Maybe this has been discussed before, but why not to organize some Rybka vs. Human matches with longer time controls ? Not correspondence chess ones, but we all know how time pressure affects the human play...
What about 30 minutes + 30 minutes per move ? (with ie. an accumulated time limit) I think it's enough for a human player to take all "good" decisions... A significative result by Rybka over grandmasters in such matches would definitely bury the human chess IMO :)
What do you think ?
I suggest no Time Limit for the GM with a maximum of 1 day for the entire game with time breaks..
It avoids the two main factors why GMs loose to computers: time trouble and Blunder.
30 mins + 30 per move will mean the game cannot be played competitively as a 6 game match with an average of 45 moves per game will be played over a long time/adjourned. How are you going to ensure the human does not check computer analysis during adjournments?
>Last time I checked the top CC champions could hold there own against the top bots. Is this still true?
Last results of 3 years between human and computers have mostly wins for the computers and all other results are draws.....
So it isn't true....
>I suggest no Time Limit for the GM with a maximum of 1 day for the entire game with time breaks..
This would be a boring match.... :)
>It avoids the two main factors why GMs loose to computers: time trouble and Blunder.
I agree that the main factor GM's are losing from computers is that they make mistakes because of time trouble, but i think they make also mistakes without being in time trouble and this is also the other main factor. And you can't eliminate that, because human nature combined with Chess nature implies that humans will do mistakes at Chess without being in time trouble.
I'm also not sure that if you give to the GM's more time so they would make less mistakes, then they would have much better results. I guess they will have, but the matter is how much better?
Note also that computers are much much better from top humans at Chess at blitz time controls.
They are much better at rapid time controls.
And now they seem to be better at even long time controls like 90+30" or 40/40 etc....
But the time control you suggest of 24 hours per game is something different and we can't really know who is better at this.
I guess still the computer because the GM would feel tired to think for so long.
But i think you suggest a handicap, which human would have 24hours/game but computer a normal classic time control.
Well i don't like suggestions of this type only to let the human have a chance and not lose.....
>What about 30 minutes + 30 minutes per move ? (with ie. an accumulated time limit) I think it's enough for a human player to take all "good" >decisions... A significative result by Rybka over grandmasters in such matches would definitely bury the human chess IMO
I think this is a terrible idea because Rybka would make very long time to play each move about 20-35 minutes as also the GM, so the game would last more than 25 hours in the best case!
And the GM would feel exhausted after such a match....
I think it would be really interesting. (and I would prefer to watch such games than blitz blunders, but the aim is not to offer a show for sure)
Best wishes, Thibault
A lot of you here might argue that longer time control is boring. But nothing is more boring than a game decided too early because of the risk of time trouble.
I don't say it's easy: I say it would be the only way to clearly see a significant result of a real chess match between Rybka an a super GM (we know that a "normal" GM will loose badly...
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill