for all the games, so my solution addressed those problems (If other ideas don't work).
More generally, I think most people would be far less impressed with Rybka winning from this position (or any similar opening position which she evaluates similarly) than from a victory in which she starts every game a pawn down.
A slightly larger handicap would be to have Rybka open every game with 1...Nc6 and 2...Nb8, in effect a three move handicap. I would like to see a match tried with this handicap at some point, though there wasn't much support for it when we took a poll. This would appear to be in line with your idea.
I suppose we could create a book in which every game starts with a pawn blunder, like 1 e4 b5 2 Bxb5 or 1e4 f5 2exf5 etc., but I'm not sure that most people would find this more appealing than simply removing a pawn (although clearly you would). Also, I find the idea of requiring the GM to open a certain way, even with a good move like 1e4, to be unattractive; what if he never opens 1e4 normally, his chances might be less than another GM who does.
Another handicap I mentioned was that Rybka would forfeit castling, in effect normal chess where she "promises" not to castle. This might suit your preferences for a more normal game, but this idea did not gather any support.
>> The cleanest implementation of your idea would be to have Rybka play Black every game and be required to start every game with 1...a6 and 2...h6 . This gives White a score of +0.54 (based on 5 ply search), which actually equates to a full pawn.
Yes, but for variety's sake she would do that on one of the games, and other similar things on other games (What about a6 + c6 + e6?, there should be plenty of ways of doing this, so we get rid of all the problems you mentioned, even if the implementation is not "cleanest").
>> More generally, I think most people would be far less impressed with Rybka winning from this position (or any similar opening position which she evaluates similarly) than from a victory in which she starts every game a pawn down.
Maybe you are right, and people would be less impressed with something they'd want to see more than with something they didn't (pawn handicap), but there's only one way to know. I think we should make another poll to ask what the people want for future handicap matches; if they don't like any kind of handicap then we're wasting our time.
>> A slightly larger handicap would be to have Rybka open every game with 1...Nc6 and 2...Nb8, in effect a three move handicap. I would like to see a match tried with this handicap at some point, though there wasn't much support for it when we took a poll. This would appear to be in line with your idea.
Yes, I'd like to see that as a last resort.
>> I suppose we could create a book in which every game starts with a pawn blunder, like 1 e4 b5 2 Bxb5 or 1e4 f5 2exf5 etc., but I'm not sure that most people would find this more appealing than simply removing a pawn (although clearly you would).
Yes, as long as this is a one person opinion (me) then we could just keep on with the pawn handicaps (Because all the hassle that would be done wouldn't be worth just one person). I hope someone would back me up, about the "we don't like pawn handicaps but we would accept similar handicaps".
>> Another handicap I mentioned was that Rybka would forfeit castling, in effect normal chess where she "promises" not to castle.
It would indeed be very interesting, what about letting the GM choose what kind of handicap would he want? (Or no handicap at all, we got plenty of options).
One thing I've noticed is that sometimes things sound better on paper than what they really are, but we already had pawn handicaps, I'm just saying we could have something different to see if people like it more.
> he'll ask for a queen!
Maybe some day that will be a valid handicap ;)
I want to thank you for taking the time to replying to my posts :)
Personally, I like pawn odds. It's really simple. If you need two sentences to explain the rules, that's 1.5 sentences too many.
Personally, I like pawn odds."
These juxtaposed sentences would seem very strange if they didn't come from a Redskins fan. :-)
BTW - pawn odds doesn't change the play that much. And, most importantly, the difference is less and less as the game proceeds.
I have two goals for Rybka relative to human opponents. One is to be competitive with grandmasters at the traditional pawn and move handicap (f7). The other is to be able to defeat any human player in normal chess most of the time, even when he plays to draw and has White. Clearly your test is one of the two Rybka must pass to prove that my goals have been reached. We're just not nearly ready yet.
Please bear in mind that for the prize money we are offering for a match victory, namely $2,000, the Grandmaster must believe he has a good chance to win, so there is no point in proposing terms that don't offer him a serious chance of victory unless someone else is offering to sponsor the match.
Maybe he is going to change his mind after the next match and maybe not but
I think that as long as there are GM's who believe that they have good chances to win there is no need to increase the handicap relative to the handicap that you give to GM Ehlvest.
Result against Ehlvest is going to prove nothing and I remember that some years ago in the israeli league some 2200 player drew with 3 computers when GM's did worse against computers.
As far as I know, there is no GM in the US who really believes he has any decent chance to win a match against Rybka without a material handicap (I don't know what Nakamura really thinks, he would probably say he has chances). The fact that only four US grandmasters agreed to the challenge despite eleven thousand dollar prize fund shows this clearly. Maybe there are a few in the world (excluding the Elite) who do believe this, but not many.
I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning. Is there anything that happened during this match that another GM couldn't have reproduced by playing against Rybka in his basement? Seems like it should be pretty easy for a GM to assess his chances.
Its interesting to me that GMs don't consider playing against a strong engine as being helpful in developing their skills against other GMs.
Indeed, GM Joël Benjamin is a very fine player. We are talking here about an experienced player in computer chess games and I think he could be very dangerous in a handicap match against Rybka. Of course, in my opinion I do not prefer a very strong GM's but without experience in these confrontations. I even prefer a non very strong GM's (per ELO Fide) but with a lot of experience. Anyway the invitations should continue open. GM Joël Benjamin is a good choise and I think the match against him will be quite interesting. Thanks LK. :-)
Now, excuse me, per my insistence Larry, but could you please try to contact GM Dzindzi and give him an opportunity. I knew that you can easily contact him and I am sure that, if he is good enough and stable in health, he will play against Rybka with all the pleasure. Do not forget their wonderful abilities and his thousands of thousands of good games over the Internet against some of strongest engines, some years ago. Dzindzi is an artist and a great player with truly experience. He really knows how to play against the machines. Do not allow that a good opportunity like this, be vanished, plus if you can talk easily with him.
FROM Wikipedia, some information about Joel Benjamin:
Joel BenjaminJoel Benjamin (born March 11, 1964) is a chess Grandmaster.
As of April 2007, his Elo rating was 2576, making him the # 12 player in the US and the 214th-highest rated player in the world.
Joel Benjamin is the top-rated active chess player who was born in the United States.
He is a native of Brooklyn, New York, and grew up in the Marine Park neighborhood there. He graduated Yale University in 1985.
At the age of 13 he broke Bobby Fischer’s record by becoming the youngest-ever U.S. Master. As a junior player he won the National Elementary title (1976), the National Junior High crown (1978), and the National High School title (1980-81).
Other triumphs have included the U.S. Junior Championship in 1980 and 1982, and the U.S. Open Championship in 1985. He earned the Grandmaster title a year later.
He was the US Chess Champion in 1987, 1997, and 2000.
He was hired as a consultant by IBM to help with the Deep Blue chess computer that defeated World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov in 1997.
As of the October 2006 rating supplement Benjamin had a United States Chess Federation rating of 2646, ranking him 14th best among American chess players.
He appeared in the movie “Searching for Bobby Fischer.”
In 1998 he was voted “Grandmaster of the Year” by the U.S. Chess Federation.
I feel that Anand can be persuaded for a match against Rybka if the Rybka team agrees to spend the sponsorship amount on his charity firm. He is known to play games for his charity. This way I feel chess and Rybka would have served the community and chess enthusiasts will have their dream game between the strongest machine and best human player today.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill