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

[pichy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anV16nuh ... ure=relmfu

[rbarreira]

Actually he said the very opposite, around 4:00 into the video.

"I would get destroyed, I would be slaughtered".

What a troll...

[pichy]

Actually he said the very opposite, around 4:00 into the video.

"I would get destroyed, I would be slaughtered".

You have good ear, we all knew this long time ago,

[Kingghidorah]

here exactly is the question and his answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anV16nuh ... age#t=228s

[rbarreira]

Nice ninja editing...

[Uri]

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.

[Laskos]

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

[pichy]

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

[MikeGL]

I think even a Rybka in a dual core plays better than the last, strongest,
1997 Deep Blue version before it was dismantled by IBM.

I have analysed some Kasparov-Deep Blue games and noticed that Rybka, in a dual
core, has even found some better moves than Deep Blue, though this is
just my opinion as I don't know the internals of Rybka, whether it has
hardcoded some positions in GK-DB games or included, in its binary,
learned files from GK-DB match.

I don't think Nakamura can beat the latest top 3 engines at the moment, in tournament
conditions and with tournament time control, even if I saw many won
games of Naka against strong engines in blitz, but longer time control is
different.

[pichy]

I think even a Rybka in a dual core plays better than the last, strongest,
1997 Deep Blue version before it was dismantled by IBM.

I have analysed some Kasparov-Deep Blue games and noticed that Rybka, in a dual
core, has even found some better moves than Deep Blue, though this is
just my opinion as I don't know the internals of Rybka, whether it has
hardcoded some positions in GK-DB games or included, in its binary,
learned files from GK-DB match.

I don't think Nakamura can beat the latest top 3 engines at the moment, in tournament
conditions and with tournament time control, even if I saw many won
games of Naka against strong engines in blitz, but longer time control is
different.

You might be correct, but GM Nakamura has played more game versus computer engines than any other GM. I spoke to a friend of mine in Rhode Island Jorge Samnour (Zamora) who knows GM Nakamura well and Naka has been playing versus Computers since he learned how to play chess at a very young age. Therefore, my conclusion is that besides Anand, GM Nakamura is one of the few top GM that know how to beat Engines, or used to beat engines, since he confessed that top engines are unbeatable nowadays.