Home
Information
Login
Register
Waiting lists
Membership
Hall of fame
Tournaments
Best game
Wikichess
Rating list
Problems
Forum
Links
Help
About
| Install FICGS apps | |
| play chess online |  |
|
Game result (chess) A. Ludgate, 2338 G. D Agostino, 2296 1/2-1/2 See game 122516 |
Hot news Discussions Files search Social network
Back to forum
Normajean Yates (2009-01-15)
engines and deep analysis...
A year ago, Thibault posted links to record of GMs v engines -- but almost all games were blitz.
raising questions:
1. At standard [2.5 hours / 40 moves] time controls, and at correspondence time controls [like here - or even 1 day/move] - humans are still better than engines. true?
If true, how long are they expected to be better?
[I mean in competitive chess, not in specifically design positions which are at present very difficult for engines]
2. which engine is best for standard and correpondence time controls (as I defined in 1)?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-15 12:34:27)
Engines vs. Human
Hi Normajean,
1. At standard time controls, I think Rybka 3 can beat the best GM, there is just no time enough for a human to avoid a single error. But grandmasters probably still have a better vision of the game at least in calm positions. At correspondence time controls, no one can say it but I feel a good GM could rivalize yet with the best engines. This is unlikely to change before a while IMO.
2. The best anti-human engine at any time control is probably Rybka 3, but there will be concurrence soon.
Normajean Yates (2009-01-15 14:18:37)
thanks for the info, thibault!
its all in the title, like my other short posts :)
Wayne Lowrance (2009-01-16 05:22:27)
Engines & deep analysis
I agree with Thibault, in blitz or standard time controls Rybka and 2 or 3 others have no pier with human top gm's. But in correspondence time, I think the top GM's will certainly hold their own, or more Wayne
Normajean Yates (2009-01-16 05:49:31)
thanks thib & wayne - I thought so 2...
..except at standard time controls. At standard I thought top GMs would be better even now :(
IMO, two of the reasons why correspondence is still an exception:
1. engines still understand positional aspects in a clumsy way (mainly through eval function even now I think..)[a]
2. top engines are commercial - so they have to 'show off' to compete in the market - 'showing off time' at corrspondence is too long for the software market.. so top engines are tuned towards faster play...
[a] I wish that after copyright etc. expires, commercial chess engine vendors must be legally forced to make public their algorithms.
(Ideally, I wish - no copyright, only moral right of actual authors! - but that needs a diiferent economic system than capitalism)
[Chess forum]
[Rating lists]
[Countries]
[Chess openings]
[Legal informations]
[Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
|
|
|
FICGS is also a social network including seo forums, a hot news & buzz blog, a free web directory and discussion forums to meet people from all over the world. Discuss the last events, improve your search engines optimization, submit your website, share your interests...
Feel free to link to FICGS chess server, register & win Epoints :
 | Correspondence chess World championship Play chess games Go (weiqi, baduk) Advanced chess Play big chess Chess trainer apk Rated tournaments Poker texas hold'em Fischer random chess |  |