Letsplaychess.com presents Rybka vs Zappa - Ruy Lopez

[kingscrusher]

Please like this video if you got something out of it, or even better add it to your favourites. Help crush the Trolls! You could also subscribe to this channel to get notified of any new videos - subscribing is free and easy.Cheers, K.

[fiendin281]

@grunvagr thats bc there is nothing simple about human thought

[rookman64]

can you analyze more computer games? Maybe a series on computer games..of Rybka? We can learn a lot from our silicon friends

[KBoogs719]

KC can u explain "ply and depth" as they relate to Computer Chess.

[STRIFE1000]

hey kingcrusher more machine vs machine or human vs machine matches

[Grunvagr]

I find it amusing how these machines are so powerful at calculating moves so far in advance, yet can't understand such simply concepts like... agreeing to a draw instead of committing suicide :P

[fisheriadis]

i will explain ....you should raise the level of the game !!!! and after you will lose.

I play with rybka 3 every day ,sometimes i lose and sometimes win.

[fisheriadis]

Mr.Thebluegenesis !!!

you should raise the level of the game!!!

and after you will lose. I`am grandmaster and i lose from rybka.

[thebluegenesis24]

hi everyone. I wonder if someone could help me. Im running Rybka 2 and fritz 6 on a dual core machine. Both these programs, unless im mistaken can crush grandmasters, but im almost beating them!!!? i draw alot with them and im no g.m. whats going on?

[Alientcp]

have you beated them? maybe there is an option that adjust to your strenght.

and yes you are a bit mistaken, they dont crush them, at least not the top ones. they always end with minimum advantage.

[Shoarmaboer20]

there's now an engine called Robbolito which is even stronger than Rybka 3 believe it or not! you can find that engine on chesslogik(dot)com for free and load in into an interface (for e.g. Fritz 11/10 )

[duke00895]

You are incorrect with much of your information.

Quantum computers are still babies, the biggest calculation ever done is 3x5=15

Computers will stop doubling in power in about 2020.

[hmsrenown]

10 more years of development for quantum computers can potentially mean a lot.

[marvintaipei]

The problem of quantum computer is, the further the research goes, the less the confidence remains. It's not proved yet, but most computer scientiests believe quantum computer cant even solve NPC. And chess, is far beyond NPC.

Okay, you guys still can choose what to believe :-)

[hmsrenown]

A lot of wishful thinking goes on in these areas for me...but with all the expertise we have, humans can't really even predict what happens in 5 years, much less a decade, so something may be done by then that we thought are impossible now

[kamaraksa]

somehow i dont think mr zappa needed a knap after this struggle

[PhilomathBret]

Neither engine had a tablebase installed for that ending? No kidding since we probably won't have 12-piece tablebases for another 20 years!

[mavaddat]

You underestimate the growth rate of computing power. We'll have commercially available terabyte storage next year, the # of transistors per CPU is doubling every 1.2 years, and parallel computing such as quantum and DNA computers are already being successfully employed. These technologies soon usher an age of unprecedented computing power where the most complex problems and simulations will become child's play. I'd say the whole game of chess will be solved (like Tic-Tac-Toe) within the decade.

[mpmpm]

Checkers already has been solved by computer. Chess and Go are next ;)

I'm not sure though it will be in 10 years - since doubling every year, it will be only 1000x more than it's now. But the number of possible moves have so many zero's, that 3 zero's might not be enough. And Quantum/DNA computers do not yet have any usable capacities - it can and probably will take _many_ years before that will happen.

But in the end, of course it will happen: Chess will be solved, probably within those 20.

[mavaddat]

Yes. After 10 years, computing power will be 323x more than now. It's 2^(10/1.2), not just 2^10.

Quantum computers are already in commercial and academic application. Look up D-Wave Systems. It's a company in my city that's leading the field.

USC researchers have also successfully employed DNA computers to solve the travelling salesman problem for low orders.

Within 15 years, I believe we'll have computers simulating neural networks of human brains. Surely solving chess is easier. Speculation

[PhilomathBret]

Chess solved within 10 years? I think maybe within 100 years but I'd bet everything I own that it won't be solved within 10. They haven't even solved every position with 7 pieces yet and it's taken several years to get from a 5 piece tablebase to a 6 piece tablebase. I'd bet they won't even have a 10 piece tablebase 10 years from now. Solving chess would be almost like having a 30 piece tablebase.

[mavaddat]

Well, we'll probably both still be around in 10 years, so we'll reconvene here, eh? ;-)

The thing is, we can't assume computing advancements will be linear. It could have taken 20 years to get from 5 piece tablebase to 6 piece. But we can get to 7 piece tablebase in two years. The fact that *we can* doesn't mean we will, though. It's not like they're running these search algorithms on Blue Gene/L supercomputers.

[PhilomathBret]

I'm not assuming it is totally linear but I am using it as a general guideline. I'm guessing it took around 4 years to go from 5 piece tb to 6 piece. So even if it isn't linear and computer progress increases the rate at which we generate larger tablebases, you'd have to get x+1 piece tablebase every 4 months on average, where x is the largest tablebase previously available. Then maybe chess could be solved in 10 years.

[mavaddat]

There's a publicly available paper by Eiko Bleicher on retrograde analysis in which he suggests that the 7-man tablebase can be solved in a matter of minutes with an intelligently designed searching program. Google "Building Chess Endgame Databases for Positions with many Pieces using A-priori Information".

[marvintaipei]

For you optimists, deeper understanding of quantum computers and DNA computers is necessary. Even if chess can be solved, it won't be solved as the way you claimed.

[mavaddat]

The way I claimed? What way is that? I don't see that I actually specified how chess could be solved. I just said it will be within the decade.

[asmyt83]

Who is who?

[fredpunk123]

did you watch the video? it tells you within the first ten seconds .

[g0jack]

"My poor analytical assistant" haha

[CUB3FR34K]

so rybka lost because it didnt want to draw?

[bronzong91]

you feel sad that rybka lost

[GinoTheSinner]

It's kinda scary seeing the computers playing- just taking over. There's no room for error, only strong. hard, fast and winning moves.

[numbcore]

Theres a flipside to that, all the computer can do is copy the bookmoves once played by humans and things like that. So when humans dont make progress, neither will the computer.

[mermadeinheaven]

They don't copy them, they're given access to them.

On the flipside, if you took away any top human chess player's knowledge of book moves, theyd be as helpless as a baby. In fact, they'd probably be more helpless than a top computer program without a book.

[mermadeinheaven]

"So when humans dont make progress, neither will the computer."

It's ironic, because without computers, we wouldn't have made any progress either lol

[numbcore]

True :P

[jamesjddong]

I'm a noob at chess but just wondering whether it is a bad move to push the pawn up to attack the bishop at around 2:20? Thanks

[barcdl]

The Matrix never makes bad mo- oh shi-!

[Eduthemurder]

lol

[CUB3FR34K]

lol bad mo - o - shhi

[fredpunk123]

:/

:/

[Nickalispicalis]

All of these programs pale in comparison to GNU Chess !

[familyguy1231]

it must be kinda awkward in this game having rybka analysing its own game

[xtreme1002003]

That's kinda one of my weaknesses. Sometimes, when I'm playing in a tournament, I want a win so badly that I avoid drawing like the plague- and wind up losing as a result lol.

[pecora01]

salve alexandre alekhine

[samthomas31]

I have Fritz 10 and ran Rybka 1.0 beta (The Turk Book) vs. Zappa 1.1 (Perfect 14 Book). I set them up on 5 games of 4 min. blitz and Rybka took the game 4 points over 1, with 2 draws. I thought Zappa was going to win over Rybka using the Perfect 10 Book, which is one of the best books out there to use. It was even game all the way to the end, but Rybka smashed Zappa in the end. I wonder what version of both engines this guy is using?

[vibovitold]

4 minutes is way too fast for an engine match

[samthomas31]

A blitz game is a world of time for computer brain, plus they go over sometimes.

[mburch1974]

sorry there are no 11-man tablebases

[furrer08]

Was this the one rybka lost because it avoided the 50 move rule (which is was programmed too)?

[dtsdyloot]

Great history - the background is greatly appreciated!

[erlico82]

it almost seems like in theory, if you have two monster machines playing a perfect game against each other, than the natural result will always be a draw

[SvenTwelve]

Fischer speculated that that is the case. In any case, it seems that black should never win.

[edmalikin]

Thanks for your video.

[erlico82]

termintor vs matrix

[mobbinthrudabay]

good video. white fuckd up sacrificing the pawn to avoid 50 move draw.

[VivaMydick]

What happened to good old times when computer programs used to be beatable ? :)

[liebstandarteadolf]

@VivaMydick I'm sure you can make it play dumb.

[NOmind570]

too damn crazy for me, but enjoyed it noneless. straight killas!

[AntiBullS]

these 2 are monsters I do not want to see them I do not want to hear them I do not want to feel their presence :)

[ILLUMANOV]

yo king crusher my friend lol more zap vs rybka all matches pls with fritz analyis thnx

[bobbooty]

too much talking

[Thatwasnotme]

I was hoping more analyzing, just like in a normal video.