Guess who lost their star!

Originally posted by diskamyl
...analyze top grandmasters' (those who have great tactical ability)moves with a modern engine, and you'll find out that the matching percentage is amazing...

no it isn't. generally the moves have to be quite forcing for a GM to match engines. well, it of course also depends on what you mean by 'amazing'. 60-70% is pretty usual, and I see nothing amazing in that.

if you analyze GM games with engines, one thing becomes apparent very soon: engines understand very little about subleties in a position, and rely heavily on their infallibility in tactics. pit two engines against each other, and the games are often just ridiculous. two blind idiots fumbling in the dark. infallible in tactics, but idiots nonetheless.

the engine evaluation will often claim the GM 'made a mistake', losing 0.5 pawns etc, but in a few moves the evaluation will 'miraculously' have bounced back. because the GM didn't make an error, but the engine did. in my experience, you see such engine mistakes in practically every GM game.

engine evaluation is not The Truth, it's just a subjective opinion in a numerical form, based on some crude generalisations designed by a human programmer. take away the tactical infallibility, or provide the GM with even a weak engine for blunder checking, and the machines are toast.

Originally posted by wormwood
engines understand very little about subleties in a position, and rely heavily on their infallibility in tactics. pit two engines against each other, and the games are often just ridiculous.

What engines are you using?

Your argument about "rely heavily on their infallibility in tactics" is flawed. Fritz 5.32 is one of the best tactical engines but yet there is a huge gap between this and the best engines of today (e.g Rybka). So where does this gap come from? It's not tactical ability.

>> the games are often just ridiculous

Please post some examples. I disagree for the top engines.

Also post some example games where the computer is more often than not wrong in comparison to a GM. I don't claim the computer will be right on all occassions; but it will be better than the GM on average.

Originally posted by Varenka
Your argument about "rely heavily on their infallibility in tactics" is flawed. Fritz 5.32 is one of the best tactical engines but yet there is a huge gap between this and the best engines of today (e.g Rybka). So where does this gap come from? It's not tactical ability.

I meant 'infallible' relative to humans. of course there are differences between engines. that gap can come from multiple reasons. depth vs. breadth in search, pruning, positional rule sets, different material values, efficiency of the implementation, etc etc...

and I agree about (strong) engines being better than GMs on average, but the thing is, they only win because it's borderline impossible for a human to catch every single tactical mistake. which in essence means that machines win because humans blunder tactically. machines can't do that. rybka can already count on being able to win material to such an extent, that it kills GMs with material odds.

but if we level that inhuman advantage off, leaving the 'actual chess' (I realize there's a definition issue here, not unlike when beginners think they're really 1xxx strength "if only I didn't blunder", but I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at here), the lack of chess understanding in engine play becomes visible.


as for the silly computer vs computer games, I'll just copy a post from rybka forum:


In game 3, we left book in a reasonable position, but unfortunately a position of a type where Rybka immediately displayed her common misappreciation of white's d4-d5 push in this Ruy Lopez structure with exd4 and cxd4. 15...Nc6 (first move out of book) was a disaster, and the second move, 16...Na5 (instead of 16...Ne5) just gave Rybka a pretty hopeless position. Zappa's 22.f3 was nice, cementing black's horrible bishop on g6. We played this game with the newest and strongest version, including TBs. However, some reports led to doubts about whether there might be some problem with this version, so we decided to go back to the intermediate version (+TBs) for the 4th game. The truth most probably was that black just got a very bad position right away and that no engine version would have had decent chances to hold the position.

Game 4 was an epic tragedy. We got a practically winning position straight out of book, a pre-match assessment of ours that the course of the game quickly validated. Rybka was just well on top of Zappa in the early stages after book, seeing the huge advantage on her own much earlier. But, after having made steady progress, Rybka failed to realize the strength of 52.Qe1, which probably wins the game pretty much on the spot (while Zappa did see it before playing gxh5 and was giving scores like +2.7). Instead, we got a blocked position where Rybka couldn't make reasonable progress (after f3-f4-f5). Most people were willing to call it a draw and a day, but Erdo wisely insisted on playing on and was heavily rewarded for this. The first time Rybka reached the 50-move limit, she gave away a pawn as expected to avoid an instant draw, and further on, well, I really don't know, it was just ugly It was pretty shocking that even when black had "just" achieved full equality to judge by the engine evaluations, that is, when white had queen+two pawns vs. two rooks+bishop, white was probably close to lost. An extremely interesting endgame, and a shocking end to an epic battle.(Btw, both engines played with 5 man TBs and some 6 man TBs, but not the relevant 6 man TB).

We have our work cut out for us in the coming days, for sure.

[Event "Clash of the Computer Titans"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.09.22"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Zappa "]
[Black "Rybka"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C91"]
[Annotator "Rybka"]
[PlyCount "131"]
[TimeControl "3600+20"]

{1024MB, MexicoB.ctg} 1. e4 {0} e5 {B/0 0} 2. Nf3 {13} Nc6 {B/0 0} 3. Bb5 {11}
a6 {B/0 0} 4. Ba4 {10} Nf6 {B/0 0} 5. O-O {10} Be7 {B/0 0} 6. Re1 {9} b5 {B/0 0
} 7. Bb3 {11} d6 {B/0 0} 8. c3 {9} O-O {B/0 0} 9. d4 {10} Bg4 {B/0 0} 10. Be3 {
15} exd4 {B/0 0} 11. cxd4 {9} Na5 {B/0 0} 12. Bc2 {10} c5 {B/0 0} 13. h3 {8}
Bh5 {B/0 0} 14. g4 {9} Bg6 {Last book move. B/0 0} 15. Nbd2 {Last book move. 12
} Nc6 {0.00/15 86} 16. d5 {(Rc1) 193} Na5 {0.06/18 193} 17. a3 {166} Re8 {
0.08/20 690} 18. b4 {157} Nb7 {0.08/18 1} 19. a4 {(bxc5) 302} cxb4 {0.04/16 64}
20. Nd4 {(axb5) 114} Nc5 {0.00/15 62} 21. Nc6 {(axb5) 159} Qc8 {0.00/15 62} 22.
f3 {(g5) 111} Nfd7 {0.13/16 94} 23. axb5 {(Rb1) 131} Bh4 {0.27/17 166} 24. Rf1
{196} Bf6 {0.23/17 1} 25. Rb1 {208} axb5 {0.30/17 1} 26. Rxb4 {112} Nb8 {
0.40/20 954} 27. Nxb8 {12} Rxb8 {0.38/20 102} 28. Qb1 {9} Qd7 {0.48/19 75} 29.
Bd3 {145} Nxd3 {0.48/18 1} 30. Qxd3 {11} Rec8 {0.51/20 52} 31. Rfb1 {116} Rc3 {
0.51/18 1} 32. Rxb5 {132} Rbc8 {0.59/19 1} 33. Qe2 {28} h6 {0.59/18 40} 34. Rb8
{(R5b4) 207} Kh7 {0.72/17 55} 35. Rxc8 {150} Qxc8 {0.88/19 1} 36. f4 {114} Kh8
{0.88/19 1} 37. Kg2 {242} Qe8 {0.93/18 1} 38. f5 {(Rb4) 213} Bh7 {1.10/17 14}
39. Rb6 {224} Qe5 {0.96/18 1} 40. Bf2 {127} Rc2 {1.29/21 1} 41. Qd3 {167} Ra2 {
1.27/21 1} 42. Rb1 {(Nf3) 159} Qf4 {1.17/20 96} 43. Qe3 {56} Qe5 {1.27/20 21}
44. Nf3 {53} Qe8 {1.27/18 1} 45. Qb3 {51} Ra8 {1.27/17 1} 46. Bg3 {85} Qd8 {
1.26/18 86} 47. Rc1 {(Qb6) 8} Qe7 {1.31/17 49} 48. Re1 {(Rc4) 12} Qd8 {
1.33/21 329} 49. Rc1 {(Re2) 8} Qe7 {0.00/52 14} 50. Rc4 {(Bxd6) 154} Bg8 {
1.34/17 35} 51. h4 {(Bf4) 9} Qd8 {1.59/18 91} 52. Rc6 {9} Be7 {1.59/16 20} 53.
g5 {(Bf4) 107} hxg5 {1.85/17 87} 54. hxg5 {9} Rb8 {2.19/19 83} 55. Qc3 {
(Qc2) 55} Ra8 {2.19/18 48} 56. Bf4 {(Qb2) 47} Bh7 {3.20/19 77} 57. Rc7 {12} Rb8
{3.64/19 61} 58. Qc6 {11} Qe8 {3.81/19 76} 59. Qxe8+ {13} Rxe8 {3.81/19 1} 60.
Nd2 {(Rd7) 8} Bg8 {4.64/18 51} 61. Kf3 {9} g6 {5.02/21 24} 62. f6 {(fxg6) 11}
Bf8 {5.58/18 66} 63. Nc4 {10} Rd8 {5.02/14 1} 64. Rc6 {81} Ra8 {6.45/15 1} 65.
Bxd6 {77} Bxd6 {6.83/14 1} 66. Nxd6 {7} 1-0

[Event "Clash of the Computer Titans"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.09.22"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Rybka"]
[Black "Zappa"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C92"]
[Annotator "Rybka"]
[PlyCount "360"]
[TimeControl "5400+20"]

{512MB, MexicoB.ctg} 1. e4 {B/0 0} e5 {11} 2. Nf3 {B/0 0} Nc6 {10} 3. Bb5 {
B/0 0} a6 {8} 4. Ba4 {B/0 0} Nf6 {9} 5. O-O {B/0 0} Be7 {8} 6. Re1 {B/0 0} b5 {
7} 7. Bb3 {B/0 0} d6 {12} 8. c3 {B/0 0} O-O {9} 9. h3 {B/0 0} Bb7 {9} 10. d4 {
B/0 0} Re8 {9} 11. Nbd2 {B/0 0} Bf8 {8} 12. a4 {B/0 0} h6 {17} 13. Bc2 {B/0 0}
exd4 {9} 14. cxd4 {B/0 0} Nb4 {11} 15. Bb1 {B/0 0} c5 {22} 16. d5 {B/0 0} Nd7 {
11} 17. Ra3 {B/0 0} c4 {11} 18. axb5 {B/0 0} axb5 {10} 19. Nd4 {B/0 0} Qb6 {11}
20. Nf5 {B/0 0} Ne5 {9} 21. Rg3 {B/0 0} g6 {11} 22. Nf3 {B/0 0} Ned3 {12} 23.
Be3 {B/0 0} Qd8 {10} 24. Bxh6 {B/0 0} Qf6 {Last book move. 15} 25. Qd2 {B/0 0}
Nxe1 {519} 26. Bxf8 {B/0 0} Nxf3+ {221} 27. Rxf3 {Last book move. B/0 0} Kxf8 {
177} 28. Nh6 {0.11/24 251} Qg7 {21} 29. Rxf7+ {0.11/23 39} Qxf7 {10} 30. Nxf7 {
0.11/25 78} Kxf7 {7} 31. Qxb4 {0.70/25 269} Ra1 {12} 32. Qxb5 {0.83/24 80}
Rxb1+ {269} 33. Kh2 {0.84/27 1} Re7 {8} 34. Qb4 {0.88/25 167} Rd7 {205} 35. Qd2
{1.00/26 402} Kg8 {166} 36. Qc2 {1.04/25 112} Ra1 {(Rf1) 64} 37. Qxc4 {
1.04/23 2} Ra8 {(Kh7) 112} 38. b4 {1.04/20 25} Rf8 {187} 39. f3 {1.12/24 14}
Rc8 {(g5) 120} 40. Qd4 {1.23/20 23} Rf7 {128} 41. h4 {1.38/24 34} Rcc7 {
(Rc2) 114} 42. b5 {1.41/23 31} Rc5 {53} 43. Qb4 {1.41/23 10} Kh7 {138} 44. b6 {
1.49/26 83} Rd7 {(Rg7) 35} 45. Qa4 {1.49/24 93} Re7 {154} 46. Kg3 {1.50/26 145}
Rc8 {9} 47. Qb4 {1.51/25 301} Rd8 {(Rd7) 12} 48. Kf4 {1.58/20 28} Bc8 {
(Kg8) 116} 49. g4 {1.65/21 26} Rf8+ {106} 50. Ke3 {1.72/25 244} Rd8 {9} 51. h5
{1.73/24 101} gxh5 {222} 52. gxh5 {1.80/25 121} Bb7 {(Kh6) 175} 53. Qb2 {
1.86/23 48} Rf8 {13} 54. Qh2 {2.00/23 7} Rf6 {(Rd7) 90} 55. Qh4 {2.00/24 20}
Ref7 {98} 56. f4 {2.00/28 50} Rh6 {(Rf8) 33} 57. Qg5 {2.00/26 142} Ba8 {
(Rhf6) 92} 58. Kd3 {2.00/25 47} Bb7 {114} 59. Kd4 {2.00/27 54} Rhf6 {100} 60.
f5 {2.00/28 34} Ba6 {(Rf8) 68} 61. Kc3 {2.00/24 27} Bb7 {50} 62. Kb4 {2.00/27 4
} Ba6 {(Rf8) 72} 63. Ka5 {2.00/24 26} Bb7 {69} 64. Kb5 {2.00/28 2} Ba8 {
(Kh8) 76} 65. Qg6+ {2.00/23 16} Kh8 {82} 66. Qg3 {2.00/27 10} Bb7 {78} 67. Qf4
{2.00/26 2} Rh7 {(Kh7) 68} 68. Qd2 {2.00/25 32} Rhh6 {(Rhf7) 64} 69. Qg5 {
2.01/25 19} Kh7 {9} 70. Kc4 {2.01/26 16} Ba6+ {(Kh8) 50} 71. Kd4 {2.01/27 19}
Bb7 {88} 72. Kc3 {2.01/29 102} Bc8 {(Ba6) 153} 73. Kc2 {2.01/24 27} Ba6 {77}
74. Kb2 {2.01/29 63} Bb7 {127} 75. Kc1 {2.01/29 123} Ba6 {(Ba8) 63} 76. Kc2 {
2.01/27 53} Bb7 {9} 77. Kb2 {2.01/26 6} Ba6 {(Ba8) 94} 78. Kb3 {2.01/27 38} Bb7
{57} 79. Kc2 {0.00/28 179} Ba6 {54} 80. Kc1 {2.01/28 152} Kh8 {(Bb7) 72} 81.
Kb1 {1.85/25 38} Kh7 {398} 82. Ka2 {1.85/31 1} Bb7 {68} 83. Kb3 {1.85/29 10}
Kh8 {(Ba6) 34} 84. Kb4 {1.85/24 17} Kh7 {(Ba8) 14} 85. Kb5 {1.85/27 104} Kh8 {
13} 86. Ka4 {1.85/26 3} Kh7 {68} 87. Ka5 {1.85/28 78} Kh8 {93} 88. Qh4 {
1.85/29 55} Rf7 {(Kg8) 72} 89. Qf4 {1.85/25 13} Kh7 {(Rhf6) 62} 90. Kb5 {
1.85/25 16} Rff6 {(Rhf6) 33} 91. Qc1 {1.85/25 15} Rf7 {10} 92. Qa3 {1.85/25 8}
Rg7 {47} 93. Qf3 {1.85/26 22} Rf6 {(Rf7) 43} 94. Qc3 {1.85/24 30} Rgf7 {
(Rf8) 47} 95. Qd2 {1.85/26 65} Rh6 {42} 96. Qg2 {1.85/27 38} Rg7 {56} 97. Qh2 {
1.85/27 38} Kg8 {(Rf6) 58} 98. Qh4 {1.85/24 12} Kh7 {22} 99. Qh1 {1.85/25 6}
Rf7 {(Kg8) 38} 100. Ka5 {1.85/23 32} Rg7 {(Kg7) 54} 101. Qh4 {1.85/25 48} Rd7 {
(Rf7) 88} 102. Qg3 {1.85/23 66} Rg7 {38} 103. Qf3 {1.85/27 41} Re7 {(Rf7) 64}
104. Kb5 {1.85/23 12} Rg7 {(Rf6) 46} 105. Qc3 {1.85/25 47} Rf7 {46} 106. Qh3 {
1.85/25 83} Rhf6 {(Re7) 40} 107. Qe3 {0.86/22 37} Rg7 {(Rh6) 55} 108. Qc1 {
0.86/23 28} Rgf7 {(Rd7) 8} 109. h6 {0.86/24 25} Rxh6 {43} 110. Qd2 {0.86/25 11}
Kg7 {(Rhf6) 42} 111. Qg5+ {0.86/24 13} Kh7 {7} 112. Kb4 {0.86/25 4} Rhf6 {
(Rg7) 42} 113. Kc4 {0.86/23 29} Ba6+ {(Rf8) 43} 114. Kb3 {0.86/23 16} Bc8 {
(Rh6) 44} 115. Kc3 {0.86/21 13} Ba6 {(Rh6) 42} 116. Kb2 {0.85/20 33} Rh6 {34}
117. Kb3 {0.81/23 18} Rg7 {34} 118. Qc1 {0.81/23 22} Re7 {(Bb7) 9} 119. Qf4 {
0.86/21 30} Rb7 {(Rf6) 31} 120. f6 {1.25/19 28} Rf7 {9} 121. Qxd6 {1.16/19 1}
Rhxf6 {37} 122. Qe5 {0.44/19 65} Rxb6+ {38} 123. Kc3 {0.39/20 18} Rh6 {
(Rfb7) 16} 124. Kd4 {0.35/19 49} Be2 {14} 125. Qe8 {0.09/20 62} Bh5 {(Rhf6) 8}
126. Qd8 {0.15/20 34} Bg4 {69} 127. e5 {0.33/20 35} Rd7 {(...

here the tactical advantage of an engine was negated by the short time control, so that it didn't have the time to brute force deep enough. the result was a massacre.

there's no doubt that nakamura committed tactical errors as well, but when the engine didn't have the time to search for them, the instantaneous GM understanding of chess won.


[Event "ICC 3 1"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2005.06.08"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Beast"]
[Black "Smallville"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "3709"]
[BlackElo "3348"]
[ICCResult "White checkmated"]
[Opening "Dunst (Sleipner, Heinrichsen) opening"]
[ECO "A00"]
[NIC "VO.15"]
[Time "18:49:48"]
[TimeControl "180+1"]

1. Nc3 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. Bc4 e6 4. Nf3 Ne7 5. O-O d6 6. d4 O-O 7. Bg5 h6 8.
Be3 b6 9. Qd2 Kh7 10. d5 e5 11. Ne1 f5 12. f3 f4 13. Bf2 g5 14. Nd3 h5 15.
Rae1 Ng6 16. Re2 Bh6 17. Ne1 g4 18. Qd3 a6 19. a4 Nd7 20. Kh1 Nf6 21. b4
Rf7 22. Rg1 g3 23. hxg3 fxg3 24. Bxg3 h4 25. Bxh4 Nxh4 26. g3 Ng6 27. Rh2
Kg7 28. Kg2 Rf8 29. Nd1 Rh8 30. Rgh1 Bg5 31. Rxh8 Nxh8 32. Nf2 Ng6 33. c3
Qe8 34. b5 a5 35. Nc2 Ne7 36. Nh3 Bxh3+ 37. Rxh3 Qg6 38. Kf2 Rh8 39. Rxh8
Kxh8 40. Ba2 Nd7 41. Ne1 Nc5 42. Qc2 Qh6 43. Ng2 Ng6 44. Bc4 Qh2 45. Bf1
Kg7 46. Qa2 Nf8 47. Bc4 Nh7 48. Kf1 Qh1+ 49. Kf2 Qc1 50. Be2 Nf6 51. Qc4
Bd2 52. g4 Qxc3 53. Qxc3 Bxc3 54. Bd1 Bd2 55. Nh4 Ng8 56. Ke2 Bg5 57. Nf5+
Kf7 58. Bc2 Ne7 59. Ng3 Nd7 60. Kd3 Ng6 61. Nf5 Kf6 62. Kc3 Nh4 63. Nxh4
Bxh4 64. Kd2 Kg5 65. Bd1 Kf4 66. Ke2 Nf6 67. Kf1 Nh7 68. Kg2 Be1 69. Kf1
Bg3 70. Be2 Ng5 71. Kg1 Nxf3+ 72. Kg2 Ne1+ 73. Kf1 Nc2 74. Kg2 Ne3+ 75. Kh3
Be1 76. g5 Kxg5 77. Kh2 Kf4 78. Bd3 Ng4+ 79. Kg2 Nf2 80. Bc2 Nxe4 81. Bb3
Nc5 82. Kf1 Nxb3 83. Kxe1 Nc5 84. Ke2 Nxa4 85. Ke1 Nc5 86. Kf2 Ke4 87. Kg2
Kxd5 88. Kg3 Kc4 89. Kg4 Kxb5 90. Kg3 a4 91. Kf3 a3 92. Ke3 a2 93. Kf2 a1=N
94. Ke3 Kc6 95. Kf3 Nab3 96. Kg4 Nd4 97. Kg5 Nde6+ 98. Kf5 Kd7 99. Kg4 b5
100. Kf3 b4 101. Kg3 b3 102. Kf3 b2 103. Kg4 b1=N 104. Kf5 Na3 105. Kg4 Nb7
106. Kf5 Nf8 107. Ke4 Nd8 108. Kd3 Nb5 109. Kc4 Na7 110. Kd3 Nc8 111. Ke4
Ke6 112. Ke3 d5 113. Kd2 c5 114. Kd1 e4 115. Kc2 d4 116. Kb2 Kd5 117. Kc1
c4 118. Kd2 e3+ 119. Ke1 Ke4 120. Kf1 d3 121. Ke1 c3 122. Kd1 c2+ 123. Kc1
e2 124. Kd2 Kd4 125. Ke1 c1=N 126. Kd2 Nb3+ 127. Ke1 Kc3 128. Kf2 Nc5 129.
Ke1 Nce6 130. Kf2 Nc7 131. Kf3 e1=N+ 132. Kf2 Nc2 133. Kf1 Ne8 134. Kg2
Nfe6 135. Kf2 Nf6 136. Kf3 Nd6 137. Kg3 Nc6 138. Kg2 N2d4 139. Kh3 N4f5
140. Kg2 Nfe7 141. Kf2 Ng6 142. Ke1 Kc2 143. Kf2 d2 144. Kg2 d1=N 145. Kf1
Nc3 146. Kf2 Ncd5 147. Kg2 Nce5 148. Kg1 Nde4 149. Kg2 Nd4 150. Kg1 Ngf4
151. Kh1 Nfg4 152. Kg1 Nde3 153. Kh1 Ndf5 154. Kg1 Nf3+ 155. Kh1 Nfg3#
{White checkmated} 0-1

Originally posted by wormwood
no it isn't. generally the moves have to be quite forcing for a GM to match engines. well, it of course also depends on what you mean by 'amazing'. 60-70% is pretty usual, and I see nothing amazing in that.

if you analyze GM games with engines, one thing becomes apparent very soon: engines understand very little about subleties in a position, and rely he rovide the GM with even a weak engine for blunder checking, and the machines are toast.

wormwood, I really respect your level of play and and the way you interpret chess as a total (I should also mention that I read your blog occasionally), but I think that your opinions about engines were true maybe a decade ago.

"the engine evaluation will often claim the GM 'made a mistake', losing 0.5 pawns etc, but in a few moves the evaluation will 'miraculously' have bounced back". well, this may happen from time to time, but probably it's mostly about the depth to which the engine analyses the move. as for rybka for example, for analysis at GM level, she probably needs to get to 20 depth, which takes 4-5 minutes (depending on the position) on good hardware. at that depth, what you have stated would happen so rare that it could be statistically negligible.

and if a GM were to analyze games played by rybka, this would happen a lot more.

you sould check out the latest Ehlvest (GM) vs Rybka match, where rybka had half the time Ehlvest had, and didn't have an opening book (only a book of 3 moves to avoid repetition), and she outplayed the GM in almost every opening! Yet, she'd get "strategically won" positions in almost all games in the late middlegame. I can't find a way to explain this except admitting that modern engines are positionally too, better than GMs.

a few more point to make. I don't think top GMs are that much weaker than engines in tactical ability. even decades ago, a famous GM (could be botvinnik, but I may be wrong) has given a blindfolded simul. match to more than 20 people (again, I'm not sure about the exact number, but it should be close enough) and still won most of them. I really can't even imagine having that kind of memory and calculation ability, and we all know that top GMs get better better all the time, and I guess they are very close to engines in that aspect.

lastly, I believe you could find many more games of positional masters like Karpov or Keres with silly positional blunders than rybkas.

if you're talking about crafty etc. though, I don't know much about them. What I mean by modern engines is the ones like Rybka, Hiarcs, etc.

Originally posted by diskamyl
wormwood, I really respect your level of play and and the way you interpret chess as a total (I should also mention that I read your blog occasionally), but I think that your opinions about engines were true maybe a decade ago.

well, having a computer science background, I naturally used to think exactly like you do now. but the more I gain experience and understanding in chess (and lets face it, I'm still a complete patzer), the less I have respect for engine evaluation.

as for rybka or any other strong machine playing like a human, well, I suppose it won't surprise anyone that I'm highly skeptical about it. I think it would mean that any engine playing significantly more human-like, would also make the engine detection problem here explode. and as that hasn't happened...

I wonder if the game mods could provide us with some statistics, on how different engines match up with humans on average? that should settle the dispute of any significant difference between different engines. the higher the average matchup rate, the more like human they play.

Originally posted by wormwood
as for the silly computer vs computer games

Ok, I see that computers make mistakes and get into positions that they fail to understand. But how does that make them "silly"? Do I quote some poor play by a GM and state that GMs are silly?

Originally posted by Varenka
Ok, I see that computers make mistakes and get into positions that they fail to understand. But how does that make them "silly"? Do I quote some poor play by a GM and state that GMs are silly?

Are you saying that the best engines these days do play like the strongest human players?
I thought that the best GM's only match up 60-70% over time, or was this statistic simply made up?

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
Are you saying that the best engines these days do play like the strongest human players?

No. They play stronger in their own way, not necessarily human-like.

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
Are you saying that the best engines these days do play like the strongest human players?
I thought that the best GM's only match up 60-70% over time, or was this statistic simply made up?

I wonder if anyone has done a similar thing with GMs. How often does Anand match up with Kramnik for instance? If GMs generally match up 60-70% with each other then there may be nothing in the engine match up idea.

Originally posted by ih8sens
I've only played one person who has now been banned for engine use. I have my questions about a number of middle rated players who I personally believe use an engine on just the occasional move, and not always (making it harder to catch). Frankly though, I don't really care... engines give me just as good if not better a game than non engines, right?

I agree that some middle rated players may occasionally use an engine to get a win or 2 or to get out of a tough spot but that would be hard to catch. We've all probably had a time or 2 when after winning against an opponent and having a rematch the person plays like a totally different person and wipes you off the board like someone rated much higher. Most times it's probably just a good game on their side but it does make you wonder. (easier to wonder when you're to loser too)

A "silly" computer beat up on one of the top players in the world (GM Michael Adams) a few years ago in a match, winning 5.5 - 0.5. Obviously it's "silly" moves had virtually no effect on the result of the match. A tactical oversight is usually a hundred-times worse than a positional mistake. Teichmann was right: chess really IS 99% tactics!

Thats odd, I had a post in this thread, could whoever removed it (I assume it was removed) please let me know why? I am pretty certain I didnt break any rules and only want to know why so I wont inadvertantly do it again.

Originally posted by wormwood
take away the tactical infallibility, or provide the GM with even a weak engine for blunder checking, and the machines are toast.

So, would this imply that a grandmaster level correspondence chess player would have no problem whatsoever with Deep Blue?

After all, we have plenty of time to check for blunders.

Thx! :-)