|1)Human Vs computer at normal Chess.||63||42%|
|2)Human Vs computer at draw odds games.||12||8%|
|3)Centaur Vs computer at normal Chess.||10||7%|
|4)Human Vs computer with Pawn handicap.||5||3%|
|5)Human Vs computer with Knight for Rook handicap.||6||4%|
|6)Human Vs computer with f-Pawn and 3 move odds.||2||1%|
|7)Human-Comp, normal Chess,no tbs and opening book||11||7%|
|8)Human-comp, normal Chess, 6 ply book for comp.||5||3%|
|9)Human-comp at normal Chess with time handicap.||23||15%|
|10)Human-comp, normal Chess, human with op. book.||12||8%|
•1)Human Vs computer at normal Chess without any handicap.
•2)Human Vs computer at draw odds games(if humans draws it counts as a win).
•3)Centaur(human+computer) Vs computer at normal Chess. (The computer assistant of human should be less stronger than that that he will play with)
•4)Human Vs computer with Pawn handicap(for example an 8 games match were computer will not have each time a-Pawn, then b-Pawn,...,etc.).
•5)Human Vs computer with Knight for Rook handicap(computer will not have a Rook while human will not have a Knight).
•6)Human Vs computer with f-Pawn and 3 move odds(computer will not have the f-Pawn and human as white always, will play 3 starting moves).
•7)Human Vs computer at normal Chess but computer not to have opening book and tablebases.
•8)Human Vs computer at normal Chess but computer to have only a ~6-ply book.
•9)Human Vs computer at normal Chess with time handicap(for example 1 min/move for human versus 20 seconds/move for computer, or 60+20" for human versus 10+2" for computer, etc)
•10)Human Vs computer at normal Chess with human been able to see and take advice from an opening book for his starting moves and computer not allowed to use tablebases.
Suffice to say that i explicitly prefer the 1) option which is normal Chess. :-) OK 2) and 9) are good also.....
You have to first write the question and press post.
And THEN you can create the questions of the poll. That was the reason of delay....
> The damn Rybkaforum.net poll system is crap. :-p
As are the attachment and ropic tag systems, for the same reason.
I don't like handicaps as much because humans can't win. If they score a point, "it's only because of the handicap".
1 - Rybka can play on a fast octal, but can not use opening books or tablebases.
2 - SLOW time controls - something like 40/12 20/6 SD/3 with 3 minute increments.
>I would prefer to see even-up matches between Rybka 3+ on the fastest available hardware and 3200 Elo humans. :-D
But at giveaway chess. :-P
Hahahaha!! That's not fair Alan.
I voted 7) and 9), I these 2 are closer to even-up matches. No opening book and no tablebases so that we can see how much can the computer go without Jeroen Noomen and Eugene Nalimov's assistance :)
1. try to survive the opening
2. try to survive the middlegame
3. try to survive the endgame
PS: the point is that the chances for 1 to 3 are not so negligible now
> With no book at all we might just get repeat games.
Simply use a randomizer (0.10 to 0.20 pawns) for 5 first moves.
May be you can make some statistic against top5 engines (with and without book) to know how this would weaken Rybka 3.
That's fine, so that human can do what suits him most :) :D
>Suffice to say that i explicitly prefer the 1) option which is normal Chess. :-) OK 2) and 9) are good also.....
That's exactly my choice: on all others alternatives it's true, what "likesforests" said:
> I don't like handicaps as much because humans can't win. If they score a point, "it's only because of the handicap".
The only handicap I would accept, is time handicap. PocketFritz 3 won a tournament in italy - on a standard PocketPC which should be 100-200 times slower than a quad or octal. Nonetheless he succeeded...
>*Pocket Fritz 3 (hiarcs 12 engine) win the Mercosur cup 2008 with 8/10
>*Performance of 2700 elo whit GM norm
>* No loss
Reducing speed/time reduces the overall strength without affecting the basic nature of chess. I you are a box champion in light weight you will not fight against an opponent in super heavy weight...
> PocketFritz 3 won a tournament in italy
It's in Argentina ;)
> > PocketFritz 3 won a tournament in italy
>It's in Argentina ;-)
I wonder how many Forum readers are aware of the large Italian-descended population in Argentina... (about half of the population, I think).
In this way we will get a match in which we can establish if human strategic insight is up to the strongest engine. In other cases, even the best GMs suffer from loss of concentration/fatigue in any match and this should not be a factor.
>Also if engine uses tablebase human should be able to use as well; ie all hard coded knowledge (book and tb) to be equally available to both >parties.
In that case you should also forbid the engine to use its evaluation code, since all are hard coded knowledge.
You can't be selective to what you will forbid.
That's how computer works!
People have their memory for remembering the openings.
Computers have their own memory. This is opening book for the openings and tablebases for the endgame.
If humans can't accept that computer's memory is much better, then humans should not play these kind of matches if this leads to asking unreasonable things to be forbidden for their opponents.
With the same logic, computers should also forbid humans to use their pattern recognition since computers don't have that kind of ability.
I didn't see these kind of irrational requests in 90's for example where humans could still beat computers.
Now they are incapable of doing this, they try to degrade computers strengths with the most lame excuses.....
>To me the question is not at what piece or time handicap the strongest human player can still beat or draw the computer, but if the strongest GMs >are still superior in understanding the game, ie in strategy.
If this is the question that you are interested to, the answer is easy: Humans.
Top humans at Chess have far superior strategy than computers.
Bad thing for humans is that long term strategy doesn't mean too much in Chess in non-correspondence time controls.
Short tactics are far far more important.
While i don't really understand what do you mean by "understanding the game." What is the definition of it?
For example an example of strategy is "i play 22.f4 to close the Kingside so i will try to have play in the Queenside where i'm a bit better and after some non-concrete yet variations it's obvious i will be able to create a Passed Pawn.".
Computers can't do that(since they have to calculate the in-between variations so they are too slow for that). Humans can very efficiently(obviously not efficiently enough to succeed most times).
The problem for humans is that the in-between moves are more critical than the plan's efficiency.
And the short-strategy, which is tactics is far more important.
So even if you have a very good plan that computer have no idea if you make small(or bigger) mistakes(tactical mistakes) in the execution of the plan, then the plan is of no value.
Of course as you say it's not obvious why by saying strategy we should mean long term strategy and not short strategy(=tactics) but that's the common use of the word strategy i think.
Regarding the use of an opening book for the human, I don't think that is such a big help to them, I think they have memorized their repertoire. And for TBs the arrangements are negligible.
I like the centaur option, other handicap options are also interesting but I find it most annoying when the human plays strategically very well and keeps the balance or even obtains a slightly favorable position just to see him make a couple of innaccurate moves and the game is over. This would be reduced if the human could use a slow notebook with an older engine, just for blunder check (or if he missed something in a calculated line).
Btw. I am one of those who think that strictly playing for a draw with good knowledge how engines play and how to keep the game calm will allow the human to achieve quite a number of draws (say four out of five) however I don't think it will be valid for Rybka 3.
- The human should have proven centaur abilities.
- The same engine is used by the human but with lower speed.
Centaur - human matches I find interesting to answer the question how we can estimate the ELO of a centaur from the ELO of the human and the ELO of the used engine.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill