Rybka 3: The dark truth behind the hype

[Albert Silver]

I have been testing Rybka 3, both the 32-bit and 64-bit engines, on a single CPU machine, testing in controlled matches as well as various test suites and the like.

Since Rybka 232a is still the undisputed number one engine, the announcement of an upgraded and significantly stronger version, with a long list of improvements and speculative Elo increase, has led to a lot of questions on how much is hype and how much is reality.

I don't have the final answer to this, but do believe what I know and have seen is close to the truth of it.

The first thing I did, after reading the touted tactical and kingside attack improvements, was to run it through some positions. I chose Michael Gurevich's 40 position suite, with a dozen king attack positions which had at least 3 positions that had completely stumped Rybka 232a on my rig, a modest Athlon64 2.2GHz with 512MB hash.

The result was impressive: Rybka 3 32-bit solved every single one of them and only once took as long as 4 minutes. The solution times varied from 2 times faster than Rybka 232a, to more than 10 times. I also checked to see if the 64-bit version still offered its known speedups, and the results showed a consistent 37% speedup on my rig. Note that I have been told that on machines with faster memory and the like, the speedup may even be greater, but know that 37% is what can be expected at the very least. Here are a couple of examples:

MGV34-K

12: SOLOVJOV - Lugovoj, St. Petersburg 2005

[D]1rb1qrk1/ppn1p1b1/3p3p/2pP2p1/4P1nQ/P1N2N1P/1PPBB1P1/R4RK1 w - - 0 1


Analysis by Rybka 232a: Not found in 20 mins

Analysis by Rybka 3 32-bit :

1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Qe1 Nd7 3.Rd1 Qg6 4.Bd3 Ne5 5.Nxe5
= (0.20) Depth: 12 00:00:25 694kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Qe1 Nd7 3.Bd3 Ne5 4.Nxe5 Rxf1+ 5.Qxf1 Bxe5 6.Qf3 Qf7
= (0.21) Depth: 13 00:00:40 1123kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Bd3 Nh5 3.Qe1 Nf4 4.Bxf4 Rxf4 5.a4 Bd7 6.Ne2 Rf8 7.Qa5
= (0.17) Depth: 14 00:01:26 2424kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Bd3 Nh5 3.Qe1 Nf4 4.Bxf4 Rxf4 5.e5 c4 6.Be4 Nb5 7.Qe3 Nxc3 8.bxc3 Qd8 9.Rab1 dxe5 10.Nd2
= (0.23) Depth: 15 00:02:48 4860kN
1.Bxg5
+/= (0.37) Depth: 15 00:04:00 6741kN
1.Bxg5
+/= (0.57) Depth: 15 00:04:34 7489kN


Analysis by Rybka 3 64-bit :

1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Qe1 Nd7 3.Rd1 Qg6 4.Bd3 Ne5 5.Nxe5
= (0.20) Depth: 12 00:00:16 694kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Qe1 Nd7 3.Bd3 Ne5 4.Nxe5 Rxf1+ 5.Qxf1 Bxe5 6.Qf3 Qf7
= (0.21) Depth: 13 00:00:25 1123kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Bd3 Nh5 3.Qe1 Nf4 4.Bxf4 Rxf4 5.a4 Bd7 6.Ne2 Rf8 7.Qa5
= (0.17) Depth: 14 00:00:54 2424kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Bd3 Nh5 3.Qe1 Nf4 4.Bxf4 Rxf4 5.e5 c4 6.Be4 Nb5 7.Qe3 Nxc3 8.bxc3 Qd8 9.Rab1 dxe5 10.Nd2
= (0.23) Depth: 15 00:01:46 4860kN
1.Bxg5
+/= (0.37) Depth: 15 00:02:32 6741kN
1.Bxg5
+/= (0.57) Depth: 15 00:02:53 7489kN

MGV39-K

14: CONQUEST - Hodgson, BL 9596 1995

[D]4kbnr/ppq2ppp/1np1p3/6P1/3r3P/2N2Q2/PPPB1P2/2KR1B1R w k - 0 1

Analysis by Rybka 232a: Not found in 20 mins

Analysis by Rybka 3 32-bit :

1.h5 Ne7 2.h6 Ned5 3.hxg7 Bxg7 4.Nxd5 cxd5 5.c3 a6 6.Kb1 Ra4
+/= (0.40) Depth: 13 00:00:35 974kN
1.h5 Ne7 2.h6 Ned5 3.hxg7 Bxg7 4.Nxd5 cxd5 5.c3 a6 6.Kb1 Ra4 7.b3 Ra5 8.Bd3 Rc5 9.Rh3 Nd7
+/= (0.35) Depth: 14 00:01:02 1747kN
1.Nb5
+/= (0.60) Depth: 14 00:01:40 3003kN
1.Nb5
+/- (0.80) Depth: 14 00:02:10 3995kN
1.Nb5
+/- (1.20) Depth: 14 00:02:19 4212kN
1.Nb5 cxb5 2.Bxb5+
+- (1.98) Depth: 14 00:03:24 6509kN
1.Nb5 cxb5 2.Bxb5+ Kd8 3.Bf4 Rd6 4.Rhe1 Kc8 5.Bxd6 Bxd6 6.Rxd6 Qxd6 7.Qc3+ Nc4 8.Bxc4 Ne7 9.Bxe6+ Kb8 10.Bxf7 Qf4+ 11.Qd2 Qc7 12.Qe3 Rc8 13.Qe5 Nc6 14.Qxc7+ Kxc7 15.Bd5 Kd6 16.Rd1
+- (2.10) Depth: 15 00:04:41 9081kN
1.Nb5 cxb5 2.Bxb5+ Kd8 3.Bf4 Rd6 4.Rhe1 Kc8 5.Bxd6 Bxd6 6.Rxd6 Qxd6 7.Qc3+ Nc4 8.Bxc4 Ne7 9.Bxe6+ Kb8 10.Bxf7 Qf4+ 11.Qd2 Qc7 12.Qe3 Rc8 13.Qe5 Nc6 14.Qxc7+ Kxc7 15.Bd5 Kd6 16.Rd1
+- (2.13) Depth: 16 00:07:17 14349kN
1.Nb5 cxb5 2.Bxb5+ Kd8 3.Bf4 Rd6 4.Rhe1 Kc8 5.Bxd6 Bxd6 6.Rxd6 Qxd6 7.Qc3+ Nc4 8.Bxc4 Ne7 9.Bxe6+ Kb8 10.Bxf7 Qf4+ 11.Qd2 Qc7 12.Qe3 Rc8 13.Qe5 Nc6 14.Qxc7+ Kxc7 15.Bd5 Kd6 16.Rd1
+- (2.13) Depth: 17 00:12:48 24568kN


Analysis by Rybka 3 64-bit:

1.h5 Ne7 2.h6 Ned5 3.hxg7 Bxg7 4.Nxd5 cxd5 5.c3 a6 6.Kb1 Ra4
+/= (0.40) Depth: 13 00:00:22 974kN
1.h5 Ne7 2.h6 Ned5 3.hxg7 Bxg7 4.Nxd5 cxd5 5.c3 a6 6.Kb1 Ra4 7.b3 Ra5 8.Bd3 Rc5 9.Rh3 Nd7
+/= (0.35) Depth: 14 00:00:39 1747kN
1.Nb5
+/= (0.60) Depth: 14 00:01:02 3003kN
1.Nb5
+/- (0.80) Depth: 14 00:01:22 3995kN
1.Nb5
+/- (1.20) Depth: 14 00:01:27 4212kN
1.Nb5 cxb5 2.Bxb5+
+- (1.98) Depth: 14 00:02:08 6509kN

I also tested it using the Silver Suite, an openings suite with 50 positions, tested with both white and black. I tested against Fruit 234n (thanks to Ryan Benitez) which had scored decently against Rybka 232a 32-bit:

Code: Select all

	
1	Rybka 2.3.2a 32-bit		+47/-13/=40	67.0/100
2	Fruit 2.3.4n 		      +13/-47/=40	33.0/100

Rybka 232a had a +123 Elo performance in this match-up. I expected Rybka 3 to improve on this, but figured the results we have seen for quads and octas and other latin-number configurations wouldn't be as extreme on a single-CPU machine. My, was I wrong....

Code: Select all

	
1	Rybka 3 32-bit		+71/-10/=19	80.5/100
2	Fruit 2.3.4n  		+10/-71/=19	19.5/100

Rybka 3 32-bit had a +246 elo performance, in other words a +123 Elo improvement over Rybka 232a 32-bit.

It's hard to know what to say, since the genuine numbers themselves appear straight out of a marketing blurb. The 64-bit single-CPU will truly be about 200 elo stronger than the next non-Rybka engine, which is just insane...

Albert

[Ovyron]

By the thread's title I was expecting something like "the hype isn't true", but it seems the opposite!

I'd call it "The scary truth behind the hype".

[geots]

I have been testing Rybka 3, both the 32-bit and 64-bit engines, on a single CPU machine, testing in controlled matches as well as various test suites and the like.

Since Rybka 232a is still the undisputed number one engine, the announcement of an upgraded and significantly stronger version, with a long list of improvements and speculative Elo increase, has led to a lot of questions on how much is hype and how much is reality.

I don't have the final answer to this, but do believe what I know and have seen is close to the truth of it.

The first thing I did, after reading the touted tactical and kingside attack improvements, was to run it through some positions. I chose Michael Gurevich's 40 position suite, with a dozen king attack positions which had at least 3 positions that had completely stumped Rybka 232a on my rig, a modest Athlon64 2.2GHz with 512MB hash.

The result was impressive: Rybka 3 32-bit solved every single one of them and only once took as long as 4 minutes. The solution times varied from 2 times faster than Rybka 232a, to more than 10 times. I also checked to see if the 64-bit version still offered its known speedups, and the results showed a consistent 37% speedup on my rig. Note that I have been told that on machines with faster memory and the like, the speedup may even be greater, but know that 37% is what can be expected at the very least. Here are a couple of examples:

MGV34-K

12: SOLOVJOV - Lugovoj, St. Petersburg 2005

[D]1rb1qrk1/ppn1p1b1/3p3p/2pP2p1/4P1nQ/P1N2N1P/1PPBB1P1/R4RK1 w - - 0 1


Analysis by Rybka 232a: Not found in 20 mins

Analysis by Rybka 3 32-bit :

1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Qe1 Nd7 3.Rd1 Qg6 4.Bd3 Ne5 5.Nxe5
= (0.20) Depth: 12 00:00:25 694kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Qe1 Nd7 3.Bd3 Ne5 4.Nxe5 Rxf1+ 5.Qxf1 Bxe5 6.Qf3 Qf7
= (0.21) Depth: 13 00:00:40 1123kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Bd3 Nh5 3.Qe1 Nf4 4.Bxf4 Rxf4 5.a4 Bd7 6.Ne2 Rf8 7.Qa5
= (0.17) Depth: 14 00:01:26 2424kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Bd3 Nh5 3.Qe1 Nf4 4.Bxf4 Rxf4 5.e5 c4 6.Be4 Nb5 7.Qe3 Nxc3 8.bxc3 Qd8 9.Rab1 dxe5 10.Nd2
= (0.23) Depth: 15 00:02:48 4860kN
1.Bxg5
+/= (0.37) Depth: 15 00:04:00 6741kN
1.Bxg5
+/= (0.57) Depth: 15 00:04:34 7489kN


Analysis by Rybka 3 64-bit :

1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Qe1 Nd7 3.Rd1 Qg6 4.Bd3 Ne5 5.Nxe5
= (0.20) Depth: 12 00:00:16 694kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Qe1 Nd7 3.Bd3 Ne5 4.Nxe5 Rxf1+ 5.Qxf1 Bxe5 6.Qf3 Qf7
= (0.21) Depth: 13 00:00:25 1123kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Bd3 Nh5 3.Qe1 Nf4 4.Bxf4 Rxf4 5.a4 Bd7 6.Ne2 Rf8 7.Qa5
= (0.17) Depth: 14 00:00:54 2424kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Bd3 Nh5 3.Qe1 Nf4 4.Bxf4 Rxf4 5.e5 c4 6.Be4 Nb5 7.Qe3 Nxc3 8.bxc3 Qd8 9.Rab1 dxe5 10.Nd2
= (0.23) Depth: 15 00:01:46 4860kN
1.Bxg5
+/= (0.37) Depth: 15 00:02:32 6741kN
1.Bxg5
+/= (0.57) Depth: 15 00:02:53 7489kN

MGV39-K

14: CONQUEST - Hodgson, BL 9596 1995

[D]4kbnr/ppq2ppp/1np1p3/6P1/3r3P/2N2Q2/PPPB1P2/2KR1B1R w k - 0 1

Analysis by Rybka 232a: Not found in 20 mins

Analysis by Rybka 3 32-bit :

1.h5 Ne7 2.h6 Ned5 3.hxg7 Bxg7 4.Nxd5 cxd5 5.c3 a6 6.Kb1 Ra4
+/= (0.40) Depth: 13 00:00:35 974kN
1.h5 Ne7 2.h6 Ned5 3.hxg7 Bxg7 4.Nxd5 cxd5 5.c3 a6 6.Kb1 Ra4 7.b3 Ra5 8.Bd3 Rc5 9.Rh3 Nd7
+/= (0.35) Depth: 14 00:01:02 1747kN
1.Nb5
+/= (0.60) Depth: 14 00:01:40 3003kN
1.Nb5
+/- (0.80) Depth: 14 00:02:10 3995kN
1.Nb5
+/- (1.20) Depth: 14 00:02:19 4212kN
1.Nb5 cxb5 2.Bxb5+
+- (1.98) Depth: 14 00:03:24 6509kN
1.Nb5 cxb5 2.Bxb5+ Kd8 3.Bf4 Rd6 4.Rhe1 Kc8 5.Bxd6 Bxd6 6.Rxd6 Qxd6 7.Qc3+ Nc4 8.Bxc4 Ne7 9.Bxe6+ Kb8 10.Bxf7 Qf4+ 11.Qd2 Qc7 12.Qe3 Rc8 13.Qe5 Nc6 14.Qxc7+ Kxc7 15.Bd5 Kd6 16.Rd1
+- (2.10) Depth: 15 00:04:41 9081kN
1.Nb5 cxb5 2.Bxb5+ Kd8 3.Bf4 Rd6 4.Rhe1 Kc8 5.Bxd6 Bxd6 6.Rxd6 Qxd6 7.Qc3+ Nc4 8.Bxc4 Ne7 9.Bxe6+ Kb8 10.Bxf7 Qf4+ 11.Qd2 Qc7 12.Qe3 Rc8 13.Qe5 Nc6 14.Qxc7+ Kxc7 15.Bd5 Kd6 16.Rd1
+- (2.13) Depth: 16 00:07:17 14349kN
1.Nb5 cxb5 2.Bxb5+ Kd8 3.Bf4 Rd6 4.Rhe1 Kc8 5.Bxd6 Bxd6 6.Rxd6 Qxd6 7.Qc3+ Nc4 8.Bxc4 Ne7 9.Bxe6+ Kb8 10.Bxf7 Qf4+ 11.Qd2 Qc7 12.Qe3 Rc8 13.Qe5 Nc6 14.Qxc7+ Kxc7 15.Bd5 Kd6 16.Rd1
+- (2.13) Depth: 17 00:12:48 24568kN


Analysis by Rybka 3 64-bit:

1.h5 Ne7 2.h6 Ned5 3.hxg7 Bxg7 4.Nxd5 cxd5 5.c3 a6 6.Kb1 Ra4
+/= (0.40) Depth: 13 00:00:22 974kN
1.h5 Ne7 2.h6 Ned5 3.hxg7 Bxg7 4.Nxd5 cxd5 5.c3 a6 6.Kb1 Ra4 7.b3 Ra5 8.Bd3 Rc5 9.Rh3 Nd7
+/= (0.35) Depth: 14 00:00:39 1747kN
1.Nb5
+/= (0.60) Depth: 14 00:01:02 3003kN
1.Nb5
+/- (0.80) Depth: 14 00:01:22 3995kN
1.Nb5
+/- (1.20) Depth: 14 00:01:27 4212kN
1.Nb5 cxb5 2.Bxb5+
+- (1.98) Depth: 14 00:02:08 6509kN

I also tested it using the Silver Suite, an openings suite with 50 positions, tested with both white and black. I tested against Fruit 234n (thanks to Ryan Benitez) which had scored decently against Rybka 232a 32-bit:

Code: Select all

	
1	Rybka 2.3.2a 32-bit		+47/-13/=40	67.0/100
2	Fruit 2.3.4n 		      +13/-47/=40	33.0/100

Rybka 232a had a +123 Elo performance in this match-up. I expected Rybka 3 to improve on this, but figured the results we have seen for quads and octas and other latin-number configurations wouldn't be as extreme on a single-CPU machine. My, was I wrong....

Code: Select all

	
1	Rybka 3 32-bit		+71/-10/=19	80.5/100
2	Fruit 2.3.4n  		+10/-71/=19	19.5/100

Rybka 3 32-bit had a +246 elo performance, in other words a +123 Elo improvement over Rybka 232a 32-bit.

It's hard to know what to say, since the genuine numbers themselves appear straight out of a marketing blurb. The 64-bit single-CPU will truly be about 200 elo stronger than the next non-Rybka engine, which is just insane...

Albert

Coming from you, Albert- I know the info is credible. I might scoff at some results- but not yours. It is certainly without doubt amazing and thanks for sharing with us.

Best,

[M ANSARI]

I would have liked to test these positions on very fast hardware ... either 8 core at 4.8ghz or Quad at 4.1ghz but they are running tournaments now. Here is result on a Quad 3.2ghz

New game
1rb1qrk1/ppn1p1b1/3p3p/2pP2p1/4P1nQ/P1N2N1P/1PPBB1P1/R4RK1 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Rybka 3 :

1.Qg3
+/= (0.42) Depth: 2 00:00:00
1.Qg3 Bxc3
+/= (0.36) Depth: 6 00:00:00
1.Qg3 Bxc3
+/= (0.36) Depth: 6 00:00:00
1.Qg3 Bxc3
+/= (0.36) Depth: 6 00:00:00
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Rad1
+/= (0.32) Depth: 6 00:00:00 19kN
1.Qg3 Ne5 2.Nh2 Bf6
+/= (0.27) Depth: 7 00:00:00 30kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.b4 b6 3.Rab1
+/= (0.33) Depth: 8 00:00:00 64kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.b4 b6 3.Rab1 Nh5
= (0.24) Depth: 9 00:00:00 81kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.b4 b6 3.Rab1 Nh5 4.Qe1 Bd4+
+/= (0.26) Depth: 10 00:00:00 110kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.b4 b6 3.Rab1 Nh5 4.Qe1 Bd4+ 5.Nxd4 Rxf1+
= (0.17) Depth: 11 00:00:01 220kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Nh2 Qg6 3.Qe3 Bd7 4.Bd3 Qh5
= (0.19) Depth: 12 00:00:03 616kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Nh2 Qg6 3.Bd3 Qe8 4.Qe1 Nh5 5.Nf3 Nf4
= (0.15) Depth: 13 00:00:07 1383kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Nh2 Qg6 3.Bd3 Qe8 4.Qe1 Nh5 5.Nf3 Nf4
= (0.15) Depth: 14 00:00:10 2081kN
1.Qg3 Nf6 2.Nh2 Qg6 3.Bd3 Qe8 4.Qe1 Nh5 5.Nf3
= (0.15) Depth: 15 00:00:28 5396kN
1.Bxg5
+/= (0.35) Depth: 15 00:00:39 7171kN
1.Bxg5
+/= (0.55) Depth: 15 00:00:43 7746kN
1.Bxg5
+/- (0.95) Depth: 15 00:00:52 9463kN
1.Bxg5 hxg5 2.Nxg5 Nf6 3.Rxf6 Rxf6 4.Qh7+ Kf8 5.Bh5 Bf5 6.exf5 Rh6 7.Qxh6 Bxh6 8.Bxe8 Bxg5 9.Bd7 Be3+ 10.Kf1 Bd4 11.Be6
+- (1.60) Depth: 15 00:01:28 16556kN
1.Bxg5 hxg5 2.Nxg5 Nf6 3.Rxf6 Rxf6 4.Qh7+ Kf8 5.Bh5 Bf5 6.exf5 Rh6 7.Qxh6 Bxh6 8.Bxe8 Bxg5 9.Bd7 Bf6 10.Be6 Kg7 11.Re1 Bd4+ 12.Kf1 Bxc3
+- (1.61) Depth: 16 00:01:51 20354kN

(, 26.07.2008)

New game, Blitz:4'+2"
4kbnr/ppq2ppp/1np1p3/6P1/3r3P/2N2Q2/PPPB1P2/2KR1B1R w k - 0 1

Analysis by Rybka 3 :

1.Ne2
= (0.14) Depth: 2 00:00:00
1.Ne4
+/= (0.27) Depth: 2 00:00:00
1.Ne4
= (0.18) Depth: 5 00:00:00
1.Ne4
= (0.18) Depth: 5 00:00:00
1.Ne4
= (0.18) Depth: 5 00:00:00
1.Ne4 Ne7
= (0.20) Depth: 5 00:00:00
1.Ne4 Ne7 2.h5
+/= (0.31) Depth: 6 00:00:00 3kN
1.Ne4 Ne7 2.h5 Ned5 3.h6
+/= (0.33) Depth: 7 00:00:00 11kN
1.Ne4 Ne7 2.h5 Ned5 3.c3 Ra4
+/= (0.26) Depth: 8 00:00:00 21kN
1.Ne4 Ne7 2.h5 Ned5 3.c3 Ra4
+/= (0.26) Depth: 9 00:00:00 32kN
1.Ne4 Ne7 2.h5 Nf5 3.h6 Rd8 4.Kb1
+/= (0.41) Depth: 10 00:00:00 94kN
1.Ne4 Ne7 2.h5 Nf5 3.h6 Nd7 4.hxg7
+/= (0.34) Depth: 11 00:00:01 198kN
1.Ne4 Ne7 2.h5 Nf5 3.h6 Nd7 4.hxg7
+/= (0.34) Depth: 12 00:00:02 296kN
1.Ne4 Ne7 2.h5 Nf5 3.h6 Nd7 4.c3
+/= (0.39) Depth: 13 00:00:03 722kN
1.Nb5
+/= (0.54) Depth: 13 00:00:04 880kN
1.Nb5
+/- (0.74) Depth: 13 00:00:07 1417kN
1.Nb5
+/- (1.14) Depth: 13 00:00:07 1534kN
1.Nb5 cxb5 2.Bxb5+
+- (1.61) Depth: 13 00:00:11 2348kN
1.Nb5
+- (1.81) Depth: 14 00:00:17 3545kN
1.Nb5 cxb5 2.Bxb5+ Kd8 3.Bf4 Rd6 4.Rhe1 Kc8 5.Bxd6 Bxd6 6.Rxd6 Qxd6 7.Qc3+ Nc4 8.Bxc4 Ne7 9.Bxe6+ Kb8 10.Bxf7 Nf5 11.Qe5 Qxe5 12.Rxe5 Nxh4 13.Re7 Rd8 14.Bb3 Nf5 15.Rf7 Nd4 16.Bc4
+- (1.97) Depth: 14 00:00:22 4881kN
1.Nb5 cxb5 2.Bxb5+ Kd8 3.Bf4 Rd6 4.Rhe1 Kc8 5.Bxd6 Bxd6 6.Rxd6 Qxd6 7.Qc3+ Nc4 8.Bxc4 Ne7 9.Bxe6+ Kb8 10.Bxf7 Nf5 11.Qe5 Qxe5 12.Rxe5 Nxh4 13.Re7 Rd8 14.Bb3 Nf5 15.Rf7 Nd4 16.Bc4
+- (1.97) Depth: 15 00:00:29 6640kN
1.Nb5 cxb5 2.Bxb5+ Kd8 3.Bf4 Rd6 4.Rhe1 Kc8 5.Bxd6 Bxd6 6.Rxd6 Qxd6 7.Qc3+ Nc4 8.Bxc4 Ne7 9.Bxe6+ Kb8 10.Bxf7 Nf5 11.Qe5 Qxe5 12.Rxe5 Nxh4 13.Re7 Rd8 14.Be6 h6 15.Rxg7 hxg5 16.Rxg5
+- (2.07) Depth: 16 00:00:47 10983kN
1.Nb5 cxb5 2.Bxb5+ Kd8 3.Bf4 Rd6 4.Rhe1 Kc8 5.Bxd6 Bxd6 6.Rxd6 Qxd6 7.Qc3+ Nc4 8.Bxc4 Ne7 9.Bxe6+ Kb8 10.Bxf7 Nf5 11.Qe5 Qxe5 12.Rxe5 Nxh4 13.Re7 Rc8 14.Be6 Rc5 15.f4 Ng6 16.Re8+
+- (2.15) Depth: 17 00:01:19 18735kN

(, 26.07.2008)

[George Tsavdaris]

I would have liked to test these positions on very fast hardware ... either 8 core at 4.8ghz or Quad at 4.1ghz but they are running tournaments now.

Can you run the following position with Rybka 3 on a Quad or Octal when of course you have time:

White has to find 19.Qxf6+!! that wins easily. (19.Bxa7 leads to a position where white has a small advantage but it will be difficult to win, if wins at all.)
Does Rybka 3 see that 19.Qxf6+!! is winning and if so does it show a big score?
[D]1B1r4/rp2npkp/2b1pbp1/1qp5/nPN1R3/1P1P1QP1/2P2PBP/5R1K w - - 0 19


Here is the analysis for this move:

[Event "2800"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1996.03.23"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Qxf6+!!"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator ",user"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1B1r4/rp2npkp/2b1pbp1/1qp5/nPN1R3/1P1P1QP1/2P2PBP/5R1K w - - 0 19"]
[PlyCount "45"]
[EventDate "2008.??.??"]

19. Qxf6+ $3 (19. Bxa7 Bxe4 20. dxe4 e5 21. bxc5 Nxc5 22. Qc3 Ne6 23. Ra1 Nc6 (
23... Nc8 24. Bb8 Qc5 25. Bxe5 Bxe5 26. Qxe5+ Qxe5 27. Nxe5 Rd2 28. Kg1 Rxc2
29. Rd1 Rc5 30. f4 Nb6) 24. Bb6 Rd7 {White is better but has to fight to win,
in contrary with the position if he played 19.Qxf6+!!}) 19... Kxf6 20. Be5+ Kg5
21. Bg7 Bxe4 22. Bxe4 Qxc4 (22... Qc6 23. f4+ Kg4 24. Ne3+ Kh3 25. Rf3 Qxe4 26.
dxe4) 23. f4+ Kg4 24. bxc4 Rg8 (24... g5 25. Bf6 Rd4 26. Bf3+ Kh3 (26... Kf5
27. fxg5 Kg6 28. Bxe7 b6 29. Bf6 Nc3 30. h4 (30. bxc5 bxc5 31. h4 h6 32. h5+
Kh7 33. gxh6) 30... h6 31. h5+ Kh7) 27. Bxe7 b6 28. Bxg5) (24... Nf5 25. Bf3+
Kh3 26. Bg2+ Kg4 27. Bf6 Rd4 (27... Rg8 28. h3+ Kh5 29. Bg5 {#4}) (27... Nd4
28. Bxd8 b6 29. Bh4 f5 30. Ra1 g5 31. h3+ Kh5 32. bxc5 bxc5 33. Bxg5 Kg6 34.
Ra2) (27... Rc8 28. h3+ Kh5 29. Bg5) (27... Ne3 28. h3+ Kf5 29. Be5 Nc3 30. g4+
Nxg4 31. hxg4+ Kxg4 32. Bf3+ Kg3 33. f5+ Kh3 34. fxg6 fxg6 35. Rg1 Rf8 36. Bg4+
Kh4 37. Bxc3) 28. h3+ Kh5 29. g4+ Kh6 30. Bf3 g5 31. fxg5+ Kg6 32. gxf5+ exf5
33. Bxd4 cxd4 34. Ra1 Kxg5 35. Kg2 Kf4 36. Kf2) (24... Nd5 25. Bf3+ Kh3 26.
Bg2+ Kg4 27. cxd5 Rxd5 (27... exd5 28. h3+ Kf5 29. Re1 f6 30. Re7 Nc3 31. g4+
Kxf4 32. Bxf6) 28. Bf6 Rd4 29. bxc5) (24... Ng8 25. Kg2 g5 26. fxg5 b6 (26...
b5 27. h4 Kh5 28. Bf6 Rd4 29. Bxd4 cxd4 30. Kh3 f5 31. gxf6 Rf7 32. g4+ Kh6 33.
g5+ Kh5) (26... Kh5 27. Rxf7) (26... Kxg5 27. Rxf7) 27. h4 Kh5 28. Bf6 Rd4 29.
Bxd4) 25. Bf6 Nd5 (25... Nc6 26. Kg2 {#6}) (25... Nf5 26. Bf3+ Kh3 27. Bg2+ Kg4
28. h3+ Kh5 29. Bg5 Nxg3+ 30. Kh2 Nxf1+ 31. Bxf1 Nc3 32. Bg2 cxb4 33. Bf3#) 26.
Bf3+ Kf5 27. Be5 g5 (27... Nxf4 28. gxf4 g5 29. Be4+ Kg4 30. Rg1+ Kh5 31. Bxh7
Rc8 32. Bf6 g4 33. h3 Kh6 34. Be4 Nc3 35. Bxc3) 28. Be4+ Kg4 29. cxd5 exd5 30.
Bxh7 Re8 31. Bf6 Ra6 32. fxg5 Rxf6 33. gxf6 cxb4 34. Bf5+ Kh5 35. Bd7 Ra8 36.
Ra1 Nb6 37. Rxa8 Nxa8 38. Be6 Kg6 39. Bxd5 Nc7 40. Bc4 Kxf6 41. Kg2 1-0

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

By the thread's title I was expecting something like "the hype isn't true", but it seems the opposite!

I'd call it "The scary truth behind the hype".

I got the same impression by the way

[Albert Silver]

By the thread's title I was expecting something like "the hype isn't true", but it seems the opposite!

I'd call it "The scary truth behind the hype".

I got the same impression by the way

It was on purpose, tongue-in-cheek. Could just have well said: The truth is scarier than the hype....

[PAKman]

Albert
Great piece of work!
Norm

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

By the thread's title I was expecting something like "the hype isn't true", but it seems the opposite!

I'd call it "The scary truth behind the hype".

I got the same impression by the way

It was on purpose, tongue-in-cheek. Could just have well said: The truth is scarier than the hype....

[Albert Silver]

I would have liked to test these positions on very fast hardware ... either 8 core at 4.8ghz or Quad at 4.1ghz but they are running tournaments now.

Can you run the following position with Rybka 3 on a Quad or Octal when of course you have time:

White has to find 19.Qxf6+!! that wins easily. (19.Bxa7 leads to a position where white has a small advantage but it will be difficult to win, if wins at all.)
Does Rybka 3 see that 19.Qxf6+!! is winning and if so does it show a big score?
[D]1B1r4/rp2npkp/2b1pbp1/1qp5/nPN1R3/1P1P1QP1/2P2PBP/5R1K w - - 0 19

Who needs quads and octals when you have Rybka 3?... (just kidding)

Anyhow, it seems that even on a backward 2.2GHz Athlon 64 (single CPU), Rybka 3 is able to find it:

Analysis by Rybka 3 (512 MB hash):

19.Bxa7 Bxe4 20.dxe4 e5 21.bxc5 Nxc5 22.Qc3 Ne6 23.Bb6 Ra8 24.Qb2 Nc6 25.Rd1 Nc5 26.Rd5 Qb4
+/- (1.10) Depth: 14 00:00:40 2759kN
19.Bxa7 Bxe4 20.dxe4 e5 21.bxc5 Nxc5 22.Qc3 Ne6 23.Bb6 Ra8 24.Qb2 Nc6 25.Rd1 Nc5 26.Rd5 Qb4 27.Qc1 Ne6
+/- (1.18) Depth: 15 00:01:21 5832kN
19.Bxa7 Bxe4 20.dxe4 e5 21.bxc5 Nxc5 22.Qc3 Ne6 23.Bb6 Ra8 24.Qb2 Rc8 25.Rb1 Nc6 26.c3 Ra8 27.Rd1
+/- (1.16) Depth: 16 00:02:50 12288kN
19.Bxa7 Bxe4 20.dxe4 e5 21.bxc5 Nxc5 22.Qc3 Ne6 23.Bb6 Ra8 24.Rd1 Nc6 25.Rd7 Ne7 26.Rd6 Nc6 27.Bf1 Ncd4 28.f4 Nc6
+/- (1.15) Depth: 17 00:06:34 29406kN
19.Qxf6+
+/- (1.36) Depth: 17 00:07:49 38043kN
19.Qxf6+
+- (1.56) Depth: 17 00:08:48 38745kN
19.Qxf6+
+- (1.96) Depth: 17 00:09:21 40080kN
19.Qxf6+
+- (2.76) Depth: 17 00:10:26 42934kN