Human versus Machine

Right, all Kramnik matches involve the use of a highly-optimised opening book

for the engine.

I have not investigated closely the precise openings and move sequences featured,

it should be much more difficult to close the game, but still possible.

On the other hand, my assumption is that leading grandmasters have not quite looked

into possibilities to close the game against engines, as they have been concentrating more

on human play.

Only Kasparov has played some good closed games against Deep Blue and Junior.

@Matt: thanks! And no, I don't dare to guess who is who here, it's only I couldn't remember where I read something similar before.

lol....Troll....waste of time

You wasted Komodo's life?? Seriously??

You got the brains of a roadside street puppy. Keep yelping and yapping.

The games are there, pal.

Including games under controlled conditions.

Some Indians are pretty smart, but most are very low level.

Take example from your compatriot Parimaryan Negi.

I am so happy, I just read a review on this book on Rybka forum by MarshallArts:

The exhortation not to buy his books is very mean-spirited and basically unfounded. I can understand if someone does not like the playing conditions which these games were conducted under, but the criticism is going too far.

His books are quite good actually. I only skimmed through the Secret of Chess, but the newer human vs machine game books seem packed with good and crisp explanations that can help elevate a reader's play even against other human players. The games themselves are H vs M masterpieces, regardless of whatever handicaps were used by the author. A very high level understanding of chess transpires when looking at these well commented games. I was positively surprised by the quality of
these games and their annotations.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=32312

Lyudmil, I think a lot of the negativity you're getting here is from your comment that you are probably much stronger than all GMs except maybe Carlsen. This sort of assertion never goes down well, even though I suspect you were not being entirely serious.

Dear IpswichMatt, when you are hit, you have to hit back.

I certainly did not claim anything about myself before people starting telling me I

was worth nothing.

It is difficult for me to think I am stronger than the top in game play(I simply have not trained that

enough), but in analysis, I am very strong.

Yes but rather than hitting back you are made an unrealistic claim.  This alienates people, which is a shame because you've got some interesting stuff to say  

Can a human defeat a computer because chess has not been concretely sloved so if the was one formula to play correctly then we mere mortals would stand a chance. What do you think?

I am certain humans do stand a chance, current top GMs could easily perform better, if they had

devoted more time to studying engine weaknesses.

But they simply have not done so.

Now, the human simply need more time.

Why should engine cores be increased from 1 to 2, then 8, 32 and 128, while the human side

should be using the same small amount of time?

My personal prediction is that the most interesting battles human versus machine are still ahead.

Lyudmil, I think you need to get hold of one of those "anti human" opening books and install it into your GUI then play some games at standard time control to really test your theories.

I don't know where you'd get hold of one of those though

The current trend in top engine testing is to get rid of the book, or use the smallest available one,

2 moves/4 plies, as in this way the engine will learn better how to play the openings, and besides, most openings books are not fully correct.

Well, I guess it is possible to get hold of such a book, but, I don't know what the use will be as, in the same way the book has tried to avoid any lines involving closing of the position, I might learn just the opposite, after studying the book sufficiently, of course: how to avoid opening of the game in most lines.

In theory, however, things are not so simple, as opening the game at any cost in specific lines at any cost will necessarily lead to suboptimal play, which could be used by the opponent. Same holds true for trying to close the position at any cost.

I don't take myself very seriously, I am just having some fun with top engines, that is why I allow myself usually more time, as otherwise the nervous tension is too big, having to constantly look at the clock.

But there's way more money on the trolling circuit!

You mean more FUN.

Part III is out: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077PN5QT8/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1511501584&sr=1-8

This will be the last part of the series, for the time being.

I would not like that this turns into a boring book,
the purpose has never been to publish as many games as possible,
but just to demonstrate the possibility to win against the top engines,
and cover the most common winning options.

I can play more games in the future, so there might be 4th part, but this will be only in a couple of years, when much stronger engines appear.
It does not make sense to repeat one and the same stuff. When much stronger engines appear, and people say again, well, it might have been possible to beat the tops couple of years ago, that crazy guy Lyudmil used to do it, but not now anymore, then I will play some games to renew my collection.

I would like to thank all those on this forum, who, by chance or willingly, have bought different of my books. Thanks a lot! You have helped me to at least keep part of my face and hope in what I am doing.

The third part features handicap wins. All the credit goes to Larry Kaufman(thanks, Larry, for all those Komodo handicap matches), as, whenever Komodo would play a match against some human, I would try my hand with precisely the same imbalance against the tops.
It proved that handicap games are a great fun, one of the most interesting things in chess, and also are very helpful to your tactical training, for the reason that materially imbalanced positions increase the necessity for more calculations.

I would also like to thank the mods here for their patience and understanding.

I forgot to say that, this time around, all diagrams are accompanied by fens, so it will be possible to check the lines with your engines.

IMO this is debunkable: I took a Look-inside the books on Amazon and found

1. in the first book the games are against Stockfish 4 with chosen opening:

2. the 3rd book starts with a game against Komodo 8 with a setup and handicap (!) position.

Anythink better? Because Stockfish 4 was already beaten by GM Nakamura (and not with chosen opening).

I don't know what you are talking about.

There are 3 parts:

- part I features non-handicap games against earlier versions

- part II features also non-handicap games against later versions

- and part III includes handicap games

You picked just the very first games from both volumes, so this is not representative, of course.

Nothing is debunkable: even the last volume features games against Stockfish and Komodo with a handicap with which Nakamura, just 2 months ago, and this was broadcast on chess.com, you might want to check, convincingly lost to Komodo at much longer TC(b1 knight for c7 pawn).

Nakamura managed to play just some 25 moves or so before he conceded defeat, while I won my games with this.

You might want to think what you want, but the games inside the 3 volumes are significantly higher quality than Kasparov - Deep Blue matches and just about any other engine-human game you might think of or even Fischer games.

This is easily demonstrable: top engines see all of Kasparov's and Fischer's moves nowadays, but they still fail to see mine, which I showed you btw. in our game.

I have been doing chess 16/7 for half a decade now, man, forget all about tricks, I am extremely strong,

whether you choose to doubt it or not.

One thing I forgot to mention is games in all 3 parts have been played with ponder=on, so this somewhat decreases the time difference, but I guess, especially for closed positions, the effect would be rather small, as engines would be pondering mostly the wrong moves.

I have always wondered what the effect of ponder on game play is, I presume rather insignificant.