Got an e-mail ad this morning, that included:

The link is www.rybkachess.com

Appears the next steps in GM vs computer play will be Pawn and move,
then Pawn and Two, Knight, etc. :-(

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:47:22 -0800, Mike Murray
wrote:

The time control is 45 minutes + 10 sec/per move. After the first
three games Rybka is ahead with the score now at 3-0!

Game 4 was a draw. One win and one loss in the next two games.

--
Replace you know what by j to email

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
Got an e-mail ad this morning, that included:

Quote:

the unique match of 8 games between leading Grandmaster Jaan Ehlvest (ELO 2607) and the strongest playing program, Rybka 2.3. Playing White in all 8 games, Rybka will be giving pawn odds - with a different pawn missing in every game! The time control is 45 minutes + 10 sec/per move. After the first three games Rybka is ahead with the score now at 3-0!

The link is www.rybkachess.com

Appears the next steps in GM vs computer play will be Pawn and move,
then Pawn and Two, Knight, etc. :-(

Holy crap! Pawn odds to a 2600+ player and it's killing him.

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 21:35:38 -0500, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:

Holy crap! Pawn odds to a 2600+ player and it's killing him.

He got better in the second half. But Rybka won four, the human won
one, with four draws.
--
Replace you know what by j to email

The time control is 45 minutes + 10 sec/per move.

The link is *www.rybkachess.com

It was quite a good match from the spectators point of view.

The game length was about ideal from the spectators point of view, but
the human
player needs more time, probably by increasing the increment.

Since time doesn't mean the same thing to a computer and to a human
player,
there would probably be little harm in having an asymmetrical time
control, say

20 minutes + 5 seconds per move for Rybka
45 minutes + 20 seconds per move for the human

That would keep the game length about the same for the benefit of the
spectators,
give the human player more time so time pressure doesn't spoil the
game at the end,
while giving the computer plenty enough time to do its thing.

Another very nice thing for the spectators about this match was being
able
to listen to Vas and Larry kibitz. Vasik has a great sense of
humor :-)

On 8 Mar, 15:47, Mike Murray wrote:

Appears the next steps in GM vs computer play will be Pawn and move,
then Pawn and Two, Knight, etc. :-(

Of course such matches damage the image of chess. Yesterday the WCC
Kramnik was beaten by a comp. Today is Ehlvest. I suggest humans
playing freestyle.

BTW How much rybka Ehlvest is fishing ?

wrote:
The time control is 45 minutes + 10 sec/per move.

Since time doesn't mean the same thing to a computer and to a human
player, there would probably be little harm in having an
asymmetrical time control

Indeed. I'd much rather see a match of standard chess played at an
asymmetric time control than a match of odds chess with a symmetric
time control.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Salted Radio (TM): it's like a radio
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it's covered in salt!

"David Richerby" schreef in bericht
...
wrote:
The time control is 45 minutes + 10 sec/per move.

Since time doesn't mean the same thing to a computer and to a human
player, there would probably be little harm in having an
asymmetrical time control

Indeed. I'd much rather see a match of standard chess played at an
asymmetric time control than a match of odds chess with a symmetric
time control.

Depends on the hardware.
Recently, Dutch GM Erwin l'Ami (elo 2595) played 2 games vs. Zappa
Reykjavik.
http://www.chessevents.nl/ami_match.shtml

The GM had classical time control, but the engine had only 30 min (plus
'permanent brain' off).
That could be about right:::: engine don't tend to change their 'minds' very
often with more time at hand, plus an extra ply would cost them too much
time anyway.