The Chess Mind

Frankly, this is a good thing, and it makes sense for both sides. Rybka has been dominating computer chess the past couple of years, while ChessBase has the biggest name and distribution network. I'd pass along a link, but something seems wrong with the ChessBase site for the moment. Anyway, Rybka 3.0 (a significantly new version) is scheduled to get mailed out August 1, and they're taking pre-orders for it now.

Update:

(1) The link is good now - here it is.

(2) The ad is worth checking out, as the new Rybka has some interesting bells and whistles that make it interesting for reasons other than its strength as a playing/analysis partner.

I was browsing Bobby Fischer’s My 60 Memorable Games earlier tonight, and came across this position and comment, from his 1960 game against former world chess champion Max Euwe:



Here Fischer played 15.Rb1, writing “The innovation. Months before this game I had showed this line to Benko and he suggested this innocent-looking move. Upon looking deeper I found that, horrible as White’s Pawn structure may be, Black can’t exploit it because he’ll be unable to develop his K-side normally. It’s the little quirks like this that could make life difficult for a chess machine. (P. 135, emphasis added.)

It was this last comment that intrigued me. Did Fischer insightfully predict a problem for computer chess, or was this a perhaps understandable but mistaken assessment of what would or wouldn’t be possible for chess engines? I think there are two aspects to evaluating Fischer’s claim. First, do the engines find 15.Rb1? Second, do they evaluate the situation properly? On the first question, Fischer’s conjecture is a failure. Both Rybka (2.3.2) and Fritz (11) found it instantly. Rybka fluctuated for a little while between that move and 15.c4, in terms of absolute preference, but it settled on Fischer’s move soon enough. What about the evaluation? Euwe played 15…Rd8, which Fischer awards a question mark. Fischer recommends 15…Qxb5 instead, asserting that White has “an enduring pull” after 16.Rxb5 Kd6! 17.Rb7 f6 18.Ke2 Kc6 19.Rf7 a5 20.Be3. How do the computers fare on this score?

Here, perhaps, there's a little more difference. The engines both agree with Fischer that White has some pull, but neither seems all that impressed - both evaluate the position as (much) closer to equality than anything substantial for White. (Details here.) So maybe there's a bit of difference when it comes to evaluating long-term factors. Fischer sees that White can torture Black for a long time in the ending, while the computer thinks that as long as everything is pretty safe at the moment, Black is fundamentally okay. Of course, another possibility is that the computer is right, but it can be said that engines do sometimes tend to underestimate long-term possibilities. On the other hand, it's not at all surprising that the computer liked 15.Rb1, as it brings a piece while impeding Black's development. Why wouldn't it be attractive?

The odds match between Rybka and Dzindzichashvili ended in a 4-4 tie, and the plans to have a 4-game playoff today were cancelled, as Dzindzi had a family emergency. Hopefully all's well there, and maybe we'll see a rematch in the near future.

On day 4 of the Rybka-Dzindzichashvili odds match (Dzindzi gets White in every game plus a different Black pawn in every game), Dzindzi caught back up, winning game 7 (with the extra g-pawn) and drawing game 8. It wasn't part of the original deal, but they're going to have a 4-game playoff today (Saturday). Rybka will play without the f-pawn in every game, which is probably the biggest handicap pawn, but the time control will be a relatively speedy 20' + 5", which is surely in its favor.

Meanwhile, today's games can be replayed here.

Carbon made a small comeback today in the odds match between GM Roman Dzindzichashvili and Rybka, as both games were drawn against the silicon beast. The event finishes tomorrow, with Dzindzi first receiving Black's g-pawn in game 7 and the h-pawn in game 8. Meanwhile, you can replay today's draws here.

Monday was a good day for Roman Dzindzichashvili in his pawn-odds match with the computer program Rybka, but Wednesday, the second day of their match, was not. Giving up the c- and d-pawns, respectively, Rybka won both games against the American GM to take the lead in the eight game match.

Games here. (Note: the funny opening moves designed to set up the proper pawn-odds position are given on the site; they're not an expedient on my part to create the proper start position.)

All those years of playing computers have paid off for GM Roman Dzindzichashvili so far, as the first day against Rybka with pawn and move has given him a draw and a win. It would be nicer if he was ahead without any odds, but I guess we'll take what we can get at this point.

Games here.

Rybka, probably the strongest commercially available program out there at the moment, has been beating up on humans the last year, handily defeating GMs while offering various sorts of odds. (More about that here.) Starting tomorrow (Monday), it's time for a new challenge: an eight-game match with Roman Dzindzichashvili, once one of the world's strongest grandmasters and a real anti-computer expert. "Dzindzi" will have White and an extra pawn in every game (Rybka will play without the a-pawn in one game, the b-pawn in another, etc.) The time control will be G/45 + 10 seconds, with two games a day on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. More info here.

While waiting for the first round of Morelia to begin, I took an occasional glance at a very long series of games between Hikaru Nakamura and an engine called "TransWarp" on ICC. As far as I know, Nakamura didn't win any games (though he should have won one, but ran out of time while trying to mate with five or six knights), but he managed a pretty fair number of draws by playing a Hippopotamus + blockade strategy with both colors.

I've linked to one of them for your entertainment and anti-computer instruction. While many of the games were pretty similar, this was perhaps the most impressive of the lot. That's because he didn't achieve a particularly good version of the Hippo this time around, and was already in serious trouble on move 16. His solution (see especially move 17) was an ingenious one, and he was just as clever on move 86. You'll get the idea - have a look.

The first game is underway in a new match between Rybka and 3-time US champ Joel Benjamin. The match is of eight games, and Benjamin will have the White pieces and draw odds in every game. Predictions, readers? So far in game 1 Benjamin seems fractionally worse, but a draw - i.e. a Benjamin win - seems the most likely result.

Link.

Running alongside the (human) world championship, the computer programs Rybka and Zappa played a match for silicon supremacy. To the surprise of most, Zappa was the winner, 5.5-4.5, though there were a couple of unusual aspects to the win. I referred in the previous post to Kramnik's super-deep preparation against Anand in their first game, but that only went as far as move 28. In game 6, Zappa's theoretical preparation went to move 37, where it calculated the position to the perpetual check that ended the game on move 52. Niiiice. Is that really the program's half a point?

And then there was the bizarre fourth game. In a position with with a queen and five pawns for Rybka against Zappa's two rooks, a bishop and a pawn, White had the ostensible advantage but Zappa an unbreachable blockade. When it was clear that Rybka couldn't break through, its operator offered the Zappa team a draw. The Zappers refused, not based on the program's evaluation but on computer "psychology". They reasoned, rightly, that Rybka might (a) think its position was still better even without one of those pawns, and that (b) it might therefore chuck that pawn to avoid a 50-move rule draw. Sure enough, that's what happened: Rybka thought it was still better, gave up the pawn for the reason given, and then went on to lose.

In any case, it was an impressive success for Zappa, demonstrating that Rybka isn't the only big dog on the block. (Actually, they're all big dogs as far as we humans are concerned, but if it's important that your program play at a 3000 level rather than a crummy low-2900 status, you now have a second option to consider.)

Links here and here.

In the chess glut that is the Mainz festival, even the computers aren't left out. Shredder was the defending Chess960 champ, but ubiquitous upstart Rybka took its place, defeating it 2.5-.5. More here.

In a post several days ago, I presented the following sequence of moves:

DM-Pocket "Fritz", g/10:

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2 Ne7 6.O-O c5 7.c4 Nd7 8.Nc3 dxc4 9.d5 exd5 (novelty) 10.Nxd5 Nxe5 11.Nxe5 Qxd5 12.Bxc4 Qxe5 13.Bb5+ Nc6 14.Re1 Be4 15.f3 Rd8 16.Bxc6+ bxc6 17.Qe2 (eventually 1/2-1/2)

and challenged readers to find improvements for White. During the game I felt sure after 9.d5 that I should have at least a small edge, and I felt happy about my moves when playing them. Despite that, I "awakened" around move 15 or 16 to realize that Black was slightly better, and it was time to earn the draw. (Which I did.)

Here are my findings; readers are encouraged to offer further improvements.

A week or two I was out for a walk and decided to renew my old "friendship" with my Pocket Fritz*. Here's how the opening went in this G/10 encounter:

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2 Ne7 6.O-O c5 7.c4 Nd7 8.Nc3 dxc4 9.d5 exd5 (novelty) 10.Nxd5 Nxe5 11.Nxe5 Qxd5 12.Bxc4 Qxe5 13.Bb5+ Nc6 14.Re1 Be4 15.f3 Rd8 16.Bxc6+ bxc6 17.Qe2 etc.

Black is slightly better here, but despite being a pawn down and short of time, I was able to hold the draw without too much trouble. (Black's lousy queenside pawn structure was what I counted on, rightly.) Nevertheless, I was a bit disgusted and certainly confused: I felt after 10.Nxd5 and my clever 12.Bxc4 that I simply must be better! Yet it's not at all obvious where White could have improved, especially without the assistance of a computer.

See what you can find (without using Fritz, Rybka, Shredder, etc.); I'll offer my thoughts in a few days.

*In fact it's a version of the Shredder program, written by Shredder's author, but is called "Fritz" for (presumably) marketing purposes.

In fact, it probably should have been 5-3, as the computer lost the first game quickly due to a gigantic programming error. It wasn't a bad result by Benjamin, but it's scary to think that a strong GM going -2 with pawn odds is a fair result! Could it ever reach the point where humans could receive knight odds from the machine? I'm inclined to think it couldn't, but can we rule it out completely? Some day when I have a couple of hours on my hands, I'll see if Rybka or Fritz can give me knight odds and win - if it can't take me, then there's no way it should ever be able to take down a GM with that handicap, at least not for the foreseeable future.

Link.

HT: Prime#

I've used that phrase with chess students before, to emphasize that in chess, unlike checkers ("draughts" for at least some non-Americans), captures are not mandatory. It behooves one to be on guard for possible zwischenzugs, both for oneself and for the opponent. That's a useful lesson, but it's not the subject of this post.

Rather, it's this: word came down the pike yesterday that checkers is officially solved (here and here; HTs to Rob Bernard and Michael Bagalman, respectively). (That game is objectively a draw, in the unlikely event anyone suspected otherwise.) That paltry feat only took 18 years of working through 500 billion billion positions (ho hum); chess, on the other hand, has around a billion billion billion billion billion possible positions (so says the first article - I'll take its word for it, as trying to count them myself might keep me up past my bedtime).

Thus we're safe for now, as Tim Krabbé is always fond of pointing out. In his most recent Chess Diary entry (#344, "The Helplessness of the Pair of Queens"), he presents the game Kosten-Zelcic, in which White reaches a position with two queens and a pawn against a mere rook, bishop, knight and three pawns - but can't win. Despite the apparent obviousness of the blockade, none of the current programs, including Rybka, the current king, is even remotely able to recognize this. (Ironically, if the game score given both on Krabbé's site and on chessgames.com is right, White probably missed a win with 76.Qc7. Whether White can force that sort of winning position without help is another story.)

Rybka (surprise, surprise). The 15th World Computer Chess Championship finished earlier today in Amsterdam, and Rybka won with an undefeated 10-1 score; Zappa (sold by ChessBase, at least in an earlier edition) went 9-2 and was also undefeated. Shredder, in years past my favorite ChessBase program, finished tied for fourth with a 7-4 score (behind Loop's 7.5-3.5), while ChessMaster fans (if any) will be distressed to see The King in next to last with a 2.5-8.5 score.

Will there be a match between Rybka and Ultimate Challenge winner Deep Junior? I think the probability is extremely close to zero, but fans can hope.

Tournament website here.

In the previous post, I suggested, semi-seriously (on the false assumption that anyone was actually playing), that the "Ultimate Chess Challenge" between Deep Junior and Deep Fritz is the year's real world chess championship event. But neither "player" had to qualify, and there are other playing programs, too - at least one of which has a great claim to have the best chips in the salsa bowl.

Happily then, there's another computer event going: the World Computer Chess Championships in Amsterdam. It started on the 11th and continues through the 18th; participants include Rybka, Shredder, Zappa and The King.

HT: Philippe Dornbusch, who is covering the event on his blog (in French).

The Candidates matches in Elista were great fun, but they weren't the only show in town. Concurrent with the second round of matches was the intermural battle between ChessBase programs Deep Fritz and Deep Junior in the so-called President's Cup/Ultimate Computer Challenge. The match ended a couple of days ago, and was won by Deep Junior, 4-2. (Two draws, two wins, then two more draws.)

The games are here, with a bit of extra attention paid to the theoretically significant third game.

*Or at least, it would be a candidate for the world championship, if anyone was playing.

Well, sort of.

Alongside the second round of the Candidates matches, Deep Fritz and Deep Junior are playing a six-game match (or so we all pretend, but we'll revisit that topic some other time), with $60k to the winning side and $40k to the "second-place" finisher. The reason for the "sort of" comment above is that Rybka, which has been the top-rated program for over a year, wasn't invited, and its programmer, IM Vas Rajlich, isn't happy. He offered a counter-challenge, but it's unlikely to go anywhere, even if the Deep Fritz-Deep Junior winner is on a par with Rybka. ChessBase programs already have the lion's share of the market, so they have little to gain and tons to lose by accepting Rajlich's challenge.