Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Are Any Rybka-Human Matches In The Works?
1 2 Previous Next  
- - By Milton (***) Date 2009-10-23 00:30
There were some posts a while ago suggesting a possible Rybka-GM match.  I really enjoyed the earlier matches organized by Larry. Are there any plans for one to take place in the near future (say, within the next 3 months)?  Thanks.

Milton
Parent - - By Vasik Rajlich (Silver) Date 2009-10-23 07:23
One of the issues we've had is that alpha-beta search doesn't work well in that type of context.

Alpha-beta tends to get closer to the truth as the search gets deeper. If the position is objectively drawn, deeper searches produce more balanced scores - and this is perfectly fine, it leads to good positional play. If the position is lost, deeper searches produce dropping scores and cause the program to try to delay the problems as much as possible, which in turn leads to passive play.

We saw this in the handicap matches. Rybka would go into a shell and the game was decided by whether the human blundered or not (and whether he was happy with a draw or not).

Vas
Parent - - By SR (****) Date 2009-10-23 07:32
Very interesting, but how does this answer the question ;-)
Parent - - By Felix Kling (Gold) Date 2009-10-23 07:43
Maybe it's a forum bug and he wanted to answer to http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=189667;hl= ?
Parent - - By Maschi (*) Date 2009-10-23 11:08
hehe :)
no, I think it is clear, that he wants to say.
There won't be matches in the near future, because Rybka-human matches all have some disadvantages:

Handicap matches have the drawback, that Rybka can't display her full power due to the reasons he mentions.
All other kind of matches are difficult, because Rybka is just too strong in my opinion.
Perhaps a huge time penalty for Rybka would be a good choice, but there have been discussions about this well enough, I can't remember what the drawback of time penalty for Rybka was.

What is left are the cluster games, that is centaur vs. Rybka games, and these you can follow on this forum or hopefully in a tournament coming soon.
Parent - - By Vasik Rajlich (Silver) Date 2009-10-24 04:17
Spot on.

> Perhaps a huge time penalty for Rybka would be a good choice, but there have been discussions about this well enough, I can't remember what the drawback of time penalty for Rybka was.


If pondering is allowed, no time handicap can be big enough. No-pondering is a bit artificial (why not "no quiescence search?") and also wouldn't show Rybka in a good light (again).

Vas
Parent - - By yanquis1972 (****) Date 2009-10-25 07:03
really?? is the pondering algorithim somehow more advanced with rybka 4?

my impression was rybka has to immediately ponder best move and stick to it, that would mean unless the ponder move hits the time spent thinking on opponents clock would be completely worthless. why not something like rybka 4 on a cheap dual core laptop, 5 second/move, ponder on?
Parent - By Mark (****) Date 2009-10-25 13:53
Why not Rybka 4 on the iPhone?  :)
Parent - - By Carl Bicknell (*****) Date 2009-10-23 12:02
Then how about some level (normal) games? Rybka v Anand / Carlsen / Kramnik would still be very interesting. Although Deep Fritz 10 beat Kramnik I was not totally convinced by the way it played & it would be nice for Rybka to close the matter of Man v Machine properly.
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2009-10-23 12:52
This seems like such a worthless match, though--Rybka 3 itself is about 350 elo points stronger on a quad than the crippled Deep Fritz 10 version that played against Kramnik, and that's not even taking into account the opening and tuning handicaps in place, also.  Then imagine another 100-200 elo point gain on the Cluster...
Parent - - By Carl Bicknell (*****) Date 2009-10-23 14:21

> Rybka 3 itself is about 350 elo points stronger on a quad than the crippled Deep Fritz 10


I'm not sure it would be 350 elo stronger v humans.
Parent - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2009-10-24 01:50
This argument has been made before, by myself included, but I think that the data, more often than not, even recently tend to be consistent with the test Elo rating of chess programs, including Rybka, in play against humans.
Parent - - By SummerKnight (**) Date 2009-10-23 15:05

> This seems like such a worthless match, though--Rybka 3 itself is about 350 elo points stronger on a quad than the crippled Deep Fritz 10 version that played against Kramnik, and that's not even taking into account the opening and tuning handicaps in place, also.  Then imagine another 100-200 elo point gain on the Cluster...


What hardware did Deep Fritz 10 run on in the match with Kramnik?  What version of Deep Fritz 10 was it?  Why was it considered to be crippled?
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2009-10-24 01:48
It ran on a quad-core, but this was before the quad-core fix of Deep Fritz 10.1, which is why it had the same strength that it would have on a single-core machine.  It would have been noticeably stronger if it had played on a dual-core.
Parent - - By SummerKnight (**) Date 2009-10-24 04:46

> It ran on a quad-core, but this was before the quad-core fix of Deep Fritz 10.1, which is why it had the same strength that it would have on a single-core machine. It would have been noticeably stronger if it had played on a dual-core.


Do you happen to know what the speed of the quad-core was?  I'm trying to figure out what Fritz's rating was when it played the match.
Parent - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2009-10-25 22:07
I believe that it was a Xeon at 3.0 GHz, which would probably be slower than a 2.4 GHz Q6600, but around the same level.  Of course, this really equates to about a 2.4 GHz single-core, but stronger than single-core Fritz 10.  When CEGT was testing Deep Fritz 10 on 4 CPU, its rating in 40/20 was 2850.  Since then, it has gone up, I guess due to accidental mixing with Deep Fritz 10.1 in tests.
Parent - By Lukas Cimiotti (Bronze) Date 2009-10-25 22:36
AFAIR it was a 2x Xeon 5160 computer - 4x 3 GHz
Parent - - By 8lrr8 (***) Date 2009-10-24 01:03
what we need is a mega-GM (i.e. 2700+ elo) in a white draw-odds (i.e. the human gets white for every game, and a draw counts as +1) match w/ the cluster.
Parent - - By Roland Rösler (****) Date 2009-10-24 01:44
Don´t look to Elo points! You have to look for the draw master! Elo 2500 - 2650 is enough! To make more says us only: He is too ambitious! And we don´t need players here, which are ambitious! :-)
Parent - - By 8lrr8 (***) Date 2009-10-24 01:54
name a player <2650 elo who is a "draw master" strong enough to win a draw-odds match against the cluster.

i really dont think one exists.
Parent - - By Roland Rösler (****) Date 2009-10-24 02:41
There are many. My vote: Dr. Robert Huebner! He hates to play against computer. :-)
Parent - By 8lrr8 (***) Date 2009-10-24 05:08
will u be willing to place a substantial wager on this?  perhaps around Q2 2010?
Parent - - By 8lrr8 (***) Date 2009-10-24 01:58
fwiw, my back of the envelope calculations suggest a mega-GM should be able to draw ~65-70% of the time against the cluster (given all-white).
Parent - - By Roland Rösler (****) Date 2009-10-24 02:45
Look to all this players with Elo ~2750 like Radjabov or Gashimov. They all make their points because of tactics! But you can win (or draw) against computers with tactics.
Parent - By 8lrr8 (***) Date 2009-10-24 05:08
actually i had wang or leko in mind as my mega-GM "draw masters."
Parent - By 8lrr8 (***) Date 2009-10-24 05:12
ever heard of "tactics to draw?"  i'd say a 2750 player is more skilled than a 2650 player at pretty much every facet of the game.  including how to draw against a monster (i.e. cluster rybka).
Parent - By Vasik Rajlich (Silver) Date 2009-10-24 04:19

> Although Deep Fritz 10 beat Kramnik I was not totally convinced by the way it played & it would be nice for Rybka to close the matter of Man v Machine properly.


I kind of agree here, but for the kind of money a match like that would cost you simply need a better reason than "closing the matter properly".

Vas
Parent - - By George Tsavdaris (****) Date 2009-10-24 09:07

>Then how about some level (normal) games? Rybka v Anand / Carlsen / Kramnik would still be very interesting. Although Deep Fritz 10 >beat Kramnik I was not totally convinced by the way it played & it would be nice for Rybka to close the matter of Man v Machine >properly.


Do you remember the rules of the Kramnik Vs DF10 match? If you did you will probably didn't say i was not totally convinced....

Here are most rules of the match(there were other also) that affected the match extraordinary(those with bold):
------------------------------------------------
•Six games will be played on the days 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 where day 1 is 25 day of November 2006.
The games commence at 3.00 pm and end at 9.00 pm at which time Mr Kramnik will have the right either to continue with the game or to adjourn it to the next day.

•In each game the Players shall each have to make 40 moves in two hours followed by 16 moves per hour thereafter provided that in the event that a game has not been completed within six hours it may be adjourned to the following day at Mr Kramniks discretion when play will continue at the rate of 16 moves per hour for a further six hours.

•Mr. Kramnik shall have the right to adjourn any game after 56 moves even if six hours of play have not been completed. Should this right be exercised, play shall continue on the following rest day at the rate of 16 moves per hour.

•The computer will consult an opening book during the game. During the match, the opening book may not be modified, except that up to 10 ply of additional moves may be added in the opening variation of the game which has most recently been played (not counting adjournment sessions) and the weightings of specific moves may be modified so that the different variations, already present in the opening book, will be preferred by the program.

•At the conclusion of each game the Arbiter will attempt to replicate the opening of the game on a computer which has the opening book and program as delivered to the Kramnik Team and the Arbiter. If they find any discrepancies, the Deep Fritz Team is required to explain these to the satisfaction of the arbiter.

As long as Deep Fritz is “in book”, that is playing moves from memory and not calculating variations, Mr. Kramnik sees the display of the Deep Fritz opening book. For the current board position he sees all moves, including all statistics (number of games, ELO performance, score) from grandmaster games and the move weighting of Deep Fritz. To this purpose, Mr. Kramnik uses his own computer screen showing the screen of the Deep Fritz machine with book display activated.

•The use of a database of endgame positions (“Tablebase”) is permitted only if the tablebase contains positions with a total five total pieces or less, including kings.
When Deep Fritz identifies the board position in a tablebase, it must inform the Arbiter, who will then stop the clocks.
In the presence of the Arbiter, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik that the position has been located in the tablebase.
If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as winning for the side played by Deep Fritz, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. The game will continue, unless Mr. Kramnik chooses to resign.
If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as winning for the side played by Mr. Kramnik, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. The game will continue unless the Deep Fritz Operator chooses to resign.
If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as a draw, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. This will constitute an offer of a draw. The game will continue, unless the offer is accepted prior to the completion of Mr. Kramnik’s next move.

•Mr. Kramnik may offer a draw at any time, regardless of whose turn it is. The Operator is authorized to accept or decline the draw on behalf of Deep Fritz.
The Operator may offer a draw on behalf of Deep Fritz, however a draw may not be offered unless a previous offer by Mr. Kramnik has been declined.
If Mr. Kramnik feels that the position is clearly drawn, he may notify the Arbiter and the Operator that he is making a claim of “technical draw”. The Arbiter will stop the clock. Mr. Kramnik will then explain his reasoning, and the Operator is obliged to accept the draw unless Deep Fritz can demonstrate that in the previous ten moves progress has been made.

By October 1, 2006, Mr. Kramnik and the arbiter will receive the final match version of Deep Fritz. After this date only bug fixes are done on the engine, for example obvious crashes or obvious positional errors. No positional knowledge will be added. Should the engine be modified in any way after 1 October 2006 Chessbase will notify Mr. Kramnik’s team and the Arbiter in writing about this specific change and demonstrate its effect on a test position. In any case Chessbase guarantees that any change after October 1, 2006, will not influence general playing style and tactical strength and confirms that the engine code remains practically unchanged after October 1, 2006. Remember the match is held on 25th of November 2006.

From 1 October 2006 on, the Deep Fritz team will be ready on the request of the Kramnik team to install the final match version on Mr Kramnik’s trainings machine. The Deep Fritz team shall inform Mr. Kramnik and the organizer (UEP) by no later than 1 October 2006 about the specifications of the hardware which will be used during the WCC. In co-operation with a possible hardware producer and Chessbase the organizer (UEP) will make their best endeavours to provide Mr. Kramnik a trainings machine being similar with the machine during the WCC.

•At any stage in the match, the Kramnik team may copy the exact playing engine directly from the tournament machine under supervision of the arbiter. The Deep Fritz Team is not required to disclose the exact hash table size for the match. It is understood that hash table size does not influence playing style but rather introduces a small element of non-determinism into the move selection process. The Deep Fritz Team has to notify the Arbiter of the Hash table size so that they can reproduce the programs calculations.
------------------------------------------------

We can even call that match advanced Chess. :-)  OK maybe not advanced Chess but someone would be surprised that Kramnik didn't ask for Fritz to resign in draw positions. :-P 
The rules of the match were completely ridiculous so the end result although it is still in computer's favor, it's non representative of the difference of the strength of the 2 competitors.
Parent - - By M ANSARI (*****) Date 2009-10-25 15:14
I agree, the rules of the Kramnik match were ridiculous.  But I think that was the only way to get Kramnik to play.  Ofcourse Rybka is no Fritz and I can't imagine the human side to be much stronger than Kramnik, so it would seem that a human vs. GM match would be a disaster for the human.
Parent - - By SummerKnight (**) Date 2009-10-25 16:29

> I agree, the rules of the Kramnik match were ridiculous. But I think that was the only way to get Kramnik to play. Ofcourse Rybka is no Fritz and I can't imagine the human side to be much stronger than Kramnik, so it would seem that a human vs. GM match would be a disaster for the human.


Would any of the greats from the past (Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, etc.) stand a better chance against Rybka than today's best players?  Let's take Lasker as an example.  He was known for his ability to create positions that his opponents were uncomfortable in.  He played the opponent rather than the position.  Could he do the same to Rybka?
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2009-10-25 22:13
My guess is that these "uncomfortable" types of positions would tend to be exactly the types of positions where Rybka is extremely comfortable. :-)
Parent - - By SummerKnight (**) Date 2009-10-26 00:10
I'm thinking that Lasker would head into the type of closed position that Rybka doesn't understand that well, and then manage to squeeze out a win or three.  Lasker was incredibly good at reading and exploiting the weaknesses of his opponents.
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2009-10-26 03:06
Unfortunately, he simply doesn't have the overall strength necessary to do this.  Perhaps if he had lived in today's era and learned from today's tricks of the trade, had chess computers and databases to help him, as well as the better coaches of today, he would have a decent chance of getting a win or two in something like 100 games, but not Lasker "as is", nor any other player from previous time periods except, perhaps, for Fischer--and he would still be overwhelmingly outmatched.
Parent - - By SummerKnight (**) Date 2009-10-26 05:02
Does this only apply to Rybka running on a cluster or to slower platforms too?
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2009-10-27 11:06
I was thinking of a quad-core.  I don't think that any unaided human in history could get one win in 100 games against the cluster, and the number might be much higher.  Perhaps the best could get a decent number of draws, though.
Parent - - By SummerKnight (**) Date 2009-10-27 16:31
Do you think that a 2ghz Core 2 Duo laptop running Rybka 3 64 bit could defeat any human in history in a match?  If yes, by what score?
Parent - - By deka (****) Date 2009-10-27 17:09
Rybka - Morphy 10:0
Rybka - Steinitz 10:0
Rybka - Lasker 9:1
Rybka - Capablanca 7:3
Rybka - Alekhine 8.5:1.5
Rybka - Botvinnik 8:2
Rybka - Spassky 8:2
Rybka - Fischer 6.5:3.5
Rybka - Karpov 6.5:3.5
Rybka - Kasparov 7.5:2.5
Rybka - Kramnik 6.5:3.5
Rybka - Carlsen 6:4

:)
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2009-10-27 21:21
I think that Morphy would get a few draws--he had exceptional endgame technique and on his good days, would figure out a way to draw the machine.  I would think more like Rybka - Morphy 9:1 or Rybka vs. Morphy 8.5-1.5. :-)
Parent - - By deka (****) Date 2009-10-27 22:59
You mean Morphy was stronger than Lasker or you think I overestimated Rybka's strength of play?
In either case, I disagree.
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2009-10-28 00:50
I think that you underestimated the strength of play of Morphy.  I think that Morphy on his best day might have been stronger than Lasker on his best day, though not stronger overall.  The best days are what I think are important: on a best day, Morphy would sometimes be good enough for a draw.
Parent - - By deka (****) Date 2009-10-28 10:33
Based on what do you hold such an estimation that Morphy's quality of play on best day was higher than Lasker's?
And bear in mind that my opinion was based on his games from the end of 19th century, but as we all know Lasker played a lot better in the early 20th century.

Victory at New York 1924 and second place at Moscow 1935 certainly require a lot higher skill than 2400.
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2009-10-28 11:25
First of all, Morphy's skill was a lot higher than 2400, so I really hope you're not using that as a comparison.  Even Elo himself estimated Morphy's skill to be 2690, though this is probably an overestimate.  I base Morphy's quality of play on games that I have analyzed using Rybka.  What I do know is that on his best days, he would have thrashed Rybka 2.3.1.  He would not have done this most of the time, but he would have occasionally done this.  I have not encountered games of Lasker for which I could say the same.  Lasker was more consistent than Morphy and would have achieved overall better results, but Morphy would have produced more brilliancies.
Parent - - By deka (****) Date 2009-10-28 12:23
How many games did you analyze? Which games? What methodology did you use? Can you post the results here? Where is the proof that even Rybka 2.3.1 would have been thrashed by Morphy?

ELO himself estimated his skill based on relative strengths.
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2009-10-31 09:55
Very simply, I gave Rybka 2.3.1, some time ago, a minute or two (sometimes much more) to think during some of the more positional Morphy games.  One that comes to mind in particular is against Paulsen.  Paulsen was finding Rybka's moves fairly consistently (and didn't make any moves that Rybka considered "bad"--only a few were "slightly inferior"), including moves where Paulsen was considered to have blundered (Rybka 2.3.1 could not find the correct moves given about 10 minutes).  Morphy found a number of moves that Rybka did not find that turned out to be quite good.  This wasn't due to hardware problems or handicap situations or anything like that.  That one particular game, I tried again a couple of times the same way with the same results.  Rybka 2.3.2a, however, was able to handle it at least somewhat better, and probably would have found the win against Paulsen in Morphy's place (basically, Rybka 2.3.1 would have screwed up the endgame big time), but still would have played the "losing" moves earlier in the game.  Anyway, I tried this with a few other games, too.  The games that were of tactical nature are, of course, worthless for this, but those of a positional nature had similar (though not as memorable) situations.  Those players actually did have the positional skill of low-level grandmasters--it just wasn't their style.  As for Lasker, this was longer ago, so I don't remember much except that his games showed nothing interesting from the computer perspective.

Of course, with this being long ago, I don't have the results, nor am I willing to replicate the tests when I have far more important things to do with Rybka 3 (and yes, Rybka 3 would thrash both of those players most of the time, even in their best games).
Parent - - By deka (****) Date 2009-10-31 10:27
Which game? What was the number of moves that Morphy outperformed R 2.3.1? And how on Earth does this indicate Morphy's rating being over 2600?
One thing every chessplayer should be aware of is that good positional play is worthless if you suck at tactics. An advice to you: if you want to check human games with a computer, try to focus on more difficult areas, that's where chess skill really matters and good players stand out.

>Those players actually did have the positional skill of low-level grandmasters--it just wasn't their style.


They didn't, positional play was in its infancy at that time, modern GM-s learn positional play for years from highly detailed books on chess strategy, and from games of great positional players. All mid-19th century players had was tactics, and they preferred it because was the only side they were thoroughly familiar with.
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2009-10-31 11:54
It is not of interest to me to resurrect this.  I have far more interesting projects dealing with computer chess right now; I have given my conclusions from something awhile back, and I'm quite certain that Morphy would have beaten Rybka 2.3.1 in a decent percentage of games (though obviously in a long match, he would have no chance, just like any other grandmaster)--here, I call 5% a "decent" percentage.  He would have gotten his share of draws, too.  I know this from the fact that he was either finding Rybka's moves or, as indicated by other analysis and later analysis, even better moves.  This is not surprising for grandmasters who have analyzed Morphy's games with computer help, either.

Other than that, obviously you're not going to take my conclusions.  I made them with what for me was enough evidence and thoroughness at the time.  That's all.  However, it would show quite a lot of ignorance on your part if you are implying that nobody at this time knew positional play.  Morphy was one of the main founders of positional play, and this is what put him so far beyond his colleagues and everyone else in the future until Lasker in the 1890's.  He was excessively gifted in this aspect of the game, and he was also extremely good at tactics.  He wasn't as good at tactics as a computer, but you're going to find that any 2500-2600 grandmaster is also going to look similarly silly in such types of games when they are analyzed by a computer.  This is one thing that puts most of these grandmasters so far below the scale of 2700+ grandmasters, just as it puts the champions of the nineteenth century so far below today's best players.
Parent - - By deka (****) Date 2009-10-31 12:43

>It is not of interest to me to resurrect this.


I only asked the games you touched.

>and I'm quite certain that Morphy would have beaten Rybka 2.3.1 in a decent percentage of games (though obviously in a long match, he would have no chance, just like any other grandmaster)--here, I call 5% a "decent" percentage.  He would have gotten his share of draws, too.


This sounds quite different from what you stated awhile back: What I do know is that on his best days, he would have thrashed Rybka 2.3.1.  As far as I know thrash means something other than just beat No human today would quickly crush R3.

>I know this from the fact that he was either finding Rybka's moves or, as indicated by other analysis and later analysis, even better moves


Simple strategic positions have always been a forte of humans against machines. Why are you bringing this subject up as if Morphy were the only one to have it? And even then it would merely refer to quite marginal share of positions.

>Other than that, obviously you're not going to take my conclusions.  I made them with what for me was enough evidence and thoroughness at the time.  That's all. 


Nonetheless I'm not impressed, and by today's standards it is of a little value. After Bratko & Guid published their groundreaking study the realm of computerized analyses has not been the same any more.

>Morphy was one of the main founders of positional play, and this is what put him so far beyond his colleagues and everyone else in the future until Lasker in the 1890's.


Morphy's relatively sound play was due to his natural understanding and good calculation abilities. He didn't establish any principles of positional play nor had he books to learn from. The first pioneer was Steinitz in 1870-s. While Morphy was better at tactics, Steinitz surely was superior to him at positional play. As a result, also backed by computer analysis, is that their stength in 1850-s and 1880-s was roughly equal.

>but you're going to find that any 2500-2600 grandmaster is also going to look similarly silly in such types of games when they are analyzed by a computer.  This is one thing that puts most of these grandmasters so far below the scale of 2700+ grandmasters, just as it puts the champions of the nineteenth century so far below today's best players.


What I found was that 2500-2600 players were as superior to Morphy as 2700-2800 players are superior to them.
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2009-10-31 17:56

> I only asked the games you touched.


I don't have a record of those games anymore.  That's what I mean by having to resurrect them.

> This sounds quite different from what you stated awhile back: What I do know is that on his best days, he would have thrashed Rybka 2.3.1.


This statement, unless I was referring directly to certain types of games (i.e. the ones that Morphy played that I analyzed), would be quite erroneous.  Obviously Rybka would not have let Morphy play all of his openings "his way".  There would be some games where Morphy would have thrashed Rybka 2.3.1, but the results of a long match would be heavily one-sided in favor of Rybka 2.3.1 (but the few games that Morphy would take would show very nasty weaknesses in the computer).  The reason I make this point is that a typical low-ranking grandmaster is not going to do quite so well unless he knows exactly how to play against computers, an advantage that Morphy obviously didn't have.

> As a result, also backed by computer analysis, is that their stength in 1850-s and 1880-s was roughly equal.


This is sounds right.  It wasn't until Lasker that a player was stronger than Morphy.  However, I'm sure that almost any FM, IM, or GM knows it would be quite silly to say that Lasker was the first player stronger than FM level, which is what you're implying.

> What I found was that 2500-2600 players were as superior to Morphy as 2700-2800 players are superior to them.


How can you say this when the style is so much different today?  Do you have a statistically significant number of games of all such levels in which the tactical fireworks today are equivalent to those of 150 years ago?  If so, how do you judge such a thing?
Parent - - By deka (****) Date 2009-10-31 22:50

>I don't have a record of those games anymore.  That's what I mean by having to resurrect them.


Morphy and Paulsen have played only 11 games. Are you sure you don't remember even if it was an ordinary ACC game or a blindfold game? What opening was used, how many moves were made? Was Morphy black or white? Were there any memorable moves?
I have analyzed 6 games between them, and it would be interesting to see how accurate it was, that's why I ask.

>This statement, unless I was referring directly to certain types of games (i.e. the ones that Morphy played that I analyzed), would be quite erroneous. Obviously Rybka would not have let Morphy play all of his openings "his way".  There would be some games where Morphy would have thrashed Rybka 2.3.1,


There would be no games in which any human would be able to defeat a strong computer on a decent hardware in a crushing manner.

>but the few games that Morphy would take would show very nasty weaknesses in the computer). 


Anyone who would go and try to demolish a comp in a tactical game, would go back sorrowfully limping with a boot planted deep in his arse. Exploiting weaknesses require great positional end endgame skills that Morphy lacked.

>The reason I make this point is that a typical low-ranking grandmaster is not going to do quite so well unless he knows exactly how to play against computers, an advantage that Morphy obviously didn't have.


If Morphy didn't have it then what was 'Morphy thrashing Rybka' stuff about? It seems you pull down your previous claim.

>However, I'm sure that almost any FM, IM, or GM knows it would be quite silly to say that Lasker was the first player stronger than FM level, which is what you're implying.


Almost any FM, IM, or GM hasn't done any analyses, they're just letting know their subjective ideas.

>How can you say this when the style is so much different today?  Do you have a statistically significant number of games of all such levels in which the tactical fireworks today are equivalent to those of 150 years ago?  If so, how do you judge such a thing?


It isn't so different that comparisons are impossible if you have right methods and you know what you're doing.
Here are two different studies by me:

http://web.zone.ee/chessanalysis/summary450.pdf
http://web.zone.ee/chessanalysis/summary8.pdf

Neither suggests that Morphy had playing level of comparable with modern GM-s. Modern games very often feature even more complex positions than those in Morphy's games where their accuracy outperforms Morphy's. And his positional and endgame play also doesn't impress as to modern chess.
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2009-11-01 04:38
If it comes to me and I have anything tangible to give, I'll let you know.  I know that I don't have any statistics saved as hard copy.

As for the studies at the end, they are interesting, but they need to be balanced by a reality check: Capablanca MUCH better than both Alekhine and Lasker, by amounts greater than which they're better than Morphy?  I think that everyone will agree that this is quite silly.  Reshevsky only as good as Pillsbury, even though he was Elo-rated as well over 2500 long after his peak?  I don't think that you can use this to put much confidence in an estimate of Morphy's strength, or that of any other player.
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Are Any Rybka-Human Matches In The Works?
1 2 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill