Rybka-GM Benjamin Pawn Odds Match

This forum is for general discussions and questions, including Collectors Corner and anything to do with Computer chess.

Moderators: Harvey Williamson, Steve B, Watchman

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the fen tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
Harvey Williamson
Site Admin
Posts: 6079
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:57 am
Location: Media City, UK
Contact:

Round 7

Post by Harvey Williamson »

Round 7 is a draw Rybka was White with no g2 pawn. the score is 4-3 to Rybka so an important last game starts at 9 uk 10 cet and 4 in NY I think.

[Event ""]
[Site ""]
[Date "2007.8.9"]
[Round ""]
[White "Rybka"]
[Black "Benjamin"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Eco "A03"]
[Annotator ""]
[Source ""]

1.g3 Nf6 2.g4 Nxg4 3.Nh3 Nh6 4.Ng1 Ng8 {/no g2 pawn/} 5.c4 c5
6.Bg2 Nf6 7.Nf3 e6 8.Nc3 Nc6 9.d4 d5 10.cxd5 Nxd5 11.O-O Be7
12.dxc5 Bxc5 13.Nxd5 exd5 14.Bg5 f6 15.Rc1 Bb6 16.Be3 d4 17.Bf4
Be6 18.Nd2 Bd5 19.Nc4 O-O 20.Bd6 Bxg2 21.Kxg2 Re8 22.Qb3 Kh8
23.Bg3 Qd7 24.Rfe1 Bc5 25.a3 Rad8 26.Nd2 Bb6 27.Qb5 Qe6 28.Qd3
Qd5+ 29.Qf3 Qxf3+ 30.Nxf3 Kg8 31.Nd2 Re6 32.Nc4 Rd5 33.Nxb6 axb6
34.Rcd1 b5 35.f3 b4 36.Bf2 Red6 37.Rd3 bxa3 38.bxa3 Rb5 39.Red1
Rb2 40.Kf1 Re6 41.Re1 Rd6 42.Red1 Re6 43.Re1 Rd6 44.Red1 1/2-1/2
Last edited by Harvey Williamson on Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Steve B
Site Admin
Posts: 10140
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:02 am
Location: New York City USofA
Contact:

Post by Steve B »

yes
4 pm here

at least we get a sense that this is a real match and not a slaughter as in the other Rybka matches

more like two equals duking it out


IF this were a Draw Odds match(no pawn odds of course) then GM Benjamin would have won the match with this draw

I wonder...IF final game is drawn..with the final score 4.5-3.5 in favor of Rybka...does this increase or decrease the interest in a draw odds match??

suppose the GM ties the score with his final game as White

more or less interest??


Pondering Regards
Steve
User avatar
Terry McCracken
Senior Member
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:49 pm

Post by Terry McCracken »

Steve B wrote:yes
4 pm here

at least we get a sense that this is a real match and not a slaughter as in the other Rybka matches

more like two equals duking it out


IF this were a Draw Odds match(no pawn odds of course) then GM Benjamin would have won the match with this draw

I wonder...IF final game is drawn..with the final score 4.5-3.5 in favor of Rybka...does this increase or decrease the interest in a draw odds match??

suppose the GM ties the score with his final game as White

more or less interest??


Pondering Regards
Steve
Good Questions! Well, I do hope he ties the match, this would be very good news considering winning it is impossible.

Drawing the last game wouldn't be terrible either as we can see by stats alone they are about equel, although I don't think stats always have the final say, the quality of play is what tells the truth.

So far, Joel has played overall better chess.

The Verdict is Withheld Regards,
Terry
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

I fail to see how Terry would say that they are according to stats about equal. There is nothing equal abut this match.

A credit to Benjamin to have mannaged all those draws, but I don't see a win posted anywhere other than the freebie in Game 1.

A pawn down and a score of 4.1/2 - 2.1/2 if you remove the first game seems pretty convincing to me. Chess engines and not just Rybka are just too strong nowadays for even a GM. This match just reconfirms what everyone already knows.

I find it hard to knock an engine like Rybka who is currently at the top of the Tree looking down on everyone else.
Nick
User avatar
Steve B
Site Admin
Posts: 10140
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:02 am
Location: New York City USofA
Contact:

Post by Steve B »

spacious_mind wrote:I fail to see how Terry would say that they are according to stats about equal. There is nothing equal abut this match.

A credit to Benjamin to have mannaged all those draws, but I don't see a win posted anywhere other than the freebie in Game 1.

A pawn down and a score of 4.1/2 - 2.1/2 if you remove the first game seems pretty convincing to me. Chess engines and not just Rybka are just too strong nowadays for even a GM. This match just reconfirms what everyone already knows.

I find it hard to knock an engine like Rybka who is currently at the top of the Tree looking down on everyone else.
actually Nick.. to be fair ..if you are not going to count the first game as a win for Joel(which i think we should count it) then you should at least give him credit for a draw(and Rybka as well) because they did play the game over as a friendly and Joel drew the first game as well

so if no win first game ..then match score was 5-3

not too shabby for the GM i think

Best
Steve
Last edited by Steve B on Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Terry McCracken
Senior Member
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:49 pm

Post by Terry McCracken »

spacious_mind wrote:I fail to see how Terry would say that they are according to stats about equal. There is nothing equal abut this match.

A credit to Benjamin to have mannaged all those draws, but I don't see a win posted anywhere other than the freebie in Game 1.

A pawn down and a score of 4.1/2 - 2.1/2 if you remove the first game seems pretty convincing to me. Chess engines and not just Rybka are just too strong nowadays for even a GM. This match just reconfirms what everyone already knows.

I find it hard to knock an engine like Rybka who is currently at the top of the Tree looking down on everyone else.
Steve gave you a fair answer, but you give too little credit to the GM and GM's in general.

Are you able to discern the quality of play of any given game between the GM and the program?

I doubt even one tenth of a 1% who post in these forums can.

Terry
User avatar
Harvey Williamson
Site Admin
Posts: 6079
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:57 am
Location: Media City, UK
Contact:

The final game Round 8

Post by Harvey Williamson »

[Event ""]
[Site ""]
[Date "2007.8.10"]
[Round ""]
[White "Benjamin"]
[Black "Rybka"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Eco ""]
[Annotator ""]
[Source ""]

1.Nf3 h5 2.Nc3 h4 3.Nxh4 Nf6 4.Nf3 Ng4 5.Ng1 Nh6 6.Nb1 Ng8 {/no h7 pawn/}
7.d4 Nf6 8.c4 e6 9.Nf3 b6 10.g3 Ba6 11.b3 Nc6 12.Bg2 Bb4+ 13.Bd2
Qe7 14.O-O Bxd2 15.Qxd2 d5 16.Rc1 Bb7 17.Nc3 O-O-O 18.Qe3 dxc4
19.bxc4 Kb8 20.h3 Na5 21.c5 Rhe8 22.Rab1 Nd5 23.Qd3 Nc6 24.Nxd5
exd5 25.e3 Qd7 26.Rc3 f6 27.h4 Na5 28.Rbc1 Re7 29.Kh2 Nc4 30.Bh3
Qc6 31.Bg2 Qd7 32.Nd2 g5 33.Nf3 Rg7 34.Rh1 Rh8 35.Kg1 Rgh7 36.Rc1
Qe6 37.Rh2 g4 38.Nd2 Na5 39.Rh1 f5 40.Kh2 Rd7 41.Rhe1 Re7 42.Red1
Qf7 43.Kg1 Rd8 44.Bf1 Re6 45.Rc3 Qf6 46.Rcc1 Qf7 47.a3 Bc6 48.Rc3
Qg7 49.Bg2 Qf6 50.Rb1 Re7 51.Nb3 Nc4 52.Nd2 Na5 53.Nb3 Nc4 54.Nd2
Na5 {Draw by repetition} 1/2-1/2
User avatar
AMD64inside
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:31 pm

Post by AMD64inside »

I followed the final game live last night and was disappointed that Benjamin opted for the 3 move repetiton.

I thought he had good chances but it was probably down to his lack of time. My Fritz 10 was showing around +1.90 for Benjamin and would have played on.

For interest I set up a quick mini match running over night at 5 min +30secs, Fritz 10 always white v black Rybka 2.3.2mp from the final position and the score this morning having completed 9 different games was 8-1 to Fritz (7 wins 2 draws) Normally Fritz loses badly.

Easier said than done Regards
Darrell
Rjand
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:48 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Post by Rjand »

Steve B wrote:yes
4 pm here

at least we get a sense that this is a real match and not a slaughter as in the other Rybka matches

more like two equals duking it out


IF this were a Draw Odds match(no pawn odds of course) then GM Benjamin would have won the match with this draw

I wonder...IF final game is drawn..with the final score 4.5-3.5 in favor of Rybka...does this increase or decrease the interest in a draw odds match??

suppose the GM ties the score with his final game as White

more or less interest??


Pondering Regards
Steve
Hi Steve,

After GM Benjamin's showing I think a draw odds match would still be very interesting. I may be way off base here but if anything could benefit from giving a pawn handicap it would be a computer. Isn't open positons where they really show their strength? Plus a draw odds match is more like "real" chess.

My Best,
Rick
User avatar
Steve B
Site Admin
Posts: 10140
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:02 am
Location: New York City USofA
Contact:

Post by Steve B »

HI Rick

i have to say i agree with both of your points

its hard to close the position (which is crucial against a Rybka) if the computer already has an open E or D file so i am not so certain that the missing pawns really hurt the computer or helped the computer
perhaps it balanced out depending on the missing pawn


i personally am VERY interested to see a Pawn Odds match go forward with GM Benjamin..BUT..

against a FULLY LOADED Rybka..no material odds.no time odds.no nothing odds
the only thing different is that Joel gets a win for every draw as Black

if those were the terms of this match he would have won it by a score of
4.5-3.5(no pawn odds of course)

Mano Y Mano Regards
Steve
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Steve B wrote:
spacious_mind wrote:I fail to see how Terry would say that they are according to stats about equal. There is nothing equal abut this match.

A credit to Benjamin to have mannaged all those draws, but I don't see a win posted anywhere other than the freebie in Game 1.

A pawn down and a score of 4.1/2 - 2.1/2 if you remove the first game seems pretty convincing to me. Chess engines and not just Rybka are just too strong nowadays for even a GM. This match just reconfirms what everyone already knows.

I find it hard to knock an engine like Rybka who is currently at the top of the Tree looking down on everyone else.
actually Nick.. to be fair ..if you are not going to count the first game as a win for Joel(which i think we should count it) then you should at least give him credit for a draw(and Rybka as well) because they did play the game over as a friendly and Joel drew the first game as well

so if no win first game ..then match score was 5-3

not too shabby for the GM i think

Best
Steve
I agree to all 3 of your comments and I imagine Benjamin if he read this would agree also. I cannot speak for everyone but I can speak for myself when I say that there is little satisfaction in a win unless it is truly earned. That jubilant feeling of success would not have been there for me in Game 1.
Steve gave you a fair answer, but you give too little credit to the GM and GM's in general.
I don't see how my comments could slight Benjamin in anyway when I clearly gave him credit in my statement, to suggest anything else is to add words to my statement which I have not written. Could have, should have, if he had etc are all mute points which we can all analyze on our pc's afterwards. Benjamin played a match without the benefit of our Fritz's and played in my opinion very well to get all the draws that he did. Perhaps he had chances to win, but since he is human he did not capitalize on them in over the board play. The fact still remains that the engine won without a full deck. Can you seriously say that any of the top 30 GM would lose a best of 9 match against another top 30 GM if given a pawn advantage? In your opinion what ELO difference would be required for such a bold undertacking? Do you think Benjamin would have lost to Kasparov in his hey day at these odds by the same score?

Are you able to discern the quality of play of any given game between the GM and the program?

I doubt even one tenth of a 1% who post in these forums can.
Correct none of us are Benjamin so changing it to 0% might also be applicable for thus Forum, but we do have our PC's :D

Terry fun aside I really don't mean to split hairs with you. But rather than changing the rules of chess, adding pawns, Black odds etc. Human vs Computer matches would be far more interesting in the future if a standard was set For example evaluatons and comparisons can only be made on a 300/500Mhz pc. Because what makes the engine better than a GM? the software or the dual core terazillion Hertz processors ?

Perhaps if the playing field was equal we would have more interest for Human v computer matches.

In the last Schachcomputer.info tournament V11 72Mhz played a fabulous draw against my Resurrection Toga II 1.2 200Mhz. Mike might correct me but the V11 software is from 1990 and Toga from 2004/5?. How much better is the software really if played under the same conditions. And that to me is interesting and also applies to Human v Computer matches.

Even the playing field and you would have a hell of a lot of interest and fun. !

Best regards
Nick
User avatar
Steve B
Site Admin
Posts: 10140
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:02 am
Location: New York City USofA
Contact:

Post by Steve B »

spacious_mind wrote:
In the last Schachcomputer.info tournament V11 72Mhz played a fabulous draw against my Resurrection Toga II 1.2 200Mhz. Mike might correct me but the V11 software is from 1990 and Toga from 2004/5?.

i will just jump in here to discuss the V11 for a moment if i may

the V11 contains the same exact program from the Spracklens that can be seen in the V2-V10 series..so it is from 1989

the only difference between any of the Eag's is the hardware not the software

it is important to note however that the V11 was NOT officially released by Fidelity as all of the other EAG's were
rather is is a PRIVATLY MODIFIED computer overclocked and force fed with a 68060 processor

as such ..while i would pay a great deal of money for a V10 i would not part with even $10 bucks for the V11(let alone pay the 1500 Euro it costs to buy one .. i think you also have to contribute a EAG board to the individual that massacres the Eag's for the modification)
i consider this modified computer as uncollectible

XXX Hardcore Collecting Regards
Steve
PS..who is Mike?
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Steve B wrote: PS..who is Mike?
LOL... sorry Steve a slip of the tongue...but since you mention it who ! .... where is Mike ?

I also dont have a V11 but I was impressed with its games fun to watch.

regards
Nick
User avatar
Terry McCracken
Senior Member
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:49 pm

Post by Terry McCracken »

spacious_mind wrote:
Steve B wrote:
spacious_mind wrote:I fail to see how Terry would say that they are according to stats about equal. There is nothing equal abut this match.

A credit to Benjamin to have mannaged all those draws, but I don't see a win posted anywhere other than the freebie in Game 1.

A pawn down and a score of 4.1/2 - 2.1/2 if you remove the first game seems pretty convincing to me. Chess engines and not just Rybka are just too strong nowadays for even a GM. This match just reconfirms what everyone already knows.

I find it hard to knock an engine like Rybka who is currently at the top of the Tree looking down on everyone else.
actually Nick.. to be fair ..if you are not going to count the first game as a win for Joel(which i think we should count it) then you should at least give him credit for a draw(and Rybka as well) because they did play the game over as a friendly and Joel drew the first game as well

so if no win first game ..then match score was 5-3

not too shabby for the GM i think

Best
Steve
I agree to all 3 of your comments and I imagine Benjamin if he read this would agree also. I cannot speak for everyone but I can speak for myself when I say that there is little satisfaction in a win unless it is truly earned. That jubilant feeling of success would not have been there for me in Game 1.
Steve gave you a fair answer, but you give too little credit to the GM and GM's in general.
I don't see how my comments could slight Benjamin in anyway when I clearly gave him credit in my statement, to suggest anything else is to add words to my statement which I have not written. Could have, should have, if he had etc are all mute points which we can all analyze on our pc's afterwards. Benjamin played a match without the benefit of our Fritz's and played in my opinion very well to get all the draws that he did. Perhaps he had chances to win, but since he is human he did not capitalize on them in over the board play. The fact still remains that the engine won without a full deck. Can you seriously say that any of the top 30 GM would lose a best of 9 match against another top 30 GM if given a pawn advantage? In your opinion what ELO difference would be required for such a bold undertacking? Do you think Benjamin would have lost to Kasparov in his hey day at these odds by the same score?

Yes he probably would. Believe me, Rybka was playing with a full deck if not more with these odds. I think it helped the computer. Open lines et al.

Are you able to discern the quality of play of any given game between the GM and the program?

I doubt even one tenth of a 1% who post in these forums can.
Correct none of us are Benjamin so changing it to 0% might also be applicable for thus Forum, but we do have our PC's :D

I can see, without the computer.

Terry fun aside I really don't mean to split hairs with you. But rather than changing the rules of chess, adding pawns, Black odds etc. Human vs Computer matches would be far more interesting in the future if a standard was set For example evaluatons and comparisons can only be made on a 300/500Mhz pc. Because what makes the engine better than a GM? the software or the dual core terazillion Hertz processors ?

Perhaps if the playing field was equal we would have more interest for Human v computer matches.


That proposal is as insulting as it is absurd.
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

[quote="Terry McCracken

Yes he probably would. Believe me, Rybka was playing with a full deck if not more with these odds. I think it helped the computer. Open lines et al.
[/quote]

I don't discpute what you are saying, but why the odds? Why not play a straight game of chess?
I can see, without the computer.
Sorry as a categorized member of the 999's I appologize to you.
That proposal is as insulting as it is absurd
I provided an idea open for discussion and if neccessary ridicule. Your comment is a statement. I would prefer an explanation of why this is not possible so that I may discard this absurd idea of an equal playing field.

thanks and best regards
Nick
Post Reply