Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Rybka vs. Human : longer time controls ?
- - By FICGS (**) Date 2007-07-14 12:50
Hello all...

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 ?

Thibault
Parent - - By JhorAVi (***) Date 2007-07-14 17:20
I really hate to watch a game where the GM is dominating using an instructional and inspiring strategy and then suddenly lost because of time trouble or blunder.

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.
Parent - - By bedouin (**) Date 2007-07-14 17:36
Even at 2 hours for 40 moves the GM can still play well like the Kasparov matches against Junior or Deep Blue. The problem is that the current contests are played at rapid time controls and there are 2 games per day. Imagine if Ehlvest was playing at 2 hours for 40 in the first game and he had a nice position like in the first game? Even if he lost he has time to sleep over the problem.

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?
Parent - - By FICGS (**) Date 2007-07-15 01:10
No adjournments.. The human plays until death :)  .. Well, the idea is to find a time control that can't exceed... let's say 20 hours per game. 30 minutes + 30 minutes / move with a limit for accumulated time (1 hour, maybe 30 minutes) may work.
Parent - By bedouin (**) Date 2007-07-15 08:33
A titled player should not play under those conditions but then again if you can organise a match against one for pocket money anything goes (or comes). :)
Parent - - By JhorAVi (***) Date 2007-07-15 10:09
I agree! Very long time controls have never been done before against computer so maybe it's humans last hope.  I rather prefer a 2 game match in that format rather than 8 games of total annihilation to mankind.
Parent - - By ThudanBlunder (**) Date 2007-07-15 13:27
Last time I checked the top CC champions could hold there own against the top bots. Is this still true?
Parent - By George Tsavdaris (****) Date 2007-07-16 00:07

>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....
Parent - By Dominik Landau (*) Date 2007-07-15 10:57
I fully agree with you !!
Parent - By George Tsavdaris (****) Date 2007-07-16 00:19

>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.....
Parent - By George Tsavdaris (****) Date 2007-07-16 00:23

>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....
Parent - - By Vasik Rajlich (Silver) Date 2007-07-16 11:13
Actually, it would be interesting - but how to make sure that the human doesn't use computer assistance?

Vas
Parent - - By FICGS (**) Date 2007-07-16 23:56
Such a match should be played in the same conditions than Ehlvest vs. Rybka... No computer assistance should be possible. And I feel it would be less tiring for a GM to play 4 very long games with more chances of draw than to lose 8 rapid games ;)

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
Parent - - By Vasik Rajlich (Silver) Date 2007-07-18 07:33
The problem is that 30 minutes per move is 40 moves in 20 hours. This starts to become a logistics problem. It would be an interesting experiment, though - if somebody wants to organize it, we're all ears.

Vas
Parent - - By albertfrank Date 2007-08-07 13:46
I think the best would be a normal Fischer time control, like 1h40 for the 40 first moves + 50 minutes for the next 20 moves + 30 minutes + 30 secondes per move (starting at move 1), and one game every two days : This has proved to be optimal for GM.... it is absolutely not important if some week players from the public could find it boring : We would have a real chess match. Let say 12 games in 23 days, between a top GM and Rybka - this would give a fair idea.
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2007-08-07 13:53
There would have to be a large amount of funding for such a thing, something that doesn't currently exist.  Room and board for a GM for 23 days?!  And you want a top GM?
Parent - - By Hetman (*****) Date 2007-08-07 19:05
Is the top GM needed to fight vs programm or the man who knows how to play against programms. If we look in the cathegory of fight not the show the top GM is not neccessary.
rgds
Hetman
Parent - By JhorAVi (***) Date 2007-08-07 20:26
As what we have observed in Benjamin vs Rybka match the GM was forced to make move repetition from a promising position because of time trouble.

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.
Parent - - By albertfrank Date 2007-08-07 20:52
"There would have to be a large amount of funding for such a thing, something that doesn't currently exist.  Room and board for a GM for 23 days?!  And you want a top GM?"

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...
Parent - By Vasik Rajlich (Silver) Date 2007-08-08 08:31
Well, if somebody wants to organize this, I'll be happy to provide a Rybka version :)

Vas
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Rybka vs. Human : longer time controls ?

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill