Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: The superior Rybka chess knowledge (With Corrections)

Author: Tony Thomas Karippa

Date: 13:30:58 01/18/06

Go up one level in this thread

On January 18, 2006 at 16:15:12, Rolf Tueschen wrote:

>The whole position, the who standpoint, the whole opinion of Chrilly is wrong,
>but still his message is a highlight for CCC because it's thought-provoking and
>most interesting. But still it is totally wrong. Typically nobody called Chrilly
>a troll. I would call him similar to Socrates. At least he makes the readers
>Why is all that in his message wrong?
>Because Chrilly has never understood human chess and it seems as if he hasnt
>understood CC either. Therefore here the explanations.
>BTW who is Lutz? Yes, he's a fine GM, but he has NOT the overall education of
>one Huebner.
>But now to the details.
>The History of Human Chess is bound to the process of concretely playing chess.
>It's a centuries-long attempt to understand the optimal chess strategies. It's
>also the history of the Beauty of Chess as an Art. So a chessplayer is on one
>side satisfied by the sports in chess and on the other side by the art of it.
>An important detail of optimal human chess is the factor time. Nobody sane
>enough would refuse to win a Q while taking a little P only to have the future
>endgame of hard work with the plus of a single P. A Q win could and would end it
>at once. Now what would happen if some chessplayer would begin to play
>sub-optimal moves with the satisfaction to win P after P? Such a player would
>badly lose almost all his games. Because in human chess we have a second factor,
>and this is called "tiredness" after hard work. There are too many possibilities
>to make little mistakes and then lose the advantage of a P. There are too many
>positions in chess where you cant even win with the plus of a P. So, every
>chessplayer is conditioned to play optimal moves to "win" time for avoiding
>Now comes Chrilly with the advantage of 9 moves overall played at optimal
>quality and several other moves more speculative, and deeper if some
>unneccessary knowledge could be avoided in the programming process. Let me
>define that detail. You can make a chess machine stronger - if you once have
>reached an error-less base of 9 moves - by just making it look deeper by
>throwing classical knowledge from human chess into the bin.
>I'm not a strong GM, but still I claim that this concept is BS. Here the
>For a super GM with the incentive of enough money an errorless play of 9 moves
>deep is piece of cake. And then he relies on his chess experience and artistry
>while the machine is digging into fog, no, in the last region into the dark of
>Nowhere (where a machine is completely blind until it can start its table
>bases). A human chessplayer with a good training can make a chess machine look
>like nuts. Of course for 99,9% of the rest the chess machine plays a too
>errorless "chess". Against the FIDE rules, but we leave out this aspect here for
>the sake of the argument.
>You know what a chess machine is in terms of mountain climbing? It's a climber
>who makes thousands of steps of 10 centimeters. One after the other. No matter
>if the sun is shining or the moon. You know what will happen? A huge avalanche
>of snow will roll downhill and take the little machine head down into the dark.
>The avalanche of snow in mountain climbing is the superior knowledge of a
>chessmaster who knows thousands of positions who look like draw but still are
>won. That knowledge lies far beyond what a chess machine could know nowadays.
>Fine that Rybka seems to play after the 10 centimeters paradigm, this gives a
>human player extra chances to bully. Of course in mere CC (= engine vs engine
>chess) the bigger depth is a plus extra against the nonsense of the mobility
>code for the Q.
>Sorry to all, because here I didnt play Socrates but played the spoon-feeder of
>the "Nuernberger Trichter", a centuries-old German expression, which became the
>role-model for generations of stupid teachers. Next time I'm writing again from
>Greece... ;)
Most people would agree with me if I say you are the one that's wrong.

This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.