Author: A. Steen
Date: 05:58:26 12/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2005 at 08:20:45, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On December 30, 2005 at 07:27:32, A. Steen wrote: > >>Unlike most of the crowd, at all stages I was confident Rybka would not lose >>this game: >> >>http://wwwcs.uni-paderborn.de/~IPCCC/IPCCC2005b/pgn7.html >> >>[Event "IPCCC"] >>[Site "Paderborn"] >>[Date "2005.12.30"] >>[Round "7"] >>[White "Ikarus V0.36FR7a SMP"] >>[Black "Rybka Beta w64 1.0"] >>[Result "*"] >>[ECO "B00"] >>[TimeControl "7200"] >>1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nf3 e6 5. Bd3 Nge7 6. Bg5 Be4 7. c3 h6 8. Bxe7 >>Bxe7 9. Bxe4 dxe4 10. Nfd2 Qd7 11. Nxe4 O-O-O 12. Qe2 f6 13. f4 f5 14. Nf2 g5 >>15. O-O Rhg8 16. Kh1 g4 17. Nd1 h5 18. Nd2 h4 19. Ne3 h3 20. gxh3 gxh3 21. Rf3 >>Rh8 22. Qf1 Bf8 23. Rxh3 Bh6 24. Qf3 Ne7 25. Rg1 Kb8 26. Rg2 Qa4 27. Rh5 Qxa2 >>28. Qh3 Ng8 29. Ndf1 c6 30. Rg6 Re8 31. Rgxh6 Nxh6 32. Rxh6 Rhg8 33. Qh5 Qxb2 >>34. Qf7 Qxc3 35. Rxe6 Ref8 36. Qe7 Qxd4 37. Qd6+ Qxd6 38. Rxd6 a5 39. Ng3 Rd8 >>40. Ngxf5 a4 41. Nc2 Kc7 42. Rxd8 Rxd8 43. Nd6 Ra8 44. Kg2 * >> >>[d]r7/1pk5/2pN4/4P3/p4P2/8/2N3KP/8 b - - 0 44 >> >>After the obvious 44. ... a3, Ikarus has absolutely no winning chances and would >>be astoundingly lucky to draw (a power outage, maybe?). I stopped looking. >> >>While the above game is very far from a fine example of what Rybka is capable of >>(it is more of what poor Ikarus was hoodwinked into permitting), I could thank a >>few of the forum's "chess experts" for the amusing fantasies and wrong prognoses >>they wrote about this game along the way. >> >>Black obtained three supported united passed pawns on the Q-side while the White >>King was so magnificently placed on h1. Rybka's opponents do not properly know >>how to handle the very unbalanced positions that arise from Rybka's Tal-like >>sacs. So the theoretically unsound sac delivers the full point more often than >>not, until the next generation of opponents evolves. >> >>My general evaluation of Rybka: >>Much stronger than overly-staid Fruit, psychotic Shredder, berserk-monster >>Fritz. >> >>'Extraordinarily dynamic middlegame: unbelievable Rybka, a killer grandmaster.' >> >>A. Steen strongly recommends Rybka - >>* to patzers, to watch/study it play their other engines, and hopefully learn at >>least a little therefrom; and >>* to others, to play it themselves. >> >>Congratulations, Mr Rajlich. You clearly have (at least?) one super-GM on your >>team. :-) > >Thanks for the nice words. Nice words? Only accurate ones. "Nice", if correct, is but a wholly irrelevant side-effect. I also congratulate you on taking the high ground and simply ignoring those who may wish to snipe, "explain" or somewhat belittle your excellent achievement. Envy can be such a terrible thing, can't it? It clouds the judgment. Not of course that any such thing could be spotted in any of the responses to Djordje's enlightened message at: http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?475288 (and a few other threads), now could it? When I read somewhere or other of local experts expounding how Rybka's first sac in the Ikarus game was unsound or insufficient, my half-ingested purple-colored yogurt almost merged with my keyboard. But then I read somewhere that GM Kasimdzhanov blundered against Hydra by allowing Nxh7, even though A. Steen proved (and I do not use that word lightly) that RK's line led to a "sure-fire" draw :-) "Sure-fire", but RK managed to miss it by a real blunder some moves later. RK believed he was winning until that time (he was not - it was just a draw), but that he was slightly misguided takes nothing away from his commendable pawn sac. Hunting for the non-existent win is responsible for the temporary blindness that caused the blunder. And all this talk about "lucky" - whatever next! Rybka is no more lucky than is this most humble of patzers (still practising a smooth fianchetto as I am). The sad - to me, just a beginner you remember, that is - aspect of this is that reams of analysis, a billion positions considered, is regurgitated here to "prove" some point, that if we swapped midgame between Ikarus and another opponent, Rybka would have been completely undone. Alas, only completely undone in the opinion of one program's evaluation. I am confident that even then the position was salvageable, though black would be fighting for the draw. A billion positions is not even a drop in an ocean where a complex middle game is concerned. A resurrected, kidney-treated Misha Tal could have hammered these naive programs (once he had learned more about them) with positional sacs just like the first sac by Rybka vs Ikarus. >We are always looking to add a super-GM or two to our team. As long as it does not upset any such already on the team (Rybka of course included), a wise step. If you like, one could have a word with Vlad and Toppy, as they would work well as a team. :-) >Even ordinary GMs are on occasion acceptable .. Only on _rare_ occasion. I suggest you do not make it into a ghetto. > :-) >Vas Best, A.S.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.