Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

Date: 05 Mar 2008 08:21:25
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

The GM name is ? It has about I4 letters in his name ..

I was on the Rybka website and the people over there said he is a
anti computer type GM so he would give it a challenge ..
Rybka is still giving him a different pawn in every game ........

Still it is exciting chess ...

Date: 08 Mar 2008 13:42:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

On 8, 3:50 pm, EZoto <[email protected] > wrote:

> I remember those days. He also was a chain smoker and could beat you
> with those odds smoking a cigarette at the same time. A lot of people
> don't realize how good Dzindzi really was in those days. After he got
> ried and had a daughter he literally became a different man and
> even played first board for the olympiad and thrashed Beliavsky in
> there encounter.

In the old days, every time a Russian grandmaster
emigrated to the USA he would soon appear on the
cover of Chess Lies magazine, having won a big
tourney or two. Lev Alburt, Boris Gulko, Roman
Dzindzichashvili, and so on down the line. Finally,
there were so many "Russian" GMs here that new
ones could no longer expect such instant success.
Today, it seems that the big-money events have
grown larger, and often end in multi-way ties.

But I wish they could afford to pit the current top
players against Rybka, at *slower* time controls.
Some people don't like the idea of material odds,
probably because they live and breathe a detailed
knowledge (read: memory) of the chess openings.
This doesn't bother me, but a part of the odds
package could be time odds, for instance. I have
grown accustomed to post-game analysis, where
the computer is given oodles of time to think over
each position before rendering a judgment; so
when I see these fast games -- what was once
considered "action chess" -- I cringe at the crude
time-pressure-induced mistakes.

Even Rybka, at this fast time control, is hardly
immune from error. One Rook ending ought to
have been drawn rather than lost, and in the
game where GM Dzindzi lost the exchage,
Rybka's "defense" reminded me of GetClub.

-- help bot

Date: 12 Mar 2008 16:29:21
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

On 12, 5:06 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:

> You were (greatly :-) disappointed because you didn't
> peruse the introduction to the book.

I seriously doubt that; generally speaking, I
find the text more interesting than the games
themselves. The exception is where the text
is nothing but blather.

> I have the 2nd
> russian edition of the book. It iincludes two intros,
> both to the first and to the second edition. Bronstein
> wrote in both introductions that his monography
> is devoted to the middle game.

I hardly expect an author to expound on the
virtues of 1. e4 e5, 2. Nf3 Nc6, but most of
these games became "interesting" long before
any commentary whatever appeared. At the
time the games were played, most strong
chess players would have been familiar with
the then-current fashions in the openings, but
this book has been raved about for decades
afterward, and there is a gaping hole between
the more recent fashions, and what was then
well-known.

Perusing the recommendations given on rgc,
it becomes apparent that the older such a
work is, the greater its chances of being
praised in the same manner as this book has
been. My conclusion is that people tend to
recommend books which were recommended
to them, years, if not decades earlier, for the
quality of such books is simply not up to par;
not up to the standards which would bring the
books to the top of any purely objective list.

Example: Basic Chess Endings, as we know,
is filled to overflowing with analytical errors, yet
it has been mentioned time and again as one
of the "best" endgame books; when people
complain that they were unable to read it, the
answer is offered up: it's a reference work, not
a romance novel. But that brings us right back
to /quality/ again; a reference should have few
if any careless errors, unlike GM Fine's effort.
Now, if it was not possible to write without so
many errors "creeping in", then we would have
to choose among the possibilities using some
other criteria; but in fact, there /are/ endgame
books with no discernible errors, let alone
enough for a compendium of them to render
another book in its own right, as with BCE.

Now that I have a very strong chess engine
handy, I could probably look over the gaping
holes in GM Bronstien's famous work, but I
now have the impression that all these
recommendations are worthless; just look
at some of the books highly recommended
here-- they are mediocre at best, while a lot
of more modern works are systematically
overlooked. It's nostalgia that rules the day,
not quality.

If you go to the Web site jeremysilman.com,
you will find what is purportedly the biggest
collection of chess book reviews extant; but
looking over some of these, I discovered that
books on the priy reviewers' favorite chess
openings are covered in-depth, while books on
say, cave paintings by hump-backed camels
are glossed over, not really reviewed at all.

There is a /huge/ variance in the length and
depth of the reviews, and as the averages
indicate, even the numerical scores given by
the various reviewers vary widely in meaning.
For one or two reviewers, a book given a 9
means it was fairly good, while for others, a
9 means it is the finest book ever written, on
a pet line in the reviewer's very favorite chess
opening. It's all subjective, and sometimes,
very, very shallow.

-- help bot

Date: 12 Mar 2008 02:06:06
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

On 10, 2:08 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 10, 9:00 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > But in a practical sense what does this really mean? A 10 centipawn
> > edge is dubious at best for a human player. 25 centipawns is better
> > but still it's something that a computer understands and a human would
> > have a much harder time converting into something tangible. And, go a
> > few plies deeper and we swing another 10 cp in either direction. We
> > are fooling ourselves if we think this is any sort of practical guide
> > in real-life play.
>
> > In fact, as the position stood, and as it would be played by humans,
> > even top grandmasters, Black did have an edge simply in the fact that
> > there were positional considerations that humans could understand and
> > deal with. Those considerations would have been overturned by
> > extremely deep and complex concrete analysis of which only a computer
> > is capable. The computer would have perhaps won with White (certainly
> > not have lost), but in the real game, Black pushed his "real life"
> > advantage and made a win out of it.
>
> > To take this exposition to an unexpected conclusion, this all explains
> > why I like Sanny and I like GitClub. They make very human errors, the
> > kind of errors and blunders that I make. I can relate to them. I
> > cannot relate to Rybka on any level.
>
> Well, some of the computer vs. computer games
> I replayed had Rybka winning endgames which
> most humans would give up as impossible to make
> headway in. In these games, I could not pinpoint
> the specific errors which led to the opponents'
> downfall, and no information was provided as to
> how those programs evaluated the positions as
> they crumbled.
>
> But there are plenty of cases where strong
> programs will improve on "theory", and all that is
> needed is to see the improvement and its
> immediate follow-up in order for us to understand
> perfectly, so to speak. Often as not, it is just a
> clever tactic, or a material sacrifice which we
> reject out-of-hand but which the program takes
> the time to evaluate objectively.
>
> I read quite a few "raving reviews" regarding
> the GM Bronstein book you mentioned, and
> with great expectations I began to peruse a
> copy. I was greatly disappointed in that the
> opening moves were just glossed over, when
> in fact the positions were very complex and
> anything but obvious. I vaguely recall that the
> author might jump clear to move fifteen before
> offering any insight as to what was happening,
> [...]

You were (greatly :-) disappointed because you didn't
peruse the introduction to the book. I have the 2nd
russian edition of the book. It iincludes two intros,
both to the first and to the second edition. Bronstein
wrote in both introductions that his monography
is devoted to the middle game.

Regards,

Wlod

Date: 10 Mar 2008 14:08:52
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

On 10, 9:00 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

> But in a practical sense what does this really mean? A 10 centipawn
> edge is dubious at best for a human player. 25 centipawns is better
> but still it's something that a computer understands and a human would
> have a much harder time converting into something tangible. And, go a
> few plies deeper and we swing another 10 cp in either direction. We
> are fooling ourselves if we think this is any sort of practical guide
> in real-life play.
>
> In fact, as the position stood, and as it would be played by humans,
> even top grandmasters, Black did have an edge simply in the fact that
> there were positional considerations that humans could understand and
> deal with. Those considerations would have been overturned by
> extremely deep and complex concrete analysis of which only a computer
> is capable. The computer would have perhaps won with White (certainly
> not have lost), but in the real game, Black pushed his "real life"
> advantage and made a win out of it.
>
> To take this exposition to an unexpected conclusion, this all explains
> why I like Sanny and I like GitClub. They make very human errors, the
> kind of errors and blunders that I make. I can relate to them. I
> cannot relate to Rybka on any level.

Well, some of the computer vs. computer games
I replayed had Rybka winning endgames which
most humans would give up as impossible to make
headway in. In these games, I could not pinpoint
the specific errors which led to the opponents'
downfall, and no information was provided as to
how those programs evaluated the positions as
they crumbled.

But there are plenty of cases where strong
programs will improve on "theory", and all that is
needed is to see the improvement and its
immediate follow-up in order for us to understand
perfectly, so to speak. Often as not, it is just a
clever tactic, or a material sacrifice which we
reject out-of-hand but which the program takes
the time to evaluate objectively.

I read quite a few "raving reviews" regarding
the GM Bronstein book you mentioned, and
with great expectations I began to peruse a
copy. I was greatly disappointed in that the
opening moves were just glossed over, when
in fact the positions were very complex and
anything but obvious. I vaguely recall that the
author might jump clear to move fifteen before
offering any insight as to what was happening,
and heck, by then I would have already lost a
piece or something. Those guys were
playing openings and lines I knew little or
nothing about, so you could say that the book
was "over my head" and dismiss my criticism;
but then, you would have to do the same
thing for many, many others-- just let them
drown, the patzers; this book was intended
for Russian GMs, not you!

My favorite in that vein is where each of
*several* different grandmasters independently
annotate the same games, but it is never done
fairly, equitably. In reality, one GM will go to
print first, then later another will add his own
commentary, correcting a few errors of the
first guy along the way. Then comes GM
number three, and so forth down the line. The
first guy never has a chance to correct anyone
but the two players themselves... .

-- help bot

Date: 10 Mar 2008 07:00:35
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

> there is a strong temptation to stop
> thinking and just let the machine do every-
> thing; time being limited, the result can be
> a shallow anno-Fritzation

You raise a point that others have raised and it is a good one. I
have read also in a number of places that now the trend is toward
concrete analysis rather than understanding the position, with
computers having pushed us to this. But in addition to what you
mention --- the trend to just let the computer do it all and then to
blindly believe it, this trend accelerated and supported by the
amazing things engines like Rybka can do --- we tend to forget that
chess for fun (even very serious fun) is played by people, over the
board, and the kind of concrete analysis featured in Chess Lice and
many new books is all but impossible for even the world's top
players. When real people play real chess, positional understanding
and general principles still play a large role, as they must.

A good case in point: this past weekend I was playing over a game from
the velous book of the renowned Zurich 1953 tournament. A position
was reached (I think in the third game in the book; I don't have it in
front of me) in which the annotator (Bronstein) though Black had a bit
of an advantage, and mentioned a move for White (one that I would have
likely played) as being unappealing. I didn't see quite why so I set
up the position with Rybka and poked around for 20 minutes or so.
Interestingly, though Bronstein thought Black had an edge, Rybka gave
White anything from a 10 to 25 centipawn edge depending on the
continuation, this based on deep and complex analysis with some very
unobvious moves in the projected lines of play (the move I liked and
Bronstein did not like was indeed inferior for White, but only in that
White would have less of an advantage).

But in a practical sense what does this really mean? A 10 centipawn
edge is dubious at best for a human player. 25 centipawns is better
but still it's something that a computer understands and a human would
have a much harder time converting into something tangible. And, go a
few plies deeper and we swing another 10 cp in either direction. We
are fooling ourselves if we think this is any sort of practical guide
in real-life play.

In fact, as the position stood, and as it would be played by humans,
even top grandmasters, Black did have an edge simply in the fact that
there were positional considerations that humans could understand and
deal with. Those considerations would have been overturned by
extremely deep and complex concrete analysis of which only a computer
is capable. The computer would have perhaps won with White (certainly
not have lost), but in the real game, Black pushed his "real life"
advantage and made a win out of it.

To take this exposition to an unexpected conclusion, this all explains
why I like Sanny and I like GitClub. They make very human errors, the
kind of errors and blunders that I make. I can relate to them. I
cannot relate to Rybka on any level.

Date: 09 Mar 2008 22:53:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

On 9, 9:31 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Chess Lies magazine-- trash, churned out
>
> I was looking at the latest issue at breakfast and a tiny bit of
> grease from my bagel fell on the page. I tried to wipe it off, and
> the ink immediately ran and smeared becoming instantly illegible.
>
> Not only poor writing, poor articles, but poor production.... and yet
> we can't opt out in our membership, we have to pay for the thing
> whether we want it or not.
>
> It's barely changed since I first read it in the 1960s --- bad then,
> bad now. It even just about looks the same.

I have noticed a few changes:

1) The old Cold War garbage is gone. At one
time, the editorial slant was so severe, it is a
wonder that the type itself did not slide off the
pages.

2) Now, there is a lot of computer-assisted
analysis. Trouble is, when the annotators
decide the computer knows more than they
do, there is a strong temptation to stop
thinking and just let the machine do every-
thing; time being limited, the result can be
a shallow anno-Fritzation, easily refuted by
a somewhat deeper analysis, or even a
Fritz-look at positions the annotator may
have just skipped over to save time.

One example was an article on GM Boris
Gulko, where the writers chose a theme of
"watch his perfect technique", so to speak.
Problem was that later in the game GM
Gulko essentially threw away two-thirds of
his accumulated advantage by a careless
blunder; this was "handled" by pretending
it never happened, which is why I am not
impressed with the quality of these puff-
pieces.

It reminded me of another, very similar
puff-piece from the old days in which GM
Pal Benko, who wrote about the endgame,
penned a piece about "why all Rook and
pawn endings are drawn". His choice of
game could not have been worse, for as
he was expounding on how simple it was
for an endgame genius like him to draw
the position, I did a little research. It so
happened that I found the exact same
position in an endgame reference by two
Russian GMs: Smyslov and Levenfish,
and it was a "book win"! And a very
instructive one at that. You know the
worst part of this example? The fact
that I "knew" to look it up, whereas GM
Benko thought he knew everything, that
he understood such endings perfectly.
You see, after playing over "Alekhine's
Best Games of Chess", I could just
/feel/ that there was a possibility of
more than a draw; that a /real/ chess
player could not so easily be held to
a draw.

Now, it's Rybka; the blasted program
basically /cheats/ in the endgame, often
winning positions that nobody ought to
have any right to win. It does so invisibly,
imperceptibly, almost magically. I want
to point a finger at the other programs'
contempt factors, as there must be
/some reason/ they play so stupidly!

-- help bot

Date: 09 Mar 2008 19:31:02
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

> Chess Lies magazine-- trash, churned out

I was looking at the latest issue at breakfast and a tiny bit of
grease from my bagel fell on the page. I tried to wipe it off, and
the ink immediately ran and smeared becoming instantly illegible.

Not only poor writing, poor articles, but poor production.... and yet
we can't opt out in our membership, we have to pay for the thing
whether we want it or not.

It's barely changed since I first read it in the 1960s --- bad then,
bad now. It even just about looks the same.

Date: 08 Mar 2008 17:16:28
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

On 8, 5:10 pm, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:

> What is the classical time control for a world championship game ?

In the old days, there could be as many as
three minutes per move. When you factor in
the fact that it is typical for the first ten or so
moves to be played rapidly by rote, that can
make for high-quality chess.

> Fischer vs Spasky for example , did they play 40 moves in 2 I/2 hours
> ? Then after the 40 moves they get 5 min a move ?

In some games, these two were "in book"
for fifteen or more moves, so it doesn't much
matter.

> Are the rules the same for the next world championship game ?

I don't know.

> why not play Rybka at world championship time controls ? Would
> Rybka kill humans because it could think of so many moves in that time
> limit. ?

I think the oldsters who have been playing
these odds matches want "less work" and
"more money". It reminds me of some of
the claptrap which has been published in
Chess Lies magazine-- trash, churned out
such as to make a mockery of the attempt
to "support" our professional players.

> How about Rybka vs Deep Fritz at world championship time control ,
> who would win that?

Every year, a world championship event is
played, with varying results. My comments
that Rybka is the strongest have more to do
with the extensive testing which has been
conducted than with these hit-or-miss affairs.

For Rybka to really show off its abilities,
you would need to give it gobs of time; these
programs do not tire easily, although their
chips may ultimately get a bit hot under the
collar if pressed too hard, for too long... . ; >D

-- help bot

Date: 08 Mar 2008 14:10:15
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

What is the classical time control for a world championship game ?

Fischer vs Spasky for example , did they play 40 moves in 2 I/2 hours
? Then after the 40 moves they get 5 min a move ?

Are the rules the same for the next world championship game ?

why not play Rybka at world championship time controls ? Would
Rybka kill humans because it could think of so many moves in that time
limit. ?

How about Rybka vs Deep Fritz at world championship time control ,
who would win that?

Date: 08 Mar 2008 13:13:03
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Rybka vs GetClub (Advance Level) Who will win?

On 8, 1:46 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Rybka is shown as having a rating of "3100"
> > on the site linked to from its home page; to
> > me, this clearly indicates that we humans
> > need to send our "007 James Bond" types
> > to defend the honor of humankind, not just
>
> Or just pay GetClub 1 Million Dollar And GetClub will beat the Rybka.
> As I have stopped further improvement due to lack of finance.

Whew! And just when you were getting soooo
close.

> Advance Level thinks 256 times longer. To make it play as fast as
> Rybka I need to put the code in Native C using Assembly level Language
> which are 20 times faster than an Applet.

Even so, what would happen in the endgame,
when GetClub drops to zero and Rybka kicks
in with some table-bases? (Scary thought, huh?)

> 1. Rybka should not think in opponents time.

Useless, as GetClub will always choose a
"surprise move", emptying the hash tables.

> 2. Rybka do not use processing power of multiple cores.

I think a good match would be QN odds,
then as above: no thinking on opponent's
time and single core. Something should
e done with the contempt factor, so Rybka
won't go after a quick draw.

-- help bot

Date: 07 Mar 2008 22:46:22
From: Sanny
Subject: Rybka vs GetClub (Advance Level) Who will win?

> =A0 Rybka is shown as having a rating of "3100"
> on the site linked to from its home page; to
> me, this clearly indicates that we humans
> need to send our "007 James Bond" types
> to defend the honor of humankind, not just

Or just pay GetClub 1 Million Dollar And GetClub will beat the Rybka.
As I have stopped further improvement due to lack of finance.

Now Advance Level plays as good As Rybka.

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Advance Level thinks 256 times longer. To make it play as fast as
Rybka I need to put the code in Native C using Assembly level Language
which are 20 times faster than an Applet.

And rest 20 times fast can be achieved using Parallel Processing.

So incase the above 2 things are done GetClub Beginner Level will play
as good as Advance Level and give tough competition to Rybka.

I feel the above hypothysis is correct but it still needs to be
tested.

Has anyone having Rybka. Just play a Match between Master Level &
Rybka and tell me how it played.

2 things to be done.

1. Rybka should not think in opponents time.
2. Rybka do not use processing power of multiple cores.

Then I think (Master/Advance vs Rybka) will play simmilar game.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Date: 07 Mar 2008 19:51:28
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

On 7, 4:12 pm, Larry Tapper <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 7, 3:42 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > But I do believe there are plenty of stronger
> > GMs around who could give Rybka a tougher
> > match with these odds. Joel Benjamin, for
> > instance, got the upperhand (to say the least)
> > in the openings, game after game, but he
> > crumbled in the middlegame. I have yet to
> > see GM Dzindzi make much of his odds in
> > the opening, and half the time his extra pawn
> > gets doubled or becomes useless, due to his
> > own clumsy play or to wild King assaults in
> > which the pawn-count is rendered moot.

What are the mysterious "positional errors"
I mentioned earlier in some other thread? If
I am not mistaken, the idea I discuss below
happened in two different games, though
there were plenty of other errors worth
examining.

One example was a game where Black (in
this match, this is always Rybka, who is a
pawn down) advanced its a-pawn. Now, I
could hardly count the number of top-level
games I have seen where it was automatic
to reply with p-a4, but GM Dzindzi ignored
the "threat" (to gain space, etc.) and next
came ...a4!, to which he felt obliged to
reply a3 (otherwise Black would play ...a3,
establishing a thorn in his Queenside).

White's two Queenside pawns became
completely immobilized by a single Black
pawn (yuck). So, what was Dzindzi's "plan"
here? He next went after Black's a-pawn
with B-b5, to which Rybka replied ...Bd7,
and they traded Bishops. Note how Black
traded its (active) bad Bishop for White's
good Bishop (yuck again).

Time after time, while GM Dzindzi did a
good job of not hanging pieces, he let his
extra pawn become doubled or else hung
it outright (in fact, one of the games he
*won* resulted from this same problem).

Apparently, he drew the match, but one
of the games he lost was practically given
away via reckless play in the opening, so
it is not inconceivable that he could have
won the match-- making good on claims
that his actual rating was not reflective of
his anti-computer prowess, and so forth.
In fact, just by drawing the match, he has
given those fans justification, since all the
other GMs *lost* their odds matches.

In playing against the relatively weak
computer at GetClub, I am constantly
faced with positions where I need to avoid
getting my pawns doubled, or hanging my
one, hard-earned extra pawn. Recently,
I had a number of far-advanced passed
pawns and decided to "trade" Queens by
sac'ing mine for a Rook, then forking his
with my Rook. Unfortunately, the GC
program played the one move which
refuted this idea and I have had to
"resign" several drawn games in order to
get on with the show. Things are getting
tougher in the middlegame-- especially if
I take the program lightly.

Yet I believe I have played a number of
games there where the problems which
plagued GM Dzindzi were carefully
avoided; I do not routinely let my extra
material get taken away, nor rendered
moot, nor crippled such that it is useless.
Trouble is, I am nowhere near as good as
RD at *not* dropping pieces! : >D

-- help bot

Date: 07 Mar 2008 15:36:37
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

On 7, 4:12 pm, Larry Tapper <[email protected] > wrote:

> > But I do believe there are plenty of stronger
> > GMs around who could give Rybka a tougher
> > match with these odds. Joel Benjamin, for
> > instance, got the upperhand (to say the least)
> > in the openings, game after game, but he
> > crumbled in the middlegame. I have yet to
> > see GM Dzindzi make much of his odds in
> > the opening, and half the time his extra pawn
> > gets doubled or becomes useless, due to his
> > own clumsy play or to wild King assaults in
> > which the pawn-count is rendered moot.
>
> Bear in mind that Dzindzi is 63 years old.
>
> Even now I would bet serious money that he would mop the floor with
> you giving you 5-1 blitz odds.

Interesting that you are eager to give me *time*
odds, not material (like say, two Knights). : >D

I also notice you avoided the issues I raised
above. One issue was the fact that GM RD
kept hanging his extra pawn, or else getting it
doubled. What I assume is the final game was
a perfect example; in that game, RD just hung
his h-pawn due to carelessness, then the
operator generously "gave" him a draw where
there was still some play left for Rybka; I've
seen it win such positions many times, when
facing other GM-strength chess programs
(but not Zappa!).

In sharp contrast, GM Benjamin normally
obtained a clearly winning advantage in his
odds match, then was squashed in the
middlegame, or else squeaked out a draw.

> In his prime he used to be able to do
> that with IMs, spotting them several cognacs to boot. Ask anyone who
> saw him play in NYC in the 80s.

In 1978, GM Dzindzi ranked ahead of Gary
Kasparov, according to Chessmetrics' data.
GMs Karpov and Kortchnoi were at the top
of the lists -- which brings us back to the
fact that these guys are far beyond their
best days.

I did a little reading, and it turns out that
this match was played at a very fast pace:
just 45 minutes per side, plus ten lousy
seconds per move! No wonder the quality
of play was unimpressive. This compares
well to some of my recent experiences at
the total-patzer level, where the time control
was game/61 minutes, with some games
using a time-delay clock, and some not.
Some games finish without any apparent
affect from time-pressure, while others
enter a phase in which the clock is *the*
decisive factor.

My guess is that the quick time controls
are intended to make "less work" for the
grandmasters who have agreed to play, but
this has a detrimental effect on the quality
of play, as does the fact that neither player
is "booked up" once the pawn is removed.

The closest thing I saw to a "book" line
was the game where Black offered the
f-pawn, and then played the old line we've
seen from the days of Paul Morphy (...e6).
I wanted to scream: "Advance Variation!"
when I saw 1 e4 e6, 2. d4 d5, since it
is impossible for Black to play the French
Defense properly without the pawn-break
...f6 (the missing pawn!).

-- help bot

Date: 07 Mar 2008 14:16:19
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

Date: 07 Mar 2008 13:12:05
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

On 7, 3:42=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 But I do believe there are plenty of stronger
> GMs around who could give Rybka a tougher
> match with these odds. =A0Joel Benjamin, for
> instance, got the upperhand (to say the least)
> in the openings, game after game, but he
> crumbled in the middlegame. =A0I have yet to
> see GM Dzindzi make much of his odds in
> the opening, and half the time his extra pawn
> gets doubled or becomes useless, due to his
> own clumsy play or to wild King assaults in
> which the pawn-count is rendered moot.
>

Bear in mind that Dzindzi is 63 years old.

Even now I would bet serious money that he would mop the floor with
you giving you 5-1 blitz odds. In his prime he used to be able to do
that with IMs, spotting them several cognacs to boot. Ask anyone who
saw him play in NYC in the 80s.

LT

Date: 08 Mar 2008 15:50:40
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

>Even now I would bet serious money that he would mop the floor with
>you giving you 5-1 blitz odds. In his prime he used to be able to do
>that with IMs, spotting them several cognacs to boot. Ask anyone who
>saw him play in NYC in the 80s.
>
>LT

I remember those days. He also was a chain smoker and could beat you
with those odds smoking a cigarette at the same time. A lot of people
don't realize how good Dzindzi really was in those days. After he got
ried and had a daughter he literally became a different man and
even played first board for the olympiad and thrashed Beliavsky in
there encounter.

EZoto

Date: 07 Mar 2008 12:42:30
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

On 7, 6:15 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:

> > I wonder what it would be like if Petrosian in his prime were alive
> > today to play these machines. It would have been very interesting.
>
> Hard to say. I like Petrosian a lot but his style can be caricatured
> as `Wait 'til the other guy makes a mistake, then kill him. If he
> doesn't make a mistake, agree a draw.' I'm not sure computers make
> enough mistakes for this strategy to be effective.

I don't even know how they handle the problem
of setting a contempt factor for this match.

Every game has Rybka -- listed as being rated
3100 on one site -- starting off down a different
pawn, as Black. Its opponent is a competent
GM, but he is listed as 25xx. What do you do:
Set no contempt factor, thinking the pawn and
move offsets the difference in strength? Or go
hog wild and set the program to believe it is
invincible? Or perhaps set a small negative
hero-worship factor so the program will not be
forced to self-destruct, then kick back and
watch the human self-destruct?

Tigran Petrosian's style was shown to have
serious flaws in his matches with GM Fischer;
but that was /after/ his peak. Writers would
often describe TP's style as anticipating every
conceivable attack, and thwarting it before it
could even begin. But the truth is, he agreed
to many, many draws, so how do they know
this?

To my thinking, the best way to handle a
computer is to play so well that it cannot
handle *you*. Take the Deep Thought match
with Gary Kasparov, for instance. Afterward,
people were writing things like "the computer
was unrecognizable in this game" -- just like
they do when a great human player gets
clobbered!

But I do believe there are plenty of stronger
GMs around who could give Rybka a tougher
match with these odds. Joel Benjamin, for
instance, got the upperhand (to say the least)
in the openings, game after game, but he
crumbled in the middlegame. I have yet to
see GM Dzindzi make much of his odds in
the opening, and half the time his extra pawn
gets doubled or becomes useless, due to his
own clumsy play or to wild King assaults in
which the pawn-count is rendered moot.

I will say that he has demonstrated a
mastery of K & p endings, and has also
shown himself to be competent in R & p
endings-- unlike Rybka! : >D

-- help bot

Date: 06 Mar 2008 14:07:20
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

On 5, 11:21 am, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:

> The GM name is ? It has about I4 letters in his name ..
>
> I was on the Rybka website and the people over there said he is a
> anti computer type GM so he would give it a challenge ..

I am playing over these games and I must say
that GM Dzindzi was not particularly impressive.

Sure, one game had Rybka botch a Rook ending
badly and the human won, but other games look
terrible. In one game, for instance, RD (Roman
Dzindzichashvili) left his King in the center and
got blown off the board by very obvious moves.

What should be considered a strong anti-
computer style would be someone who bores
us to death with moves which put a computer's
tactics-calculating engine to sleep. Someone
who can often steer into Rook endings or dead-
equal type positions where pieces are traded
off and neither side can accomplish anything in
the way of "attacking the King". RD is *not*
even close, so far. Even in the game he won,
he messed up and got his pawns doubled, and
then by sheer luck the computer was eating
his weak pawns and got its panties in a wad
(Rook *in front* of its own passed pawn)!

Give me GM Kramnik: a player who puts even
me to sleep. Give me Tigran Petrosian-- a man
who won the title by lulling his opponents to
take naps in mid-game. Give me the most
boring draw-monger who ever lived. But not
Dzindzi; he is trying too hard to look brilliant.
Rybka will pack his lunch.

-- help bot

Date: 06 Mar 2008 20:16:37
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

Give me Tigran Petrosian

I wonder what it would be like if Petrosian in his prime were alive
today to play these machines. It would have been very interesting.

EZoto

Date: 07 Mar 2008 11:15:02
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

EZoto <[email protected] > wrote:
> Give me Tigran Petrosian
>
> I wonder what it would be like if Petrosian in his prime were alive
> today to play these machines. It would have been very interesting.

Hard to say. I like Petrosian a lot but his style can be caricatured
as `Wait 'til the other guy makes a mistake, then kill him. If he
doesn't make a mistake, agree a draw.' I'm not sure computers make
enough mistakes for this strategy to be effective.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Unholy Priest (TM): it's like a man
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of the cloth but it's also a crime
against nature!

Date: 05 Mar 2008 19:23:49
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

SAT W-7 wrote:
> The GM name is ? It has about I4 letters in his name ..
>
> I was on the Rybka website and the people over there said he is a
> anti computer type GM so he would give it a challenge ..
> Rybka is still giving him a different pawn in every game ........
>
> Still it is exciting chess ...
>

Never up 2 games to zip. The games are not draw odds...

Draw
Human
CPU
CPU

Date: 06 Mar 2008 10:56:25
From: Eric Hallsworth
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

article <[email protected] >, SAT W-7
<[email protected] > writes
>Your right , i am not sure where i saw the GM up 2 games ....
>
After 4 games Rybka leads Dzindzi**** by 2-1=1

Cheers - Eric
--
Eric Hallsworth, Countrywide Computers, Victoria House, 1 High Street,
Wilburton, Cambs CB6 3RB. Tel: 01353 740323
Website for Chess & Bridge Computers & Software:
http://www.countrywidecomputers.co.uk

Date: 05 Mar 2008 19:48:36
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

Your right , i am not sure where i saw the GM up 2 games ....

Date: 06 Mar 2008 07:00:54
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

> After 4 games Rybka leads Dzindzi**** by 2-1=1

Of course GitClub would have been up 5-0 after 4 games.

Date: 06 Mar 2008 07:56:10
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

ha ha ,,,,

My ivan made another blunder in the end game .....I think getclub will
checkmate him soon....

Date: 05 Mar 2008 13:15:19
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

On 5, 11:21 am, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:

> The GM name is ? It has about I4 letters in his name ..

Dzindzi. Just cut off the letters you can't handle. ; >D

> I was on the Rybka website and the people over there said he is a
> anti computer type GM so he would give it a challenge ..
> Rybka is still giving him a different pawn in every game ........
>
> Still it is exciting chess ...

Many people consider themselves to be tricky,
anti-computer types-- until they run into one
that is stronger than they can handle!

I still remember back when computers were so
weak... (audience: "how weak were they?") ..
they were so weak, that even I could beat them!

Okay, maybe he is good against computers;
we shall see. In my experience so far, the best
engines have no trouble improving on the actual
play of human grandmasters against one another.
But then, I generally give the programs lots of
time to think.

Example: I took the "lost position" from the
famous game between GetClub and Ivan,
plugged it in and guess what? A draw! That
is, I assume it would eventually be drawn,
though I have not the patience to see whether
or not the stronger engine could pull off a
magic win, now that it is dead-even in an
ending of R&B vs. R&B (of opposite colors)
with just a few pawns remaining. I gave both
programs lots of time to consider their moves,
but nonetheless, the stronger program saved
the game. (The weaker one is supposed to
be grandmaster strength.)

-- help bot

Date: 05 Mar 2008 18:08:56
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: Rybka vs a GM at pawn odds , the GM is UP 2 games to zip..

A draw ......

I am not sure if ivan or getclub will draw or if one will win...We have
to wait and see..

I think i will go check out the Rybka site and see how the next game
came out...It mite be a off day ?