chess problems

Chess Problems

Grant and you will find!
Funny name, real hobbies
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
cairo 22 ( +1 | -1 )
Matchoffer see this interesting link here:

-> rybkaforum.net

Bw.
Cairo
bucklehead 39 ( +1 | -1 )
Very interesting A lot seems to be made in those forums about Rybka being denied an opening book, but I've got to believe that the real disadvantage would be removing the tablebases. I mean, is there any computer out there who could even run a B+N mate correctly without TB assistance? That's an enormous number of possible positions, and you'd have to have a fast machine indeed to make it work.
far1ey 27 ( +1 | -1 )
I agree with bucklehead, the fact that no tablebases for the computer is a huge disadvantage. Perhaps the person who accepts the challenge will simply play to an endgame? (ie exchange whenever possible) It would be interesting to see what positions come out of the opening as well.
timbentley 33 ( +1 | -1 )
B+N mate I checked how good computers would be by having Crafty play white and I played black's best response from the tablebase, and although I gave it less than a minute per move, the results were interesting. For a position that was a mate in 26, it mated in 31. For a position that was a mate in 31, after 18 moves, it was a mate in 32.
ccmcacollister 543 ( +1 | -1 )
Is this a Joke ?! Kaufman appears to want it to seem that he is giving up great advantages from the computer, but in fact does everything possible to set the stage AGAINST the human player.
1) The match will be played at his home. Homefield advantage. Probably does mean something to the computers favor. But even more so to the disadvantage of the human player in both practical and psychological terms. The human must compete in a completely unfamiliar setting and enter into that place having no idea of what factors may exist there to interfere with his play. Lighting? Noise? Comfort?
Feeling at ease? No indeed, even if the setting there turns out to be the absolute optimum; a Garden of Eden of Chess sites, still he must carry the disadvantage of unease which must accompany a human entering into a foreign setting, particularly one that he knows to be non-neutral. A situation of "waiting for other shoe to fall" for the entire match. A sword of Diamaclese hovers thruout.
***
2) Allowing the computer to "reboot if frozen"?! If the machine cannot cope, it should lose on time like any human being finding himself disabled at the board. In addition, the time and distraction of such occurances could well serve break concentration of the human player, or to otherwise put him off his game. Indeed it could be "utilized" to such an end. And even if it were fairly done, again the human is put in the position of yet another UNCERTAINTY ... all of which (uncertainties) serve to distract and influence the nerves, whether actualized or not.
Additionally, if the computer and operator cannot present a playing machine capable of maintaining function thruout the match, then they should perhaps not be making match offers. This is not 1979 and barring carelessness or lazy, haphazard preparations it should not be expected to experiences unforseeable crashes. If there are any, then the player should receive the satisfaction of the win. Just like a human must "prepare" for a match, should any less be expected of his opponent? If a GM travels to this operators homefield to play, the least respect he is owed is that his opponent BE prepared to play. And if not properly "prepared", let it lose accordingly.
****
3) Two games a day 'will not be very tiring' ??! So claims Kaufman. Yet it is well known that GM's expend a tremendous amount of mental and physical energy in playing a single hardfought game. And many have said in the past, concerning tournaments vs other GM's, that two game a day is too tiring. But Kaufman seeks to place the GM at yet this added disadvantage, and more so has the gall to attempt to sluff it off as inconsequential. We are not completely stupid, nor naive, Mr Kaufman. Does anyone here believe we would EVER see two GM's agree to a two game per day World Championship Match??? So he insults our intellegence when suggesting that it is for the ~GM's~ benefit to have this requirement !!
****
4) Timing ... The computer should Not be allowed to keep its own time. Instead it should be timed by an inline clock which stops only after its move is physically made; or require a human helper to perform the tasks of moving and clock stopping for it, as would any handicapped human needing such assistance. But not to be allowed to have a situation where it can claim instantaneous moves on its own behalf. Take back your extra time if wanted, but make the computer Team conform
to the same rules of timing a human must meet, because HE can never make an instantaneous move! Or if not , then the computer should be fined a minimum of seconds per move to account for the physical movement of pieces and clock pushing which it is not made to perform.
***
5) No opening book to avoid prepared variations?!?
Isn't that what GM's do BEST ... prepare variations? Is this supposed to look like some kind of onesided disadvantage to the computer program? While it is nice for the GM that the box will not simply have every game the GM ever played programmed right into it ... IF the program was held to a known opening book, so that a GM actually Could prepare for its games, like it could prepare for his ... then I think perhaps the GM just might be able to give the Operator a run for his money as to who is more capable of finding weaknesses in the opponents opening repetoire and exploiting them. That IS what GM's DO after all ... part of the job description for any match playing GM. (What would an operator DO to find an improvement in play ... Turn on his Computer to Calculate one!?! Gee that would b e sort of like being able to give the computer no Improvement At All, now wouldn't it?! ... if it has to be the one to find it anyway~! )
****
My bottomline ... If I were a GM, there is no way I would accept a match offer that I considered insultingly made; for a paltry prize that would not pay for my time, let alone expenses to reach the "site" ... and not come anywhere CLOSE to compensating me for any improvements which I might have to reveal in winning this match ... which could have been used elsewhere in a real event for real stakes.
...A match that it would appear to me was offered merely as a ploy and never intended to ever be answered nor played, tho attempting to look genuine to the uninitiated in tournament praxis and those who want feel a pleasant glow from proximity to Their Chess Program, 'that GM's were afraid to play'. When really it is just that GM's cannot be Bothered to entertain such a one-sided, quirky proposition; while PAYING THEIR OWN WAY(!!) to DO IT~!
That's just my opinion. ... call me crazy.
}B-P
timbentley 31 ( +1 | -1 )
The problem seemed to be when the white king was in the corner of the bishop's color and the black king was nearby. The bishop and knight moved around accomplishing nothing and the kings didn't go far. In a similar situation with about 45 seconds per move, Crafty eventually realized it needed to move the king.
ganstaman 185 ( +1 | -1 )
Craig:

Mostly sounds good, but I have to disagree with this:

"2) Allowing the computer to "reboot if frozen"?! If the machine cannot cope, it should lose on time like any human being finding himself disabled at the board. In addition, the time and distraction of such occurances could well serve break concentration of the human player, or to otherwise put him off his game. Indeed it could be "utilized" to such an end. And even if it were fairly done, again the human is put in the position of yet another UNCERTAINTY ... all of which (uncertainties) serve to distract and influence the nerves, whether actualized or not.
Additionally, if the computer and operator cannot present a playing machine capable of maintaining function thruout the match, then they should perhaps not be making match offers. This is not 1979 and barring carelessness or lazy, haphazard preparations it should not be expected to experiences unforseeable crashes. If there are any, then the player should receive the satisfaction of the win. Just like a human must "prepare" for a match, should any less be expected of his opponent? If a GM travels to this operators homefield to play, the least respect he is owed is that his opponent BE prepared to play. And if not properly "prepared", let it lose accordingly."
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
You can never predict when a computer will crash or freeze. Even the best of programs on a good computer will every now and then do something wrong, despite the year being 2007. You shouldn't plan on what to do if a computer crashes, but instead plan on what to do when a computer crashes.

I see it somewhat like a heart attack. Is it really fair to forfeit the human if he has a heart attack (possibly half-caused by the stress of defending an impossible position)?
ccmcacollister 259 ( +1 | -1 )
ganstaman ... I hear you , and indeed I have offered a draw to opponents experiencing uncontrollable dire straits .... for Eg to a surgeon who received a call to surgery in the middle of our game ... tho I could have let him resign or his clock run out. But that is the perogative of the opponent to someone experiencing non-Chessic difficulties at the board. {But I have also BLACKEDOUT at the board due to the fault of no one, including me ... but would not expect nor want any preferential handling because of it.}
True it may not be fair .... however, if a human DOES have a heart attack at the board and cannot continue the game ... it is not a "forfeit" in any automatic sense, but as a practical matter he probably would take a Time Forfeit as the most likely conclusion of the game. If his oppoenent were not being generous with a draw offer (or resignation if he thought he were losing, and felt it right to do) or he did not/ could not resign.
The reciprocal question .... would it be fair to NOT allow someone having a heart attack at the board to lose?
IMO, in terms of Tmt Rules it is completely "fair" for a player to lose if they cannot continue the game ... and it is only when coming to the realm of Sportsmanship that the Fairness matter comes to light, and then a matter of opinion and individual outlooks.
But consider the case if the player who cannot continue were given any other result. Then it takes score away from his opponent, who may well be winning anyway, who is likely in no-way at fault. BUT ALSO it takes from every person in the entire event whose final standing in the tournament would be affected by the artificial outcome if such were arbitrarily granted for health indisposition. And that is the main trouble I have with such a situation.
[Fortunately, in cases where I have offered the sporting draw to someone beset, it would not affect the tournament prizewinners, or I probably would have felt compelled to take the win, if I could bring myself to do that. (Tho I wouldnt LIKE the idea, if I was not Winning anyway). So I really can understand if you would always offer a draw, or even resign if you thought it lost, and can't really even disagree with any heartiness.]
***
Moreover, consider how many SICK PLAYERS we would begin to find at Chess Tournaments! Bobby Fischer ALREADY SAID, "I have never defeated a healthy opponent". :)
(And remember, no National Health Insurance in the USA~! ... }8-)
***
So I still feel it is only proper, by tournament Chess rules ... if the Computer has an
Elektro-'stroke' and blacksout ... let him lose like a malfunctioning human would~!
Unless Mr. K would like to admit that he really DOES want/need some Advantage for the Compy! :)))
***
}8-)
ccmcacollister 368 ( +1 | -1 )
Upon further reflection; Jason, You knowing a lot more than I do about computers & programming, I'll have to accept your advice that being crashless is not reasonably doeable in this situation then. (Still Operator does have complete choice of CPU, etc, and all the time he desires to strive for bullet proofing ... if it were I; I could not see being quite so braggadocious if I could not guarantee to keep my "Player" sober & conscious while at the board~! ha :))
***
However, you have made me realize that my personal orientation being heavily into tournament play during my Chessic peak... I maybe have been [perhaps 'unfairly'?!] seeing things from that perspective of "tournament-player"; yet now it becomes clear
this situation more closely resembles MATCH conditions. Ok, maybe because it IS A MATCH. :)
Also I failed to consider that FIDE would often handle things differently than the USCF Rules I am used to playing under or TD'ing for.
**
And admittedly there is much precedent in Match play for one being delayed; even rescheduled to replay by the FIDE President did in a Karpov vs Kasparov match; citing health toll upon Karpov. [Tho certainly the Chess world raised an outcry about it! ]
Thus, BEING a match, it also invalidates my concern about affecting any third-party player(s). Especially being a one-off event.
**
So after reflection, if I were a GM to take up this challege, I might concede a right to reboot unto the Silicon-GM-wannabe [Yet, remaining staunchly biased vs all e-
Boxes~! ], but only provided that:
*****
1). No settings were changed on the machine during the game or reboot, and that all could be returned to the pre-"Freeze" state. I feel it should have to playout by such
means & mode as it is capable of, without human adjustment [aka "HELP"] to that.
........
{Such as being told to spend less time on endgame moves to make up for excess time used for bruteforce crunching of its opening moves; or to search deeper during the middle-game, etc. Unless it is designed to decide that itself; or can be preset to do so before commencement of the game. The human gets no help.} ... Fair ?
***
2). The reboot be verified by an impartial match referee, & so the player need not be aware of such activities during the actual game, to prevent any disruption to his play, tho could have such info after the game, upon request. And that ...
***
3). All such reboot activity be performed during the computers running clock time {which it is not allowed to keep for itself, as previously mentioned}, if the "freeze" or malfunction occurred while it was On-The-Move.
Bearing in mind that the Operator offered a less than magnanimous 5 minutes break to the human player. I would give back those breaks to the other side as imo they were not really there to serve the GM, rather only to make an appearance of equality if the computer apparently does have a necessary Chessus-Interuptus syndrome it cannot shake.
Even so, it does seem to me that a computer challenging a human to the human mode of Chess, should be prepared to meet his nemesis without asking any quarter nor exceptional treatment from such as that which any human opponent would get from our heroic GM.
So in the end, I still feel like the Computer Team should have to keep their "man" going or lose ... but would compromise if they wish to admit they could not meet a man on human terms~!? chuckle... }B-)
****
After all, we read the bluster with which the Operator claims his Champion to be unmatchable by mortal man. And that is largely what gets Me bent out of shape~!
**
}8~\
cairo 19 ( +1 | -1 )
Update see here: -> rybkaforum.net

Bw.
Cairo
dropcut 50 ( +1 | -1 )
. Man, just think of all chess theory that will be developed in the coming 20 years thanks to these engines. We can get refutations to many odd openings. Muzio gambit? Refuted! Sicilian Wing gambit? Refuted! Fried Liver Attack? Refuted! Chess? Refuted!

We cannot allow these machines to progress! They will kill the game! As your leader I cannot let this progress. Get the pitchforks! Get the tar and feather! Time to kill some machines! Time to terminate!
dropcut 18 ( +1 | -1 )
By the way... There are downloadable pgn databases on -> www.cctchess.info. It was really a pleasure looking at Rybka play.