GM Nakamura said that he would destroyed by a computer......

[pichy]

I actually took an average of 3 minutes per move or 1.5 hour while Hiarcs played all of its moves in 3 minutes

[shiv]

I actually took an average of 3 minutes per move or 1.5 hour while Hiarcs played all of its moves in 3 minutes

My purpose in replying to Harvey and posting a game I played was to state that while Hiarcs is strong on the iphone, to reach world class level, contempt settings and opening books have to be changed.

If you can turn ponder on and maintain the same time control, the games would probably be much harder. Can you confirm that its much harder once you do so?

[pichy]

I actually took an average of 3 minutes per move or 1.5 hour while Hiarcs played all of its moves in 3 minutes

My purpose in replying to Harvey and posting a game I played was to state that while Hiarcs is strong on the iphone, to reach world class level, contempt settings and opening books have to be changed.

If you can turn ponder on and maintain the same time control, the games would probably be much harder. Can you confirm that its much harder once you do so?

I can NOT play versus Hiarcs using the same time control, as you noticed I am playing using a huge handicap of 1.5 hour to 3 minutes. The same would have to be done when Houdini play versus the top 7 GMs to make it fair Houdini or critter would have to play all moves in 15 minutes while the top 7 GMs probably need 3 hours

[Don]

I'm sure Nakamura could still easily defeat Deep Rybka 4.1 running on my old 4-core (not i7) computer.

Bu I don't think he has any chance against the Cimiotti cluster which has more than 400 Xeon processors now.

Yes, he would destroy an 8-core Rybka, but would marginally lose to a 12-core one.

Kai

Based on what fact do you support that GM Nakamura can destroy an 8-Core Rybka ? We don't even know what computer were used for these youtube videos, and on one of those game versus another GM the f7 pawn was given by the Rybka operator:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbAzeDxx ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuMIBoZsJ2o

I woukd bet that my iPhone would win a match v any GM. The days are gone of Human v comp. Hiarcs on pocket pc has played in 2 GM tournaments. It got GM norms in both and a 2931 rating. That was 2 years ago. The latest iPhone is dual core and faster.

Here is my game versus Hiarcs Iphone, imagine what GM Nakamura could do. So far after 120 games I have reached a 2355 rating versus Hiarcs


[Site "Pichy-PC"]
[Date "2012.05.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "You"]
[WhiteElo "2355"]
[Black "HIARCS"]
[BlackElo "2900"]
[Result "1/2"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. f4 e5 7. Nf3 Nbd7 8. Bc4
b5 9. fxe5 bxc4 10. exf6 Nxf6 11. Qd4 Be7 12. Bf4 Bb7 13. O-O-O O-O 14. Rhe1
Re8 15. Qxc4 Rc8 16. Qd4 Qa5 17. Kb1 Red8 18. Qd2 Rxc3 19. Qxc3 Qxc3 20. bxc3
Nxe4 21. Rd3 Rc8 22. h3 f5 23. Nd2 Kf7 24. Nxe4 Bxe4 25. Bxd6 Bf6 26. Rdd1 Bxg2
27. Be5 Bxe5 28. Rxe5 Bxh3 29. Re3 Bg4 30. Rd7+ Kf6 31. Rd6+ Kf7 32. Rd7+ Kf6
33. Rd6+ Kf7 Draw by 3 repetition




Sent from my iPhone

Now try it again with ponder on and it not set to play at 1800 elo.

ps. and no takebacks.You also have to not lose on time.

I too have a similar performance against Hiarcs. My given elo by Hiarcs on the iphone is >2400, >2500, or even >2600 depending on my form. My actual elo is around 2300 Fide.

I will try turning ponder on. I don't set the elo to 1800 or any level. I leave it at Hiarcs highest level.

On the iphone, upgrading to 4S wont help that much as Hiarcs does not yet use dual core, right? I am quite happy with the strength of Hiarcs on the iphone 4. While it does not drastically beat me in every game, its far more motivating to play against it vs a desktop program.

Maybe to unleash the 2800+ strength, I should play classical time control games instead of G/10 like I usually do? I can certainly believe that.

Can you post one of your game at time control 30 minutes, I will play another game trying to close the position to see how Hiarcs handle it. Hiarcs might try some stupid moves not knowing how to break the pawn formation, I will see in my next game.

My claim that the iPhone would win a match v any GM stands. If i was playing you I would set a huge contempt a draw by repetition would never happen. If I was playing Naka I would still set a contempt but much smaller. I would also be free to set the openings I wanted to play.

Just to give you an idea how overrated computer rating are after 120 games it is giving me a 2355 rating and 20 years ago I never went over 2256 which was my top rating when I was aroung 27 years old. Either computer rating system is too high or I simply learned how to beat this little monster once in a while by knowing what to expect in a certain opening which the engine repeat every 8 to 10 games

Computers are clearly superior even on modest hardware and 1 core. However it's very difficult to compare humans and computers for 2 reasons. The first reason is that we do not have a large sample of computer vs human games to draw from that reflect the latest programs so our data is not very good - although it's pretty clear there is great superiority for the computers. The second reason is that there is much more intransitivity between computers and humans that between humans or between computers. In the old days a computer might beat a 2500 player in a speed chess tournament and then lose the next game to an 1800 player. That still applies but on a different scale of course.

I believe the right human player could still win a match against a single core computer program (such as Komodo or Houdini) if he had the right mentality and playing style and if he was given the time to prepare and was given access to playing the same program as part of his training regime. I'm not sure his absolute rating would be all that important although presumably he would be a very strong player. There are still types of positions that computer play very poorly and there are players who can push the games towards those positions - probably not positions that Grandmaster normally like to play but could learn to do so for such a match.

[Laskos]

I believe the right human player could still win a match against a single core computer program (such as Komodo or Houdini) if he had the right mentality and playing style and if he was given the time to prepare and was given access to playing the same program as part of his training regime. I'm not sure his absolute rating would be all that important although presumably he would be a very strong player. There are still types of positions that computer play very poorly and there are players who can push the games towards those positions - probably not positions that Grandmaster normally like to play but could learn to do so for such a match.

Computers shouldn't be handicapped too. With all right openings (from the computer point of view), I don't believe a human could win a 12-game match against Houdini or Komodo even on one modern core.

Kai

ps Are there strong players who played against a top engine which had no opening book? My impression is that engines started to play well even openings, and the task would be simply to beat a little randomized engine without any book, a task which seems almost equally hard.

[Don]

I believe the right human player could still win a match against a single core computer program (such as Komodo or Houdini) if he had the right mentality and playing style and if he was given the time to prepare and was given access to playing the same program as part of his training regime. I'm not sure his absolute rating would be all that important although presumably he would be a very strong player. There are still types of positions that computer play very poorly and there are players who can push the games towards those positions - probably not positions that Grandmaster normally like to play but could learn to do so for such a match.

Computers shouldn't be handicapped too. With all right openings (from the computer point of view), I don't believe a human could win a 12-game match against Houdini or Komodo even on one modern core.

It's all semantics - you can spell out the conditions in advance and that is not really a handicap. Is playing on a quad a handicap when there are 8 core machines available? Is playing on a small cluster a handicap because you didn't use a big cluster? It's just semantics.

It's almost meaningless unless you focus on the chess part - such as giving pawn odds, etc. Time odds with pondering off seems like a handicap because it's artificial to forbid the opponent to "think."

There is one kind of handicap that I don't if it's been experimented with much. The idea is to give the human the right to N retractions. The rule might be that after the computer responds, the human has the right to retract only his last played move and play a different one. I think even the right to one retraction would be a serious boost in playing strength for a human. It would help address the issue of whether the computer is really consistently outplaying the human or just taking advantage of one or two errors during the course of the game (but I'm not sure there is a difference.)

Kai

ps Are there strong players who played against a top engine which had no opening book? My impression is that engines started to play well even openings, and the task would be simply to beat a little randomized engine without any book, a task which seems almost equally hard.

[Laskos]

It's all semantics - you can spell out the conditions in advance and that is not really a handicap. Is playing on a quad a handicap when there are 8 core machines available? Is playing on a small cluster a handicap because you didn't use a big cluster? It's just semantics.

It's almost meaningless unless you focus on the chess part - such as giving pawn odds, etc. Time odds with pondering off seems like a handicap because it's artificial to forbid the opponent to "think."

There is one kind of handicap that I don't if it's been experimented with much. The idea is to give the human the right to N retractions. The rule might be that after the computer responds, the human has the right to retract only his last played move and play a different one. I think even the right to one retraction would be a serious boost in playing strength for a human. It would help address the issue of whether the computer is really consistently outplaying the human or just taking advantage of one or two errors during the course of the game (but I'm not sure there is a difference.)

]

Well, it's semantics, but the conditions should be clear. For example, to avoid some exploits, the engine without a book, at least in the opening should be a bit randomized. With a book, define the book well, as to not have other exploits. Otherwise, it's a hidden and unwanted handicap, then peolpe will exaggerate their results against Komodo (in general, as an engine). I would imagine you being right that a strong human could beat Komodo in a match only by using these kinds of hidden handicaps.

The retractions would probably work, and we will be able to speak "that GM beats Komodo with 3 retractions, that GM with 5". Probablly not much different from "2 pawns handicap", but more pleasant for humans because they only "overlook", but "really" play better. Would make for an interesting experiment.

Kai

[Werewolf]

There are still types of positions that computer play very poorly and there are players who can push the games towards those positions

Like the stonewall formation, for example.
I also think a lot of programs struggle a bit in IQPs, even though there are lots of tactics and the positions are usually quite open.

[tano-urayoan]

What is IQP?

Isolated
Queen's
Pawn

[Don]

It's all semantics - you can spell out the conditions in advance and that is not really a handicap. Is playing on a quad a handicap when there are 8 core machines available? Is playing on a small cluster a handicap because you didn't use a big cluster? It's just semantics.

It's almost meaningless unless you focus on the chess part - such as giving pawn odds, etc. Time odds with pondering off seems like a handicap because it's artificial to forbid the opponent to "think."

There is one kind of handicap that I don't if it's been experimented with much. The idea is to give the human the right to N retractions. The rule might be that after the computer responds, the human has the right to retract only his last played move and play a different one. I think even the right to one retraction would be a serious boost in playing strength for a human. It would help address the issue of whether the computer is really consistently outplaying the human or just taking advantage of one or two errors during the course of the game (but I'm not sure there is a difference.)

Well, it's semantics, but the conditions should be clear. For example, to avoid some exploits, the engine without a book, at least in the opening should be a bit randomized. With a book, define the book well, as to not have other exploits. Otherwise, it's a hidden and unwanted handicap, then peolpe will exaggerate their results against Komodo (in general, as an engine). I would imagine you being right that a strong human could beat Komodo in a match only by using these kinds of hidden handicaps.

The book has always been a bit problematic and difficult to deal with. Do you let the human practice and get comfortable with the computers book or do you surprise him with a strong book at the moment the match begins? There is really no such thing as a fair match because there are a million little things that can sway the results in one direction or the other. The age of the players, the time of day the match is played (for older people early is usually better), the location and so many other things.

It's common however that in a serious match the players have knowledge of their opponents playing style and opening preferences. The Deep Blue match took all of that away from Kasparov for example. Giving the human player the full playing system in advance is an advantage for the human.

A good solution might be to develop a strong high variety opening book. For variety you can actually calculate the amount of guaranteed variety that an opponent can force, as least while still in book. You essentially calculate the probability that the opponent can get to any given book position if he plays the right way. You want the worst case to be as low as possible. For example if the computer has 2 choice 5 times along the pathway leading to that position and the computer choice either with 50% probability, the chances are 0.5 ** 5 (0.5 raised to the 5th power.) That is just over 3%. You want to make any final book position to be as low as possible if variety is the goal. (I'm ignoring the possibility of transpositions here, which complicate the calculation but can be done.)

If you can get the guaranteed variety really high you can give the master the program with the book that will be used - he cannot easily prepare killer lines against this book that he is likely to be able to get to. You have to avoid the situation where the opponent can simply prepare half a dozen opening lines against what you are likely to play. Of course you have to take care that the opponent cannot get you out of book with a reasonable position he can prepare for - that might be easier said than done.

The retractions would probably work, and we will be able to speak "that GM beats Komodo with 3 retractions, that GM with 5". Probablly not much different from "2 pawns handicap", but more pleasant for humans because they only "overlook", but "really" play better. Would make for an interesting experiment.

Kai