This has to be a very weak computer NOT the program.........

[pichy]

Computer at blitz should be almost unbeatable, but GM Nakamura got lucky or this has to be a very old and weak P.C. with Rybka

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1497429

[pichy]

Computer at blitz should be almost unbeatable, but GM Nakamura got lucky or this has to be a very old and weak P.C. with Rybka

PS: Unless Rybka was able to sacrifice a pawn in order to break through the position a great program like Rybka is still too materialistic vs a GM and at the end it runs out of time and suffer positionally and give up material. Notice how GM Nakamura was down trading pieces with the program knowing that Rybka was blocked with the pawns and at the end it will not sacrifice a pawn or two to break the position
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1497429

[pichy]

Computer at blitz should be almost unbeatable, this is the reason why I do NOT consider the high rating of the top 5 programs to be taken too seriously when matched versus a top GM that knows how to block a position:roll:

PS: Unless programs are programmed to sacrifice a pawn or two in order to break through the position a great program like Rybka is still too materialistic vs a GM and at the end it runs out of time and suffer positionally and give up material. Notice how GM Nakamura was down-trading pieces with the program knowing that Rybka was blocked with the pawns and at the end it will not sacrifice a pawn or two to break the position
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1497429

Here are two more matches versus Rybka:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl ... pid2=10084

[Terry McCracken]

Computer at blitz should be almost unbeatable, this is the reason why I do NOT consider the high rating of the top 5 programs to be taken too seriously when matched versus a top GM that knows how to block a position:roll:

PS: Unless programs are programmed to sacrifice a pawn or two in order to break through the position a great program like Rybka is still too materialistic vs a GM and at the end it runs out of time and suffer positionally and give up material. Notice how GM Nakamura was down-trading pieces with the program knowing that Rybka was blocked with the pawns and at the end it will not sacrifice a pawn or two to break the position
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1497429

Here are two more matches versus Rybka:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl ... pid2=10084

I have quickly looked over the first game you presented, it has nothing to do with weak hardware or software but everything to do with how to beat these programs.

He knows how.

[pichy]

Computer at blitz should be almost unbeatable, this is the reason why I do NOT consider the high rating of the top 5 programs to be taken too seriously when matched versus a top GM that knows how to block a position:roll:

PS: Unless programs are programmed to sacrifice a pawn or two in order to break through the position a great program like Rybka is still too materialistic vs a GM and at the end it runs out of time and suffer positionally and give up material. Notice how GM Nakamura was down-trading pieces with the program knowing that Rybka was blocked with the pawns and at the end it will not sacrifice a pawn or two to break the position
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1497429

Here are two more matches versus Rybka:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl ... pid2=10084

I have quickly looked over the first game you presented, it has nothing to do with weak hardware or software but everything to do with how to beat these programs.

He knows how.

You are correct the hardware don't have nothing to do with it, for the first game that I presented GM Nakamura was able to block the position, and Rybka is not programmed to sacrifice a pawn or two in order to break through. Now if you look at this game, it is simply amazing at how GM Nakamura slowly and gradually demolish Rybka.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1497426

[Terry McCracken]

Computer at blitz should be almost unbeatable, this is the reason why I do NOT consider the high rating of the top 5 programs to be taken too seriously when matched versus a top GM that knows how to block a position:roll:

PS: Unless programs are programmed to sacrifice a pawn or two in order to break through the position a great program like Rybka is still too materialistic vs a GM and at the end it runs out of time and suffer positionally and give up material. Notice how GM Nakamura was down-trading pieces with the program knowing that Rybka was blocked with the pawns and at the end it will not sacrifice a pawn or two to break the position
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1497429

Here are two more matches versus Rybka:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl ... pid2=10084

I have quickly looked over the first game you presented, it has nothing to do with weak hardware or software but everything to do with how to beat these programs.

He knows how.

You are correct the hardware don't have nothing to do with it, for the first game that I presented GM Nakamura was able to block the position, and Rybka is not programmed to sacrifice a pawn or two in order to break through. Now if you look at this game, it is simply amazing at how GM Nakamura slowly and gradually demolish Rybka.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1497426

It's very simple, he's good and knows where Rybka is weak.

Thanks for posting these games. I liked this game far better and he took down Rybka without conventional anti-computer techniques.

[BubbaTough]

If computers were allowed unfettered access to human tournaments, GM Nakamura would quite possibly be the highest rated human in the world .

-Sam

[pichy]

Computer at blitz should be almost unbeatable, this is the reason why I do NOT consider the high rating of the top 5 programs to be taken too seriously when matched versus a top GM that knows how to block a position:roll:

PS: Unless programs are programmed to sacrifice a pawn or two in order to break through the position a great program like Rybka is still too materialistic vs a GM and at the end it runs out of time and suffer positionally and give up material. Notice how GM Nakamura was down-trading pieces with the program knowing that Rybka was blocked with the pawns and at the end it will not sacrifice a pawn or two to break the position
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1497429

Here are two more matches versus Rybka:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl ... pid2=10084

I have quickly looked over the first game you presented, it has nothing to do with weak hardware or software but everything to do with how to beat these programs.

He knows how.

I have something to add, in the beginning back in the 80's when programs did not have opening or ending databases they were very weak programs, later besides adding databases, more knowledge was added and chess programs became stronger and stronger. A program that does not have the knowledge of sacrificing a pawn or two specially when it is ahead in order to break through a fortress of pawns barrier it is still a weak program when matched against a strong human that knows how to block a position. Therefore, Rybka is still a weak chess program.

PS: I should NOT say that Rybka is a weak chess program, it is the strongest program available, but most strong human GMs have more chess knowledge than rybka, and blocking and being able to unblock a position any strong human GM or even a master is capable of doing it when they are ahead in material.

[pichy]

If computers were allowed unfettered access to human tournaments, GM Nakamura would quite possibly be the highest rated human in the world .

-Sam

It is hard to tell, somebody will have to find out which GM has the better percentage versus the top 5 programs ICC.

[Laskos]

Computer at blitz should be almost unbeatable, this is the reason why I do NOT consider the high rating of the top 5 programs to be taken too seriously when matched versus a top GM that knows how to block a position:roll:

PS: Unless programs are programmed to sacrifice a pawn or two in order to break through the position a great program like Rybka is still too materialistic vs a GM and at the end it runs out of time and suffer positionally and give up material. Notice how GM Nakamura was down-trading pieces with the program knowing that Rybka was blocked with the pawns and at the end it will not sacrifice a pawn or two to break the position
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1497429

Here are two more matches versus Rybka:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl ... pid2=10084

I have quickly looked over the first game you presented, it has nothing to do with weak hardware or software but everything to do with how to beat these programs.

He knows how.

I have something to add, in the beginning back in the 80's when programs did not have opening or ending databases they were very weak programs, later besides adding databases, more knowledge was added and chess programs became stronger and stronger. A program that does not have the knowledge of sacrificing a pawn or two specially when it is ahead in order to break through a fortress of pawns barrier it is still a weak program when matched against a strong human that knows how to block a position. Therefore, Rybka is still a weak chess program.

PS: I should NOT say that Rybka is a weak chess program, it is the strongest program available, but most strong human GMs have more chess knowledge than rybka, and blocking and being able to unblock a position any strong human GM or even a master is capable of doing it when they are ahead in material.

No problem, put the contempt at 3.00 and Rybka will be going to crush you.

Kai