The GM + other engine has the same time controls. The GM then decides whether to make the move suggested by the engine, or one he thinks best. Since Rybka is stronger than any other engine, it is clear if he just relies on the engine, he/she will loose.
It would probably be quite cheap to set this up with a lesser GM - not Kramnik of course.
I personally think the result would be much more intersting than that of games at pawn odds.
It would be good publicity for Rybka if she wins, yet it could not fairly attract negative publicity if she looses.
Besides this evidence, there are several ways to counter your argument -- here just one example of a phenomenon that your argument doesn't consider:
Fritz will disregard some strategically good continuation that starts with some tactics, because Fritz misevaluates some positions resulting from the intermediary tactics. The GM will disregard the good continuation, because he misses the intermediary tactical options. While Rybka both realizes the tactics and evaluates the resulting positions correctly. Result: Rybka 1 - GM + Fritz 0. This is not fantasy, I have seen many positions where a thing like this seems very likely.
Basically, the old myth is that "GMs just need engines for tactics, their own strategical judgement is far superior to that of any engine anyway". This is really just a myth. We can split the claim up:
1) The strategical judgement of a GM is superior to that of any engine.
2) GMs just need engines for tactics.
The flawed reasoning is that 2 follows from 1. It doesn't take into account things like
b) An engine's tactical blind spots caused by bad evaluation.
c) Some positions need a lot of concrete calculation with evaluation "just" being of a quality above a certain treshold. There is no logical guarantee that a GM + a bad evaluation engine will be able to produce such a mass of reasonably good analysis.
But further experiments would be interesting, no doubt... Besides those we can already hint at from the 2nd and 3rd Freestyle :-)
- overall centaur ability, which as you know is a combination of several factors (avoidance of mouse-slips, time management, search method)
- opening preparation, and by this I mean the most efficient way to develop a flexible and varied repertoire
- temperament, something that is very often taken for granted but is really critical when under pressure
- hardware, and by this I don't just mean pure speed by how you array your hardware assets in the most helpful and efficient way
- opponent research and grand strategy, which is something that transcends opening prep
Finally there has to be the simple acknowledgement by notoriously egotistical GMs that computer chess requires a different set of cognitive skills and is therefore almost a different game. (Otherwise how do you explain the Cato team's notable success despite abysmal OTB chess skills?) The fact is that OTB skills do not translate particularly well into the computer chess realm in the heat of competition. The only exception I can think of is in endgames, where a GMs positional analysis can often (but not always) exceed a computer's.
Of course, all these categorical statements can now be made thanks to Rybka. Before it came along there were all sorts of things GMs could legitimately say to preserve their dignity and self-worth and denigrate their mechanical rivals. But now things have clearly shifted into a new realm and it is time to face the stark reality that we are at a point where, during competition, a GM's skill-set offers relatively little incremental value compared to the value the machine is offering.
I do not expect even GM+rybka to score more than 14.5 out of 20 against rybka with no help.
Remember that the rybka team with vasik could not win with white in the last round of the last free style and this team could have bigger advantage because they had the programmer who know the weaknesses of rybka better than other players.
It is only one game but experience from the free style shows that rybka with no help scores clearly more than 25% against combination of rybka and humans.
If the GM is going to use engines to help him then it seems obvious that Vasik will also use the best book that he can use in order to help rybka.
So blunders will be eliminated. I beleive that in the previous match with such tactics Ehlvest could save two half-points.
But who knows may be engine ideas can mislead GM sometimes.
This type of match might produce interesting chess, but it is primarily an engine-engine match, with some human involvement. Junior (for example) would be roughly 300 points stronger than a 2600 GM and would clearly be the dominant "partner" in the pairing. I don't see it as a substitute for engine vs. human matches, rather as one way to have an engine vs. engine match in which the result is not obvious in advance. As you rightly point out, Rybka has nothing to lose from such a match.
But I think it would be an interesting experiment on the same hardware.
I guess (and I'm no expert on computer chess at all), is that as hardware improves more and more, the benifit of having the GM present would be less and less and the superior program would win.
I wonder how much better can be a team of humans that can consult during the game relative to one human.
Can team of N human with equal strength earn more rating from consulting relative to computer with N processors relative to computer with 1 processor.
Of course things may be dependent on time control and in blitz time control the right to consult probably does not change much for humans(only small help)
Note that I assume that humans do not take stupid decisions to consult in case that they can expect it to be counter productive and that they trained at home in consulting in order to avoid counter productive decisions.
I understand that you played the games on the one machine.
You are probably to shy but if you are candidate to master it seems to be enough.
I played engine match equal endgame Rybka 2.3.2 against H9 on 1 proc machine and I would say that Rybka does not have advantage.:-(.The H9 has searched chances to win.
Probably an even bigger factor is the opening. If you are playing against an opening book that you can see, this is a huge advantage. You can choose variations that will suit Fritz for example, whereas Rybka is just choosing at random. What were your rules for the opening choices (what book, what settings, could you look at the Rybka book in choosing your lines, etc.)? To really test this idea of human plus engine vs. Rybka properly, I would advocate using randomized openings with each side playing white once, like in CCRL/CEGT testing.
I suggest if one party want to use XP and the other wanted to use Vista, they should be allowed to do so. Basically both parties would have a free hand to make their software work as well as it possibly can.
I think crippling a program with low spec hardware, or restricting the use of an opening book would not be very useful. It would be most interesting to know what is possible today when the software is working as well as it can be practically made.
I would suggest the use of any opening book the user wants to use.
I don't think it would be sensible to ask the GM to list the openings he would play in advance - he should be free to use whatever he sees fit. Therefore there seems to be no good reason that either bit of software should be required to make the opening book public. The same hardware would be best, but there may be an argument for one side to use Intel and the other AMD, if they thought they would do better with one or the other.
If the GM has experience against machines, and he knows well, how to use the program and how to play against Rybka, then he will have more chances to beat Rybka. Of course that will not be an easy task but, without many doubts, the human has a strong advantage here.
In fact, to have a strong engine to check step to step all the moves and avoid some difficult tactical blunders, it is very very advantageous. If it is enough advantageous for myself, even much more for a GM.
The idea of holding this type of match is interesting, but it's a bit arbitrary. I also don't want to 'pick' on other engines.
However, it would be interesting to hold some sort of centaur-play competions. It makes sense philosophically - centaur play is actually exactly what Rybka is for. One idea I've been bouncing around is to have a freestyle Scheveningen-style team match between a team of GMs (chosen by FIDE Elo) and 'top centaurs' (chosen by Pal/CSS freestyle results and maybe correspondence chess success). I would favor an equal-hardware restriction. Both sides have made it quite clear to me numerous times that they are quite sure that they would win, so there would be a lot of ego at stake, which is always a good thing :)
Anyway, there is a lot of stuff coming up so if we do this, it will be in October or later.
top centaur vs GM+ programm great idea.
It would be interesting to watch such a competition.
The main problem of the free style is that there was no equal hardware and we do not know the hardware that was used by the different teams.
It is logical to think that centaurs used more computer time for the simple fact that a team can use many computers
Only equal hardware competition can tell us the rating advantage that centaurs get against computers.
it is way to nowhere. There is no proof for and there is no proof against.;-). The experiment shall answer.
The aeroplane has the pilot and autopilot. Most time of the flight is controlled by autopilot(computer programm)
but starting and landing is driven by pilot. Here is clear.
Humans would like to think that they add some quality to the engines calculations. :-).
If not then it will be software and hardware race,only.
> The main problem of the free style is that there was no equal hardware and we do not know the hardware that was used by the different teams.
Yes we do... You like to put forward the example of the Rajlich team not beating a pure Rybka. Please allow me to put forward the example of me beating a 32-core pure Rybka using only 6 cores.
> It is logical to think that centaurs used more computer time for the simple fact that a team can use many computers. Only equal hardware competition can tell us the rating advantage that centaurs get against computers.
Being able to use output from several engine entities is a genuine centaur advantage. If there is no engine/machine that is able to take advantage of several computers at once, while centaurs can, then that means that centaurs are superior to pure automatic entities in this particular aspect.
In general, you put forward tons of statements like "we can't know this and that for sure". You are right, but we can put forward qualified assessments, and those assessments tell us that centaurs can add about 150 Elo to a pure engine. This is simply what the evidence so far tells us. If you have another theory than "+150 Elo", then please put forward the evidence, instead of taking us on yet another kindergarden epistemological ride.
" If there is no engine/machine that is able to take advantage of several computers at once, while centaurs can, then that means that centaurs are superior to pure automatic entities in this particular aspect."
1)It is not correct that no machine is able to take advantage of several computers at once and gridchess in WCCC took advantage of many computers.
I suspect that it is possible to do it also for rybka if people are interested and pay vas for it.
I suspect that speed improvement of sqrt(n) when you use n computers may be possible and if it is correct it means that
1024 quads may be equivalent to something that is 32 times faster than a single quad.
It may mean advantage of 250 elo relative to a single quad assuming 50 elo for doubling the speed.
2)You cannot know the relative advantage of centaurs when the hardware of the participants is not known.
Relative advantage of centaurs with equal hardware may be dependent on the hardware that is used so claiming that centaurs have X elo advantage when you mention only time control and do not mention the hardware is meaningless.
> 2)You cannot know the relative advantage of centaurs when the hardware of the participants is not known.
My point still is that people who play in these tournaments DO HAVE some knowledge about what the other participants are/were using. So we DO have significant data points, even though they are not public and you, as a consequence, cannot confirm them.
> Relative advantage of centaurs with equal hardware may be dependent on the hardware that is used so claiming that centaurs have X elo advantage when you mention only time control and do not mention the hardware is meaningless.
No, it is NOT meaningless, since we naturally always have the small print "as things currently seem to be", even though we don't add it to each and every post.
I actually don't understand your general point. We have some people who have thorough first hand experience with these things, and they estimate that centaurs can optimally add about 150 Elo points in Freestyle tournaments, everything else being roughly equal. There is, IMHO, no relevancy in pointing out that these estimates are not scientifically based on thousands on carefully monitored tests under very specific test conditions -- all of us already KNOW that. Experienced people put forward these more or less personal and reasonable estimates EXACTLY because they don't have any scientific tests to point to.
All Vas or others are really saying is:
The best centaurs are currently about 150 Elo better than pure engines.
Please note that, in this context, a doubling of cores is quite insignificant, in terms of elo. Even if we "penalized" the centaur for having double as many cores (because he used two computers), he would still have a 100 Elo "objective" advantage by these estimates...
Furthermore, when someone like Dagh or Jiri tells me what hardware they used, I personally have zero doubts about the accuracy of this, although a neutral observer may not.
The interesting question for me is if with more training we could push this number up to around 200 Elo. This might be feasible. Currently, all the serious centaur teams in these tournaments have some ugly blemishes on their record. For us, it's our loss vs OpenFormula, which I am very confident would not happen again. In general, I'd say that the gap between centaurs and engines has increased slightly over the past year.
>thats alot faster than hydra ,im assumeing hydra did not have a human helping it ???
The Hydra used in the Adams match (and other GM battles) was computer only. The sponsor of PAL Chess and Hydra has also used it/her (presumably as a centaur) under the name Zor-Champ in some Freestyle tournaments [and succesfully too, such as winning the 2nd Finals].
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill