Rybka-GM Benjamin Pawn Odds Match

This forum is for general discussions and questions, including Collectors Corner and anything to do with Computer chess.

Moderators: Harvey Williamson, Steve B, Watchman

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the fen tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
Terry McCracken
Senior Member
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:49 pm

Post by Terry McCracken »

Yes he probably would. Believe me, Rybka was playing with a full deck if not more with these odds. I think it helped the computer. Open lines et al.


I don't discpute what you are saying, but why the odds? Why not play a straight game of chess?
I can see, without the computer.
Sorry as a categorized member of the 999's I appologize to you.
That proposal is as insulting as it is absurd
spacious_mind wrote: I provided an idea open for discussion and if neccessary ridicule. Your comment is a statement. I would prefer an explanation of why this is not possible so that I may discard this absurd idea of an equal playing field.

thanks and best regards
For the reason above, no handicaps, no odds of anykind.

Best,
Terry
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

[quote="Terry McCracken

For the reason above, no handicaps, no odds of anykind.

Best,
Terry[/quote]

A very short response, which still leaves me confused. So you are saying that the Human and ALL Chess Engines (human code) should be handicapped and defer to the unlimited power of the processer. Because it would be unfair to handicap the processor?

So really in our hobby/sport Intel or AMD are the truly best chess players? That blows my theory and suspicion that an engine (any engine) reputed to be the best in the world would show at its best a max 150-200 Elo improvement as a software compared to for example the Spracklen Software of 1989 inside a V10 (<---- For Steve :D ) if ran at the same speed

No wonder few GM's even bother to play computer matches, the only incentive to even consider a match would be the lure of money provided by the Software Company who benefits through the increased Sales of their software. Does the Engine programmer really get that warm fuzzy feeling in his claim that he is the best in the World when all he has to be able to justify that claim is the power of Intel?

Every sport changes its rules from time to time to adapt to modern times and avoid unfair play, in baseball the composition of the bat or the ball becomes part of the rules as just one example.

But you are saying that unfair play should always be allowed and the third party to the game (baseball bat manufacturer) has the right to influence the result?

Interesting but way off the mark and a sad state for the human game of chess.
Nick
User avatar
Steve B
Site Admin
Posts: 10140
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:02 am
Location: New York City USofA
Contact:

Post by Steve B »

spacious_mind wrote: Every sport changes its rules from time to time to adapt to modern times and avoid unfair play, in baseball the composition of the bat or the ball becomes part of the rules as just one example.

But you are saying that unfair play should always be allowed and the third party to the game (baseball bat manufacturer) has the right to influence the result?

Interesting but way off the mark and a sad state for the human game of chess.
one thing i can tell you Nick

from what i have learned
it is not only the organizers or sponsors or even the engine authors that come up with these odds matches

the GM's themselves are reluctant to play straight games against the likes of a Rybka or a Hiarcs anymore

so unless we are willing to just close the issue and not have Human vs Computer matches anymore then i am afraid they will stop happening all together unless some form of odds are offered the human player

of all of the possible odds i think Draw odds are the least objectionable because it does not effect normal play as material or time odds do

especially when the odds are against a fully loaded program with full book and table bases

its the least of all evils i think

i guess some would just then conclude that if GM's are reluctant to play on equal terms then we should just forget about human -Computer matches altogether

i for one am still interested in seeing humans play ..

Best
Steve
User avatar
Terry McCracken
Senior Member
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:49 pm

Post by Terry McCracken »

For the reason above, no handicaps, no odds of anykind.

Best,
Terry
spacious_mind wrote: A very short response, which still leaves me confused. So you are saying that the Human and ALL Chess Engines (human code) should be handicapped and defer to the unlimited power of the processer. Because it would be unfair to handicap the processor?

So really in our hobby/sport Intel or AMD are the truly best chess players? That blows my theory and suspicion that an engine (any engine) reputed to be the best in the world would show at its best a max 150-200 Elo improvement as a software compared to for example the Spracklen Software of 1989 inside a V10 (<---- For Steve :D ) if ran at the same speed

No wonder few GM's even bother to play computer matches, the only incentive to even consider a match would be the lure of money provided by the Software Company who benefits through the increased Sales of their software. Does the Engine programmer really get that warm fuzzy feeling in his claim that he is the best in the World when all he has to be able to justify that claim is the power of Intel?

Every sport changes its rules from time to time to adapt to modern times and avoid unfair play, in baseball the composition of the bat or the ball becomes part of the rules as just one example.

But you are saying that unfair play should always be allowed and the third party to the game (baseball bat manufacturer) has the right to influence the result?

Interesting but way off the mark and a sad state for the human game of chess.
No, I'm saying no handicaps for either the human or the machine. Also no special privileges to either the human or the machine.

Steve proposes a compromise, and although I don't agree with it, I would consider it only if he's right, that no one will play without some form of handicap, as it appears to be the lesser evil, as he stated.

Terry
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Terry McCracken wrote: No, I'm saying no handicaps for either the human or the machine. Also no special privileges to either the human or the machine.

Steve proposes a compromise, and although I don't agree with it, I would consider it only if he's right, that no one will play without some form of handicap, as it appears to be the lesser evil, as he stated.

Terry
Great! now we are starting to talk. It does look that all three of us want the continuation of matches between software engines dedicated or not and humans.

But we do have 3 different views on how this should proceed into the future.

Steve for the sake of continuing these matches will accept compromises today to allow the games to continue but I am also pretty sure he allows compromises only because of today's helpless situation = Compromise or no more matches.

You of course want the matches to continue on equal terms.

My view is that the matches are not equal today, neither were they yesterday and tomorrow it will be even worse. Because even if Hiarcs/Rybka/Junior do absolutely nothing more in their software development the matches will become even more less likely and more pointless every day that passes. They dont have to do a thing and in a few years time todays software will be rated ELO 3500 what then?

Why would a Grandmaster care anyway, He knows the software is weaker than he is but beefed up by hardware, complete opening encyclopedias and continuously larger tablebases. So how could he even take this kind of competition seriously it is meaningless to him other then the possibility of a fat check if he allows himself to be beaten thereby satisfying the Ego of the Software Company who only cares about $$$ and not about this 1000 year old game.

But just like you and Steve I do care I enjoy the game, playing it, reading up on it, comparings stats and all that fun stuff. But I am also perfectly happy for the sake of future matches and software improvement that some rules are set in place by FIDE or whoever else governs chess that shuts out the manufacturers and corporations with big $'s and protects the players humans and engines alike.

What is wrong with saying saying that the max CPU is 500/1000 Mhz whatever. No Talebases. Opening Books only up to x PLY. PC has to be in the same room as player etc. So what if this means that the software companies have to work another 10 or 20 years to catch up. Let them work a little longer to catch up with humans, I dont see anything wrong with that.

If the chess software companies dont start to wake up pretty soon and work towards competiton and interaction with humans they will find that they will be out business sometime in the near future. Afterall why should I buy a Hiarcs or Rybka if free Winboard engines can already beat all Grandmasters in a Terazillionbillion GigaHertz PCU.

You see it is just ludricrus to continue the way it is today for the software manufacturers. Humans don't need them but they need humans for the $.
Nick
User avatar
AMD64inside
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:31 pm

Post by AMD64inside »

spacious_mind wrote:
Terry McCracken wrote: No, I'm saying no handicaps for either the human or the machine. Also no special privileges to either the human or the machine.

Steve proposes a compromise, and although I don't agree with it, I would consider it only if he's right, that no one will play without some form of handicap, as it appears to be the lesser evil, as he stated.

Terry
What is wrong with saying saying that the max CPU is 500/1000 Mhz whatever. No Talebases. Opening Books only up to x PLY. PC has to be in the same room as player etc. So what if this means that the software companies have to work another 10 or 20 years to catch up. Let them work a little longer to catch up with humans, I dont see anything wrong with that.
I don't like the use of handicaps and would prefer to see 32v32 pieces, equal time ie a straight forward fighting game of chess. However, advances in multicore technology is making matches against GM or World Champions less and less likely.

What is wrong with the computer being a single CPU? - The human has to use their single brain.

I would rather watch a close exciting match between GM and Rybka or Hiarcs etc on single CPU (the most powerful available, non-handicaped) than a handicapped (pawn odds, draw odds, time odds or whatever) multi cpu computer.

Unless we are saying that the GM would win easily against a single brained computer opponent? If that is the case then more computer advancement and less software advancement has been the main difference between the best computer player and the best GM's.

1 brain v 1 brain Regards

Darrell
User avatar
AMD64inside
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:31 pm

Post by AMD64inside »

AMD64inside wrote: I don't like the use of handicaps and would prefer to see 32v32 pieces,
Oops.. I mean 16 v 16 pieces :oops:

Darrell
Uri Blass
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:40 pm

Post by Uri Blass »

spacious_mind wrote:[quote="Terry McCracken

For the reason above, no handicaps, no odds of anykind.

Best,
Terry
A very short response, which still leaves me confused. So you are saying that the Human and ALL Chess Engines (human code) should be handicapped and defer to the unlimited power of the processer. Because it would be unfair to handicap the processor?

So really in our hobby/sport Intel or AMD are the truly best chess players? That blows my theory and suspicion that an engine (any engine) reputed to be the best in the world would show at its best a max 150-200 Elo improvement as a software compared to for example the Spracklen Software of 1989 inside a V10 (<---- For Steve :D ) if ran at the same speed

No wonder few GM's even bother to play computer matches, the only incentive to even consider a match would be the lure of money provided by the Software Company who benefits through the increased Sales of their software. Does the Engine programmer really get that warm fuzzy feeling in his claim that he is the best in the World when all he has to be able to justify that claim is the power of Intel?

Every sport changes its rules from time to time to adapt to modern times and avoid unfair play, in baseball the composition of the bat or the ball becomes part of the rules as just one example.

But you are saying that unfair play should always be allowed and the third party to the game (baseball bat manufacturer) has the right to influence the result?

Interesting but way off the mark and a sad state for the human game of chess.[/quote]

The progress in software from 1990 is clearly more than 150-200 elo and it is easy to show it.

One game when old software from 1990 could draw against toga proves nothing and I guess it is going to lose more than 90 out of 100 games.

Even if we go back only to 1994 then
The leading program in 1994 was Genius3

Genius7 that has similiar playing strength to Genius3 has only CEGT
rating of 2441

292 Genius 7 2441 32 32 313 42.2 % 2496 31.9 %

For comparison we have on the same hardware.

11 Rybka 2.3.2a w32 1CPU 2976 16 15 1371 71.8 % 2814 34.6 %
68 Toga II 1.2.1a 2800 8 8 5183 53.0 % 2779 35.6 %

You can claim that the difference may be smaller on slower hardware
but programs from 1990 are clearly weaker than Genius so I think that the total difference between toga and the Spracklen Software of 1989 is more than 400 elo if they use the same hardware regardless of the hardware that is used.

Note that part of the software improvement is more efficient search so of course with more time the improvement is bigger but I cannot imagine possible hardware when the difference at tournament time control is less than 400 elo.

Uri
Uri Blass
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:40 pm

Post by Uri Blass »

The link that I used for the rating is

http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%2 ... liste.html

Unfortunately there is a rule that I need to have at least one post before I can post links so I could not post it in the first post.

Uri
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Uri Blass wrote:The link that I used for the rating is

http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%2 ... liste.html

Unfortunately there is a rule that I need to have at least one post before I can post links so I could not post it in the first post.

Uri
Yuri of course the faster the CPU the bigger the gap, that is my whole argument in the thread about GM-Computer matches. But try playing Rybka at 25 Mhz against a V10 and let us compare, without tablebases , an opening book no larger than 64000 positions. Rom and Ram at 1MB. I would be very surprised if the gap would still be 400 as you suggest. I think I will still stick to my ELO 150-200 estimation.

Best regards
Nick
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Here is another game from the same Aktivschach tournament 30sec/move against Resurrection Engines.

Fidelity Elite 68060 V11 (2296)
Phoenix Chess Revelation Rybka (2570)

3.Online Aktivschach WM / Abschlussturnier (6.3)
2007

1. d4 Sf6 2. c3 g6 3. Sf3 Lg7 4. e3 O-O 5. Ld3 Sc6 6. O-O d5 7. Sbd2 a5 8. b3 Dd6 9. a4 Le6 10. La3 Dd7 11. Dc2 Tfe8 12. Tae1 Lf5 13. e4 dxe4 14. Sxe4 Sxe4 15. Lxe4 Tad8 16. Lxf5 Dxf5 17. Dxf5 gxf5 18. Te2 Lf6 19. Tfe1 Kg7 20. Lc1 Kg6 21. Ld2 Td7 22. h3 h5 23. Lf4 e6 24. Kh2 Se7 25. Te5 b6 26. T5e2 Sd5 27. Ld2 Tb8 28. Kh1 c5 29. c4 Se7 30. dxc5 bxc5 31. Le3 Txb3 32. Lxc5 Sc6 33. Te3 Tb2 34. T3e2 Txe2 35. Txe2 Td1+ 36. Te1 Txe1+ 37. Sxe1 Se5 38. g3 Sxc4 39. Sd3 e5 40. Kg2 Lg5 41. La7 e4 42. Sc5 Lh6 43. Lb8 Ld2 44. Lc7 Kf6 45. Kf1 Lb4 46. Ld8+ Ke5 47. Sd7+ Ke6 48. Sf6 h4 49. gxh4 Sb2 50. h5 Lc3 51. Sg8 Sxa4 52. h6 e3 53. h7 e2+ 54. Kxe2 Lh8 55. Lf6 Sc3+ 56. Ke1 Se4 57. Lxh8 Sg5 58. Sf6 f4 59. h4 Sf3+ 1-0

Bear in mind that Rybka is playing at 200Mhz whereas V11 is 72Mhz nevermind hashes and books, endgame hashes etc. a permanent brain that can go into postions 3 x as quickly etc a huge advantage for 30 second moves dont you think?

Regards

Ps. Uri.... ooooops sorry for the typo with your name earlier..!
Nick
Uri Blass
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:40 pm

Post by Uri Blass »

spacious_mind wrote:Here is another game from the same Aktivschach tournament 30sec/move against Resurrection Engines.

Fidelity Elite 68060 V11 (2296)
Phoenix Chess Revelation Rybka (2570)

3.Online Aktivschach WM / Abschlussturnier (6.3)
2007

1. d4 Sf6 2. c3 g6 3. Sf3 Lg7 4. e3 O-O 5. Ld3 Sc6 6. O-O d5 7. Sbd2 a5 8. b3 Dd6 9. a4 Le6 10. La3 Dd7 11. Dc2 Tfe8 12. Tae1 Lf5 13. e4 dxe4 14. Sxe4 Sxe4 15. Lxe4 Tad8 16. Lxf5 Dxf5 17. Dxf5 gxf5 18. Te2 Lf6 19. Tfe1 Kg7 20. Lc1 Kg6 21. Ld2 Td7 22. h3 h5 23. Lf4 e6 24. Kh2 Se7 25. Te5 b6 26. T5e2 Sd5 27. Ld2 Tb8 28. Kh1 c5 29. c4 Se7 30. dxc5 bxc5 31. Le3 Txb3 32. Lxc5 Sc6 33. Te3 Tb2 34. T3e2 Txe2 35. Txe2 Td1+ 36. Te1 Txe1+ 37. Sxe1 Se5 38. g3 Sxc4 39. Sd3 e5 40. Kg2 Lg5 41. La7 e4 42. Sc5 Lh6 43. Lb8 Ld2 44. Lc7 Kf6 45. Kf1 Lb4 46. Ld8+ Ke5 47. Sd7+ Ke6 48. Sf6 h4 49. gxh4 Sb2 50. h5 Lc3 51. Sg8 Sxa4 52. h6 e3 53. h7 e2+ 54. Kxe2 Lh8 55. Lf6 Sc3+ 56. Ke1 Se4 57. Lxh8 Sg5 58. Sf6 f4 59. h4 Sf3+ 1-0

Bear in mind that Rybka is playing at 200Mhz whereas V11 is 72Mhz nevermind hashes and books, endgame hashes etc. a permanent brain that can go into postions 3 x as quickly etc a huge advantage for 30 second moves dont you think?

Regards

Ps. Uri.... ooooops sorry for the typo with your name earlier..!
I am sorry but I do not believe that white is rybka on 200 mhz.

Rybka likes 31.Re5 in analysis mode even at depth 5 and not blunder by 31.Be3

Edit maybe you claim that black is rybka but I doubt if rybka works on 200mhz.

Edit 2:My Rybka cannot reproduce 48...h4

Uri

Uri
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Uri Blass wrote: I am sorry but I do not believe that white is rybka on 200 mhz.

Rybka likes 31.Re5 in analysis mode even at depth 5 and not blunder by 31.Be3

Edit maybe you claim that black is rybka but I doubt if rybka works on 200mhz.

Edit 2:My Rybka cannot reproduce 48...h4

Uri

Uri
http://www.schachcomputer.info/html/onl ... _wm_3.html

That is the link I watched the match live, Ruud Martin creator of Revelation played the game himself in this tournament... Also I appologize Revelation plays I believe at 500 Mhz not the 200MHz I mentioned earlier.
Nick
User avatar
Steve B
Site Admin
Posts: 10140
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:02 am
Location: New York City USofA
Contact:

Post by Steve B »

spacious_mind wrote:
Uri Blass wrote: I am sorry but I do not believe that white is rybka on 200 mhz.

Rybka likes 31.Re5 in analysis mode even at depth 5 and not blunder by 31.Be3

Edit maybe you claim that black is rybka but I doubt if rybka works on 200mhz.

Edit 2:My Rybka cannot reproduce 48...h4

Uri

Uri
http://www.schachcomputer.info/html/onl ... _wm_3.html

That is the link I watched the match live, Ruud Martin creator of Revelation played the game himself in this tournament... Also I appologize Revelation plays I believe at 500 Mhz not the 200MHz I mentioned earlier.
Yes Nick
as you just mentioned it was the Revelation which runs on a Xscale PXA255 processor-500 Mhz-32MB Ram 16 MB Flashrom

it should also be mentioned that the Revelation has not yet been released for sale and the computer used by Ruud was a prototype

Best
Steve
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Yes Nick
as you just mentioned it was the Revelation which runs on a Xscale PXA255 processor-500 Mhz-32MB Ram 16 MB Flashrom

it should also be mentioned that the Revelation has not yet been released for sale and the computer used by Ruud was a prototype

Best
Steve
Thanks Steve.
Are you # 1 again on the order list ? :D
Nick
Post Reply