|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
GM Dzindzichashvili vs Rybka Going to the Wall with NM Brian Wall
In other words, Vasik was not aiming at perfection per se, but the strongest practical strength he could muster. Vasik was a very intelligent, sincere, charming, straightforward engaging guy. I asked him why I was stuck in the 2200-2300 range despite reading so many Chess books. Vasik - You play according to your level, like everyone else. Although I am over-generalizing, his words made sense in the games Dzindi won.
3 - Amazing skill playing computers. Roman would play some unrated games with the computer until he got a handle on its weaknesses, then go to town. Roman had the highest blitz rating on ICC for a while, then Shirov, Nakamura and Grishchuk passed him. To get to 3400 on ICC you must be able to beat 3000-rated computers. Even when Kasparov and Kramnik were playing million dollar computer matches, I felt they were sending in the wrong guy. Send in Dzindi! 4 - Grandmasters feel hounded by 1500s who want to improve - people like to speak their own language - Grandmasters tended to know who each other were and their handles. Roman would have at least 60 people following him for any ICC game he played. He changed handles like I change socks. 5 - I was impressed Roman could just call up Karpov and talk to him for 20 minutes if he felt like it . "Tolya?" 6 - Roman was a top-10 GM in 1980. 7 - A world traveler that could speak many languages. 8 - If someone beat Roman he roared like a Lion - "I win 10 games in a row now!" 9 - I helped Dzindi make five Chess videos, even lending him my Chess books as a backdrop and suggesting some games. 10 - Mostly Roman was the most entertaining man I ever met and his Chess seminars went very well in Denver. I drove him all around town and he would repay me with great stories of the royal Chess life I never got to live. 11 - Dzindi's opinion of others always fascinated me. He described me on the phone as an "ordinary master". Even national Chess Champions were "not there" when it came to endings. GM Karjakin "gets stronger every minute!" 12 - Roman helped Kamsky on his first rise to power, beating Anand, Salov, Kramnik and Nigel Short. Since Karpov and Roman were such good friends, Kamsky did not use Roman against Karpov. Kamsky lost to Karpov and withdrew from Chess for 10 years. 13 - Roman was with 38 year old GM Leonid Stein when he died practically in his arms. Roman called for help but it was too late. 14 - Roman is one of the few that can boast that he beat Karpov in a simul - Roman gave the simul. 15 - One time Steve Sabean showed me a postal game he just drew. I analyzed the final position for half an hour and stated Steve might still have some winning chances. Roman, from across the room the next day, after analyzing for under five seconds, immediately stated he saw at least two ways to win. 16 - 2005 Utah Champion Josh Smith and I played a game where we could move the pieces and Roman was blindfolded. Not only did we lose, we had to ask him where everything was.
When I heard Roman was playing an $11,000 match with Rybka with an extra $100 per point scored, I was very excited. Finally the world's best anti-computer player versus the world's best computer despite the heavily funded Kasparov, Kramink Fritz matches. Since Rybka has beaten GMs Ehlvest and Joel Benjamin and since no one knew if Dzindi's age (64) would play a factor, the odds were changed to - Roman gets White every game, the computer offers up a different pawn each game. Legend has it Morphy offered the world pawn and move odds but no one stepped up.
Topic Rybka vs Dzindzichashvili - some comments By Vasik Rajlich Date 2008-03-08 09:25 The match between GM Roman Dzindzichashvili and Rybka has finished with a somewhat surprising (at least to me) score of 4-4. Thanks to Larry for organizing everything and kudos to GM Dzindzichashvili for showing that this is still possible. Without any deep analysis, here are my quick impressions: 1) The Rybka anti-human stuff wasn't especially effective. Dzindzichashvili was regularly able to close the positions (game 7), trade at will (game 2 and others), especially the minor pieces, and generally do those things which we all agree the human wants to do. Rybka's anti-human & contempt settings do penalize these things, but for complex reasons the penalties are not huge and in the right circumstances the human can have his way. We saw already these tendencies in both matches against Benjamin, but Dzindzichashvili was able to exploit this even more frequently and more effectively. 2) Dzindzichashvili played with a lot of confidence. Going back to the days of Kasparov vs Deep Blue, psychology seems to play quite a role in these human vs machine matches, with the human often choosing to play cautiously. Dzindzichashvili apparently wanted no part of that, turning down a draw by repetition in an equal position in game five and regularly sacrificing material. To me the most eyebrow-raising example was the insanely bold 21.Nf6+ from game three. 3) This match was much wilder than previous matches. When Benjamin played with roughly the same conditions, he had real losing chances in just two of the eight games. By my possibly superficial count, in this match, Dzindzichashvili had real losing chances in five of the eight games. He compensated for this with two very impressive wins, tripling Rybka's loss total in Larry's five matches against humans. 4) Once a position collapses, minimax search does not defend well. This is well-known, although it rarely has any real significance. We saw it again in game seven and especially in game two. Of course, both games would most likely have been lost anyway without the rather absurd attempts at last resistance by Rybka at the end. Other instances of this from Rybka's play are the loss to Ehlvest in the first human match and our loss to Cluster Toga in the last Paderborn. It seems from Larry's emails that Dzindzichashvili had a lot of fun trying to crack this challenge, playing all sorts unofficial games under different conditions and making various suggestions, etc. Vas ps. If somebody could volunteer a little write-up of the games for our web site, that would be great. By Vasik Rajlich Date 2008-03-08 09:25
Since I was rooting for Roman let us examine his two wins. Game 2 [Event "Computer-Human Pawn and Move Match"] [Site "IM Larry Kaufman's house"] [Date "2008.3.4"] [Round "2"] [White "Dzindzichashvili"] [Black "Rybka"] [Result "1-0"] [Eco "minus-b7-pawn, odds match"] [Annotator "Brian Wall"] [Source "Gatorade"]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rybka website By Jim Walker Date 2008-03-04 13:13 Do you have to remove the pawns in strict order....a7,b7,c7 etc.. ? Seems like knowing which pawn is missing next will help in preparation. Just a thought. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- By lkaufman Date 2008-03-04 15:30 We could specify any order, but it would not be fair for me to know the order and for the GM not to know it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rybka website By lkaufman Date 2008-03-04 01:41 Roman said that 43...Rxa2 was a serious mistake. Instead pitching the "d" pawn first by d4 offered much better drawing chances, he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rybka website: By lkaufman Date 2008-03-04 01:39 The move 49...Kf7? is very suspicious, even if Rybka was already losing. Rybka does not make this move with contempt turned off. I will investigate. By lkaufman Date 2008-03-04 06:02 Despite my earlier comment, this turned out not to be so. Apparently the choice here just depends on the time taken, not much on the contempt setting. The basic problem is that Rybka is not materialistic enough in the endgame, the opposite of what everyone used to say about computers! But as usual, fixing this gives worse test results. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ By lkaufman Date 2008-03-04 15:28 Yes, the ...Kf7 move is one such position to correct. The release won't be quite as soon as we thought, not because of this match but just because certain changes are taking longer than expected. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- By lkaufman Date 2008-03-04 16:04 Every change helps in some positions and hurts in others. We only keep changes that help on balance, but there will always be some situations where the newer, better program makes a worse move than the older one. Anyway the timing of release is based on completing certain work and then testing; we are long past the point of wondering whether 3.0 will be better than 2.3.2a, that is not in doubt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| ||||
