closed positions still seem to be chess computers weakness - although that weakness is admittedly now stronger than humans, their play is for from perfect.
i like the way rybka moves. it moves like a person. like sacrificing all those pieces for that passed pawn. sure, its algorithms give weight to that sort of thing, but you'd think it'll plan it out better. it got its ass kicked pretty badly after those few moves.
One pawn means a lot when it comes to Grandmaster games -especially that pawn, which would've been used to great effect by Rybka in the defense of its king.
Don't worry, Rybka's still unbeatable without handicaps.
@Dirtfire Are you stupid? Rybka is plenty beatable, If it plays the best moves, a person can play those same exact moves, you're an idiot if you truly think no one can beat rybka.
if what you say is true, then show me a game where a human beats rybka without pawn odds and in normal time controls.
even kasparov failed to deep blue in 1996, and this rybka is at least 400 ELO points stronger than deep blue. maybe draw, with difficulty, but to win against rybka is very unlikely for any human player.
But to tell you the truth, I don't know if its real or not. The Chessgames website doesn't show this game, but it does show 2 other non-handicapped games of Milov vs. Rybka. Rybka won one and the other was drawn.
Maybe the chessgames website doesn't list pawn-odds games?
Yeah, it was real. After the match, the Rybka team said they shouldn't have given f7-pawn odds. Either c7 of f2 odds next time, and Rybka will still be winning.
in a game where rybka has no f7 pawn white decides to extend his pawn chain on the king side.. so his "win" is nothing more than torturing a wounded animal. very pathetic.
Yes. Vas and his team insist on handicapping Rybka in matches.
It's made a mockery of computer vs. human chess of late. I know quite a few people who have lost interest in human vs. computer matches because of this tacky decision on their part.
If only GM's didn't have such fragile egos that they had to have advantages given to them in order to compete publicly. Professional chess is such a debacle of late.
So first you say that Vas and his team insist on handicapping Rybka. Then you say the GMs have fragile egos as if they're the ones that demand the handicap.
No wat the higher quality is can you win whit the black pieace and a pawn down by playing perfect or can a human maintain the advantage over the best chess engine in ther world i give you a pieace up and the white pieace and i still think you lose to rybka
the highest quality chess games are correspondence centaur matches where the world's best centaurs battle it out over months to a draw (or a win) and these are the types of wins where you'll have trouble classifying a move as a mistake without weeks of analysis.
also, i can beat rybka 3 with a piece and move odds. i mirrored the match they played with the FM at piece + move odds and achieved a +score.
I'm not taking about the new technologie wat am taking about is being in a huge disadvantage and whit perfect play just creating so much tempo and strenght that your able to beat your oppenent.
World championship arent nearly as interesting as computer matches.. Computer analsy to the bone. They never do blunder or inaccuracys and they are emotionless.They just caculate and play the best move no matter how bad the position can look to human.
No because then it would just be a blow out and it would end up boring.
Ther is diffrence between winning whit a disavantage and winning by completly humiliating your oppenent ther is no way anyone can take on rybka whit out an pawn up... even garry kasporav lost ( in his prime ) to something that was alot lower then wat rybka is now.
Starting at odds: Rybka manages to draw or still win.
Both display Rybka being fantastically stronger than her opponent. Why does it matter whether she starts down or not? All that matters is her performance and the end game. Not the end result so much.
This is not a debatable subject... i have no clue why your trying to convicen me that this is more beautiful then this... it noneless we all lived experiences and we all interprete thing diffrently.
If we all experienced and interpreted things the same, there wouldn't be much to debate.
All you're really trying to say is "I'm right" which is nonsense since this is all a matter of opinion, which again, is what makes it so highly debatable.
No, because your taste are created true everything that has happen in your life. Your not giving me logical information that would valide your point... Wat your doing is stating that you dont find something beautiful and also wat you think is beautiful. The problem is that befort you make conclution on wat are your taste you ready evaluate these fact. We are not adding new information all were doing states the ovious positive point and negative point...
I'm not asserting something. You are. You're saying one aspect of a chess game is beautiful and the other is not.
I'm saying they are both potentially beautiful to different people.
One is beautiful to me and the other is trivial to me. It's the opposite for you, but you're stating that your view is objectively right. I am not making the same claim.
It the opposite for you? you know wat i think... stop assuming and miss reading wat i write am taking about the fact that you can not compare tastes wat you can compare is logicaly point of views theorys and analsy but wat u like and wat you dont like have nothing to do whit logical all they have to do is whit the basic patern you see in your life example: if u see more the color blue then the other color you will be more attrated to it since it in your normal therefore you will like it more.
i'm not assuming anything. you have one logical viewpoint and i have another. you feel that yours is objectively right. but that is a logical fallacy.
to me the game is more important than the result. to you the result (a machine overcoming odds) is more important than the game.
i've agreed to disagree but you continue the discussion because you can't stomach the thought of someone thinking you are wrong.
it's my opinion that you're completely wrong, but this can't be proven.
... your retard you cant read... i didnt take anything personnaly lol !!!!! your the one that arguing about taste and am telling you that you cant. And even after i repeat myself like 5 time you still dont even understand the converstation... Your hilarious dude.
i read and understood everything perfectly. my point is that your disagreement with the validity of my particular taste in chess play is arbitrary since it's opinion-based.
but you continue to take it personally. it's continuing to amuse me.
I havent even took anything personnal am not even debating anything whit you.... that wat you dont get am not saying this is good or this is bad wat am saying... is that you cant debate that periode... am not even stating my opigon anymore am just saying you CANNOT DEBATE YOUR TASTES...
Wow... this aint a sport this is a game... your kinding right...
Sport definition : . Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
That can be something like monpoly to something that playing on T.V
Alot people have diffrent taste me i like to analsy the play it self not the player. Also i like to see that someone who is in disadvantage can win by completly out scoring his oppenent.
@lazimofo90 Then why haven't we heard of this Bastiaan?? If he can beat it without pawn odds, then he is the greatest player of all time and could realize instant fame if he demonstrated this ability. Of course he won't because you're either mistaken or full of shit.
to me handicap is wrong ,because if u handicap you have a ready made excuse for the loss .we will not know truely who is stronger from this game although the GM played great .
No we don't know from this game who's stronger. You wouldn't know who's stronger based on one game even without a handicap. But we know based on other things that Rybka is much stronger.
GM milov played a very good and instructive game here. He let the (C) shuffle until he was positionally crushing then just exchanged for the win. I need to learn to be more positional.
bleh...my friend bastiaan beat it without pawn odds.
lazimofo90 9 months ago
gg
justdoit999999999999 10 months ago
Pwned!
qwer0550 10 months ago
pawn odds dont count Vadim Milov gets owned by regular Rybka no odds lol
born2range8 10 months ago
it sacrificed so many pieces for that one pawn? anyway good game.
saifrizwan 1 year ago
closed positions still seem to be chess computers weakness - although that weakness is admittedly now stronger than humans, their play is for from perfect.
FlamingLion116 1 year ago
Comment removed
gbuitragot 1 year ago
Wow, amazing!
speedproductions797 1 year ago
god damn i couldnt understand a sungle move they were doing after a certain point lol
tufosanta 1 year ago
i like the way rybka moves. it moves like a person. like sacrificing all those pieces for that passed pawn. sure, its algorithms give weight to that sort of thing, but you'd think it'll plan it out better. it got its ass kicked pretty badly after those few moves.
J0kerofHearts 1 year ago
Vadim really milked those pawn odds...
J0kerofHearts 1 year ago
I think that Milov used a "anti-computer" playing style, especially if we analyze the pawn structure.
Pete2R 1 year ago
@Pete2R lol you mean anti-opponent style.
Master8laster 1 year ago
holy shit! no way this is real!
SpongeInPyjama 2 years ago
It's real. Milov had pawn-odds, which means Rybka was missing a pawn at the start of the game to even things up for the human.
Dirtfire 2 years ago
@Dirtfire
Well... I still don't believe.
vinizan 2 years ago
One pawn means a lot when it comes to Grandmaster games -especially that pawn, which would've been used to great effect by Rybka in the defense of its king.
Don't worry, Rybka's still unbeatable without handicaps.
Dirtfire 2 years ago
@Dirtfire Are you stupid? Rybka is plenty beatable, If it plays the best moves, a person can play those same exact moves, you're an idiot if you truly think no one can beat rybka.
RsJingles 1 year ago
@RsJingles
if what you say is true, then show me a game where a human beats rybka without pawn odds and in normal time controls.
even kasparov failed to deep blue in 1996, and this rybka is at least 400 ELO points stronger than deep blue. maybe draw, with difficulty, but to win against rybka is very unlikely for any human player.
chrism216 11 months ago
But to tell you the truth, I don't know if its real or not. The Chessgames website doesn't show this game, but it does show 2 other non-handicapped games of Milov vs. Rybka. Rybka won one and the other was drawn.
Maybe the chessgames website doesn't list pawn-odds games?
Dirtfire 2 years ago
@Dirtfire There is a game of Capablanca when he was very little at queen odds, so perhaps the game just hasn't been uploaded their quite yet.
Fluffisnoterm 1 year ago
Was that game true? I never heard about a human with Rybka 3, even more with such material advantage.
Quite impressive if it's real.
vinizan 2 years ago
It's real. Milov had pawn-odds, which means Rybka was missing a pawn at the start of the game to even things up for the human.
It is impressive, tho, the material advantage he had at the end.
Dirtfire 2 years ago
@Dirtfire
Yeah, it was real. After the match, the Rybka team said they shouldn't have given f7-pawn odds. Either c7 of f2 odds next time, and Rybka will still be winning.
philnoll 1 year ago
why odds pawn f7?
kanunidukagjinit 2 years ago
impossible otherwise
PaXx 2 years ago
this is a wonderful game i didnt think humans have a chance with rybka... there was no handicaps used right?
G48202 2 years ago
No there where pawn odds.
navi333xxx 2 years ago 10
@G48202
handicaps? what do you mean by that?
SpongeInPyjama 2 years ago
in a game where rybka has no f7 pawn white decides to extend his pawn chain on the king side.. so his "win" is nothing more than torturing a wounded animal. very pathetic.
seeaeytch 2 years ago
Show the world doing the same, and maybe your comment will be taken seriously:P
Res3nt 2 years ago
Well Rybka, giving pawn and move odds, beat GM Dzindzi so shut the fuck up bitch.
PhilomathBret 2 years ago
Yes. Vas and his team insist on handicapping Rybka in matches.
It's made a mockery of computer vs. human chess of late. I know quite a few people who have lost interest in human vs. computer matches because of this tacky decision on their part.
If only GM's didn't have such fragile egos that they had to have advantages given to them in order to compete publicly. Professional chess is such a debacle of late.
sharpnova2 3 years ago
Without the handicap nobody would ever beat Rybka. We'd know ahead of time who the winner would be. You think that would be more exciting?
PhilomathBret 2 years ago 3
seeing higher quality chess games? yes.
sharpnova2 2 years ago
Well I think you're in the minority.
So first you say that Vas and his team insist on handicapping Rybka. Then you say the GMs have fragile egos as if they're the ones that demand the handicap.
PhilomathBret 2 years ago
Uhm yes?
Can you explain how giving a cause and effect suddenly proves that the cause and effect contradict each other?
sharpnova2 2 years ago
No wat the higher quality is can you win whit the black pieace and a pawn down by playing perfect or can a human maintain the advantage over the best chess engine in ther world i give you a pieace up and the white pieace and i still think you lose to rybka
UnderDog988 2 years ago
wrong. that's not quality that's just novelty.
the highest quality chess games are correspondence centaur matches where the world's best centaurs battle it out over months to a draw (or a win) and these are the types of wins where you'll have trouble classifying a move as a mistake without weeks of analysis.
also, i can beat rybka 3 with a piece and move odds. i mirrored the match they played with the FM at piece + move odds and achieved a +score.
i know how to play anti-computer chess.
sharpnova2 2 years ago
I'm not taking about the new technologie wat am taking about is being in a huge disadvantage and whit perfect play just creating so much tempo and strenght that your able to beat your oppenent.
World championship arent nearly as interesting as computer matches.. Computer analsy to the bone. They never do blunder or inaccuracys and they are emotionless.They just caculate and play the best move no matter how bad the position can look to human.
That is truth beauty.
Also note the number of move
UnderDog988 2 years ago
Your mistake is in thinking the beauty is in the play rather than the game.
Beautiful and strong play is fun to watch. But in the end it's the game that stands as a masterpiece.
There is nothing interesting about a game that started with pawn and move odds.
If someone can win when starting down that much. Great.
But if they can do that they should also be able to play an even more beautiful and decisive game starting from even positions.
sharpnova2 2 years ago
No because then it would just be a blow out and it would end up boring.
Ther is diffrence between winning whit a disavantage and winning by completly humiliating your oppenent ther is no way anyone can take on rybka whit out an pawn up... even garry kasporav lost ( in his prime ) to something that was alot lower then wat rybka is now.
UnderDog988 2 years ago
You're too focused on the result.
Starting even: Rybka blows its opponent away.
Starting at odds: Rybka manages to draw or still win.
Both display Rybka being fantastically stronger than her opponent. Why does it matter whether she starts down or not? All that matters is her performance and the end game. Not the end result so much.
sharpnova2 2 years ago
Yes because the result is more important the game it self and that the same for any sport,,,
UnderDog988 2 years ago
This isn't a sport. It's a game.
When questing for beauty, the result is hardly important. You're looking for beautiful play.
24. Rxd4 would have been just as beautiful to me if Topalov had found Kb6 over the board and drawn the game.
To you it would have simply been a refuted sacrifice and a boring game.
Chess should be admired for the elegance and depth of its play. For the masterpiece that is created. Not for the score at the end.
sharpnova2 2 years ago
This is not a debatable subject... i have no clue why your trying to convicen me that this is more beautiful then this... it noneless we all lived experiences and we all interprete thing diffrently.
UnderDog988 2 years ago
That's what makes it a highly debatable subject.
If we all experienced and interpreted things the same, there wouldn't be much to debate.
All you're really trying to say is "I'm right" which is nonsense since this is all a matter of opinion, which again, is what makes it so highly debatable.
sharpnova2 2 years ago
No, because your taste are created true everything that has happen in your life. Your not giving me logical information that would valide your point... Wat your doing is stating that you dont find something beautiful and also wat you think is beautiful. The problem is that befort you make conclution on wat are your taste you ready evaluate these fact. We are not adding new information all were doing states the ovious positive point and negative point...
UnderDog988 2 years ago
I'm not asserting something. You are. You're saying one aspect of a chess game is beautiful and the other is not.
I'm saying they are both potentially beautiful to different people.
One is beautiful to me and the other is trivial to me. It's the opposite for you, but you're stating that your view is objectively right. I am not making the same claim.
sharpnova2 2 years ago
It the opposite for you? you know wat i think... stop assuming and miss reading wat i write am taking about the fact that you can not compare tastes wat you can compare is logicaly point of views theorys and analsy but wat u like and wat you dont like have nothing to do whit logical all they have to do is whit the basic patern you see in your life example: if u see more the color blue then the other color you will be more attrated to it since it in your normal therefore you will like it more.
UnderDog988 2 years ago
i'm not assuming anything. you have one logical viewpoint and i have another. you feel that yours is objectively right. but that is a logical fallacy.
to me the game is more important than the result. to you the result (a machine overcoming odds) is more important than the game.
i've agreed to disagree but you continue the discussion because you can't stomach the thought of someone thinking you are wrong.
it's my opinion that you're completely wrong, but this can't be proven.
sharpnova2 2 years ago
It very hard to answer you because it seem like your not reading wat am wrtiing...
I sayed that you cannot compare taste and explained why and you think am debating weather a machine beating the odds or the game it self is better...
dude you half to start reading wat i says instead of blindly saying shit that has nothing to do whit wat am talking about...
Again no one is wrong YOU CANT BE WRONG in wat you like...that just stupid everyone has diffrent taste.
UnderDog988 2 years ago
People like you annoy me... I have no clue how your able to answer me whitout reading wat i wrote....
UnderDog988 2 years ago
eh. I tried to explain it so you could understand it.
But you continue to take it personally that I disagree with you.
This conversation is over.
sharpnova2 2 years ago
... your retard you cant read... i didnt take anything personnaly lol !!!!! your the one that arguing about taste and am telling you that you cant. And even after i repeat myself like 5 time you still dont even understand the converstation... Your hilarious dude.
UnderDog988 2 years ago
i read and understood everything perfectly. my point is that your disagreement with the validity of my particular taste in chess play is arbitrary since it's opinion-based.
but you continue to take it personally. it's continuing to amuse me.
sharpnova2 2 years ago
I havent even took anything personnal am not even debating anything whit you.... that wat you dont get am not saying this is good or this is bad wat am saying... is that you cant debate that periode... am not even stating my opigon anymore am just saying you CANNOT DEBATE YOUR TASTES...
UnderDog988 2 years ago
your gay?
PureWillpower1 2 years ago
Are you coming on to me...? Dude not interested i only like chicks
UnderDog988 2 years ago
Wow... this aint a sport this is a game... your kinding right...
Sport definition : . Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
That can be something like monpoly to something that playing on T.V
Alot people have diffrent taste me i like to analsy the play it self not the player. Also i like to see that someone who is in disadvantage can win by completly out scoring his oppenent.
UnderDog988 2 years ago
@PhilomathBret it's just 1 pawn, omg...
Cercatore 1 year ago
@PhilomathBret my friend bastiaan has beaten rybka 3 on several occasions.
lazimofo90 9 months ago
@lazimofo90 Then why haven't we heard of this Bastiaan?? If he can beat it without pawn odds, then he is the greatest player of all time and could realize instant fame if he demonstrated this ability. Of course he won't because you're either mistaken or full of shit.
0willow0 9 months ago
@0willow0 Friend youtube.com/user/bastiaan0741#p/u/10/apTxHkr0O5M .
Also watch bastiaan's other videos.Trust me bastiaan IS INDEED a very powerful player.
View his channel for games against other engines as well.
lazimofo90 9 months ago
to me handicap is wrong ,because if u handicap you have a ready made excuse for the loss .we will not know truely who is stronger from this game although the GM played great .
6irvin6 3 years ago
No we don't know from this game who's stronger. You wouldn't know who's stronger based on one game even without a handicap. But we know based on other things that Rybka is much stronger.
PhilomathBret 2 years ago
this isnt the real rybka that hes playing which has an elo of 3200
tubeyou12v 3 years ago
GM milov played a very good and instructive game here. He let the (C) shuffle until he was positionally crushing then just exchanged for the win. I need to learn to be more positional.
mburch1974 3 years ago
Notice that Rybka was handicapped in most of its lost games. Very sad that they had to handicap it.
garromark 3 years ago