Stockfish Beats Rybka 4 (big deal?)

Hi.

I was pointed to this earlier on in the day.

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6398

Kavalek has some good notes to this game.
Especially the tricks refuting 8...Q5.

However I cannot agree with the comment;

"It was a typical Grunfeld Indian game, a classic confrontation between
a strong pawn center and active piece play with a romantic aura that
would have pleased players from [the] 19th century."

I spun through the game and it looked like exactly what it was.
Two strong computers playing chess in a highly tactical position.

Exact calculation possibly affected by an horizon which meant one
landed at a postion it thought was OK but as it appeared through
it's transistors it realised it was lost so blew a valve.

an ugly game, no class. Just a form of exactness you do not see in the real game.
I cannot recall any 19th century game that was like this.

Stockfish is White.



Now this, played by me v my Travel Symstec 10 secs a move - no book.
Is how to play v a computer.

Yes I a skipped past a quicker mates, I knew they were there because
the thing started making odd King moves.

It refused my double Rook sac so I just had to wrap up neatly.

I was looking for the super-duper Carlos Fandango finish.
I found one.

Today's Instructive point? There aint one.

Oh wait. Yes. The sac on f7 does not always have to take a pawn.
Infact sacs on empty squares are occasionally missed OTB
by both attacker and defender.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
"It was a typical Grunfeld Indian game, a classic confrontation between
a strong pawn center and active piece play [b]with a romantic aura that
would have pleased players from [the] 19th century.[/b]

I agree with you Mr greenpawn. The reviewers here are obviously talking out of their collective behinds considering the gruenfeld defence wasnt introduced until 1922.

Also, from what little I know, the anti-gruenfeld white pawn h4 push is a fairly recent development.

Then again they might have mixed up their centuries (19th century != 1900)


But this game is computer chess and can be nothing more.

The good news is these things are getting so powerful the
users will no longer be able to use them.

A 20 move exact mating combination beyond human calcualtion
stands out like a flashing beacon.

Heavy exactness is not always a good thing, especially if a lad
is looking at his games with one of these things because it's not interested
in art, humour or instruction. Just bitter calculation.

They see such wonderful ideas and then refuse to show them because
it can prevent them by playing nonsense.

Here White to play.



A mundane win and yet hiding inside it is a cute instructive variation.
It can see it. But you are not going too. Infact it will do everything in
it's power to stop you from seeing it.

1.exf6

And any reasonable box now plays 1....QxR+ or 11....gxf6
giving up the Queen.
It has 'seen' the beneficial idea but it is keeping it to itself.

There is an instructive finish,a 'liquidation combination' - a combo that
clears the deck and leaves you with a 100% endgame win.

The Bishop hemmed in by it's own pawns get caught by the Rook
via Forks & Pins. Charming and an idea worth storing.

These thing, they see so much and yet show so little.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
The good news is these things are getting so powerful the
users will no longer be able to use them.

A 20 move exact mating combination beyond human calcualtion
stands out like a flashing beacon.

Heavy exactness is not always a good thing, especially if a lad
is looking at his games with one of these things because it's not interested
in art, hu ...[text shortened]... --------}
1. exf6 Qf7 2. fxg7+ Qxg7 3. Qxg7+ Kxg7 4. Re6 Ba8 5. Re8 Bc6 6. Rc8[/pgn]

Sheesh, all you have to do is put the comp in analysis mode, and you can have it show you ANY variation you care to see.

You'd think people would learn how to use the software a bit BEFORE writing a screed on how useless they are. 😕

Hi SG.

I know it can see multiple variations, the above example is very basic.

But it's in these muliple variations where often these 'cute' lines lay.
The 5th variation down may hold a magnificent mate in 6 but on move 7
of that variation it will sac a piece to stop it so you will never see a #6 symbol.

It will show you a line that is -4 down rather show you why it decided
to accept a -4 position.

Now unless you are willing to play out each variation and it's sub variation
then you will miss it.

It, rather selfishly, keeps all the good fun stuff to itself - you get the dross.
exact dross. But dross nonetheless .

You must have seen a box destroy some wonderful studies, not by refuting
them but by playing utter nonsense to avoid the mate in 20.

The beauty of the composers idea is lost to them.
They can see it, but shrug their silicon shoulders and stop it.

The solution is to dumb them down, but then what's the point
of having a monster like that on your computer if you have to tweak it.

Anyway the threads are dead ATM - the cheats one got pulled,

It's openings and ratings again so another blazing row about computers
won't go amiss.

Hey up: theamatuer has just posted a good idea.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi SG.

I know it can see multiple variations, the above example is very basic.

But it's in these muliple variations where often these 'cute' lines lay.
The 5th variation down may hold a magnificent mate in 6 but on move 7
of that variation it will sac a piece to stop it so you will never see a #6 symbol.

It will show you a line that is -4 dow ...[text shortened]... row about computers
won't go amiss.

Hey up: theamatuer has just posted a good idea.

If I did not know better, I would swear you were describing a typical unannotated GM game- all the pretty stuff is in the variations left unplayed, secrets unveiled only when they deign to provide notes.

I'm not sure about how to interpret the "utter nonsense to avoid mate in 20", as I've had a few games where I would gladly have applied some "utter nonsense" to avoid a mate- after all, it was the utter nonsense I played before that got me into the mate in the first place!😕

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi SG.

I know it can see multiple variations, the above example is very basic.

But it's in these muliple variations where often these 'cute' lines lay.
The 5th variation down may hold a magnificent mate in 6 but on move 7
of that variation it will sac a piece to stop it so you will never see a #6 symbol.

It will show you a line that is -4 dow ...[text shortened]... row about computers
won't go amiss.

Hey up: theamatuer has just posted a good idea.

Another great thing with analysis mode - have it show 6 variations at once. One is the piece sack that stops the mate, the others are the mates.

The desperation sacrifices are easy to spot. Once you see the machine make one, it's obvious that it's trying to delay a forced mate in some fashion. Again, analysis mode with more variations showing makes it fairly easy to find the mate if material is not sacrificed.

Now unless you are willing to play out each variation and it's sub variation
then you will miss it.

Well, the machine can't force you to analyze more thoroughly. That's the only way stuff like this will ever get noticed.

Forget the 'garbage' lines and just force it to analyze the variations that are of interest to you. Again, the machine is more than willing to look at any line you care to suggest.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi SG.

I know it can see multiple variations, the above example is very basic.

But it's in these muliple variations where often these 'cute' lines lay.
The 5th variation down may hold a magnificent mate in 6 but on move 7
of that variation it will sac a piece to stop it so you will never see a #6 symbol.

It will show you a line that is -4 dow ...[text shortened]... row about computers
won't go amiss.

Hey up: theamatuer has just posted a good idea.

An aside: computers have proven to be extremely useful in busting unsound compositions. The composers are grateful for their testing ability. In the pre-computer days, a study [or other form of problem] would be thought sound for years, until some human solver found a hole in it and ruined it. With the computer's tireless, quick and more thorough analysis, the flaws can be quickly exposed and removed until the composition is guaranteed sound. Only then is it published to a magazine.

All this talk of fish is making me hungry. (Must be supper time.)

OK, so the silicon monsters can't teach chess ideas very well. That's probably a good thing, otherwise all the chess instructors would have to find other lines of work. 🙂

BTW, GP, I'm not sure what "romantic chess" is supposed to be - wild tactics, speculative sacrifices, creativity, or what?

Hi SG.

I know these things are invaluable to composers an solvers.

Perhaps that should have a 'show mates' settings so any line it looks
at that has a mate in it that can be stopped by one move can be shown.

Something to give it a more human feel. A sense of humour of if you will.

Hi Mad Rook

Ah the Romantic era. when it was considered ungentlemanly to refuse
sacrifices. (not quite 100% true but refusal was often frowned upon).

It was also considered bad form to publish a losers name, the early BCM's
I have show games between Mr.S beating Mr B.

And if the game was adjourned then players did not analyse them.
Oh No, that would indeed be classed as low play.

Specualtive sacs, some poor defending but some beautiful games
sums up the Romantics.

Between Morphy & Steinitiz is the claimed Romantic era but it went on longer
in ink as the games writers were always harking back to the good old days.

(a bit like me wanting chess to go back to pre computer days)

Recently I was going through some of Pillsbury games played in the 1890's.

The game writers, Sergeant and Watts quoted Hoffer who noted up
the original game.

Hoffer had discovered that in Halprin v Pillsbury, Munich 1900.
Halprin had got together with Marocozy beforehand and worked out
a line v what Pillsbury played - the game ended in a draw.

"....Pillsbury had no idea he playing against analysis."
Spits out Hoffer.

Thus was the thinking in some quarters in the sub Romantic era.

Analsying and preparing variations against particular opponents.
Black Ball the lot of them for cheating.

THe Edinburgh Chess Club, founded in 1822, actuially still has it
'black ball' box for accepting or declining new members.
Minutes state it was used up until the early 1900's.

It is a large wooden struture about the size of a standard telly.
You took a ball (all the same colour) and put your hand into the box
and unseen dropped the ball into the 'Yes' or 'No' tray.

When all the members had voted the trays were pulled
open and the balls counted.

If the No's outnumbered the Yes's then you never allowed to re-apply again.

Romantic chess part 2.

(inspired by the game I am about to show).

Everyone opened 1.e4 and the reply of course had to be 1...e5.

Players dabbled with Sicilians and French's so in an effort to keep
things pretty the Brilliancy Prize was introduced to

"...put an end to those wretched 1...e6 games."

And yes the first Brilliancy Prize to be awarded came from a
French Defence (won by Henry Bird) the prize winning Queen
sac is actually unsound, it's entertaining but unsound.
Bird's opponent, Mason refuses a few drawn variations
because he was trying to win.
The Romantic Era - wonderful days.

So 150 years later what have we got.

Players when faced with a sac always consider first
'what happens if I refuse it?'

Books (and posts 😉 ) entralling the virtues of 1.g3. 1.b3
Players developing on their first 3 ranks and no clashes till about
move 20. Most games were over by then in the Romantic Era.

Grandmaster draws.
Openings named after practially every animal that
walks God's Earth, people claiming wins on time when a flag falls
and players actually getting a computer to make their moves for them.

But let us not despair, every now and then players get the calling
as the ghosts from the past refuse to go away and inspire them.
The pieces dance with delight as both players go toe to toe.

richjohnson v bbarr, played on here 2008.
(one of the three games on display when you log on - enjoy).

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Romantic chess part 2.

(inspired by the game I am about to show).

Everyone opened 1.e4 and the reply of course had to be 1...e5.

Players dabbled with Sicilians and French's so in an effort to keep
things pretty the Brilliancy Prize was introduced to

"...put an end to those wretched 1...e6 games."

And yes the first Brillian v bbarr, played on here 2008.
(one of the three games on display when you log on - enjoy).

Insane middlegame, as far as my patzer mind can comprehend. thanks for posting it.

Okay, you brought up the topic of computers and romantic chess (or was it Kavalek? ) No matter...

Do you know of any engines that are capable of playing anything close to romantic chess? The one engine I hear about most often on the forums is an old one written by Chris Wittington called Chess System Tal. It was only about 2300 in strength (fine with me, I'm WAY below that level). Unfortunately it hasn't been maintained, it's a little hard to find (have to scrounge eBay for copies sold under different names, etc), and it appears there's no chance of it getting revived for the latest operating systems.

If I can believe the descriptions, it was extremely tactical and would constantly make speculative sacrifices. In case you're interested, here's a few links for exploration:

http://www.thorstenczub.de/cst_f_v.html

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?start=0&t=14284&topic_view=flat

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?start=0&t=21299&topic_view=flat

I'm really the wrong guy to ask about computers and what they can do.

But basically you are asking a box to accept risky sacs, defend poorly
and forget 150 years of opening theory and chess development.

I know you can tamper with the settings but that to me is like
turning a Rolls Royce into a Skoda.

(I bet you now all the Skoda owners will now come on screaming and snarling).

Thanks for the links but I have Gromit which plays a 'human' type game,
though I hardly play it these days. I have it beat in all the main opening
variations I play and if I play it agin it just repeats.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I'm really the wrong guy to ask about computers and what they can do.

But basically you are asking a box to accept risky sacs, defend poorly
and forget 150 years of opening theory and chess development.

I know you can tamper with the settings but that to me is like
turning a Rolls Royce into a Skoda.

(I bet you now all the Skoda owners will ...[text shortened]... ave it beat in all the main opening
variations I play and if I play it agin it just repeats.

You know nothing about cars! Truly, how ignorant can you be?








Go scoda GO!!

I just checked to see if there was a player called 'Skoda' on the site.

I found a player called Skodras. Not too bad a player.

He was Black in this game Game 6967093.

After 31 moves this was the position of the remaining White pieces.



White has just played 31.Kh2-g1 - the game finished soon after this.

A good game. Black ignores White's opening, develops and then expoloits
quite instructively the holes in the White camp.

White falls back and it's all over.