Rybka means little fish in polish so it's kinda funny that now we have stockfish

This is Kramnik speaking🤣

Surely if you're facing the source of the cheating, it's not cheating, even if you cheat?

​@@AURON2401 You missed the point so hard that I had to caught it for you lmao. He meant to say that if he had cheated by using the program (which runs using the exact same algorithm), he wouldn't made it. Because it was programmed to find the "most efficient move to win" instead of the most logical one.

​@@monke4044there is truth to what he is saying tho', since the engine can and has beaten itself when playing both sides. Not saying that's the case here, but It is possible.

Yes, that's quite an accurate summary!

Even humans will think they are winning if they have two rooks against two minor pieces

​@@charlesa1234 Human 'might think' like that however they are not programmed to think like that. The ai will always prefer the rooks but humans could think otherwise

@@wallnut7624It already happened for an AI to not let their bishop get traded for a rook, AIs can very much decide that their bishop is better than a rook, they just don’t understand completely closed positions

Closed positions are really hard for computer yeah, mainly because the gamestate is position based and not move based. So it needs to go by experience which the Ai lacks.

Thanks for the laugh mate hahaha

Yeah of course, its from move 27, it was forced mate in 250, there WAS amother in 357 but, ohhhh well

I’m surprised he didn’t premove it.

It's just takes, then takes, then if takes then take, take take, shuffle a bit... then takes, takes takes...

I didnt know you like chess as well

@@kinggloxinia5091 eh, it's ok. I'm not good at it.

Where a little fish is not comfortable.

Where Mr hoodieguy waits for his finisher

The engine is called Rybka which means little fish in Slavic languages

LOL

5 bishops. ;)

​@@Alexxx95_HOne was lost to Devil's devious deceptions.

Aah, glad to see people still remember the great Zap Brannigan!

Where is that from

@@onatkorucu842 blasphemy sir! :) It's from Futurama

@@onatkorucu842 Those are the words of Zap Brannigan, describing how he became a legend. From the gem that is Futurama.

I'll take it as a compliment! xD

@@MustreaderChess Fwiw I think you look cool as heck. Love your shirt/top. Great video! I remember hearing Hikaru say that you more-or-less deal with cheaters this way too, close the position, play for time. If only it could be as effective as it was in this game all the time.

@@mrjoe5292 Thanks! That’s an interesting point about cheaters!

Oh, now I see it.

The glasses look like Elton John but everything else reminded me so much of Ferris Bueller (Mathew Broderick).

The bishops at the end was just disrespectful

@@Osmotic I bet Rubka's fans sounded like a jet engines, because he was rage heating so hard.

that does not happen any more. Best chess engines evaluate by winning probability

@@chrisvolk1762 It can still happen somewhat, but neural networks make it a lot less likely. The issue is these older engines were basically just brute force calculators. Modern engines are usually hybrid engines that also use machine learning as well as brute force calculations, which fixes a lot of the weaknesses they previously had.

​@@eragon78 they still use a k-step look ahead. At least alphazero did. Just dont look st all possible combinations

@@fangiscool1 Yes, no matter what algorithm you use, its always going to have a k-step look ahead. This is inherent to how chess works, even humans do a similar thing. The difference, and advantage humans and Machine Learning AI have over brute force AI is that they have a better positional evaluation. They can understand specific structures in chess a lot more, and understand whether or not those structures are actually an advantage or not. They can also check prime moves to see if the structure ever significantly changes or not in the near future, which can change the evaluation. even with K-step limitations, a strong machine learning AI can see that a structure may not have changed much in 20+ moves, and realize that the position is probably more likely to draw if it cant force any significant change in it's advantage. Humans can do the same thing, but even better, even if our ability to look ahead is much lower, our positional understanding is better still. And then brute force AI cant really realize that. It's positional analysis is really poor, usually just some sum of points based on very simple things like material advantage, and maybe only a few hand written specific values for positional advantage. (Something like a passed pawn being worth more points than a blockaded pawn as an example). But outside of very simple metrics, it's evaluation of each position is generally very poor, it just gets over that with brute forcing an insane amount of positions. But since it's ability to analyze each position is really poor, it can get tripped up in closed positions where it cant brute force enough positions to get out of the closed position. It just sees that in 30+ moves from now, it may still have a material advantage, so it thinks it's winning when its not. But Machine Learning AI has a structural neural network which somewhat encodes positional evaluations into it's algorithm. This means it is SIGNFICANTLY stronger in single positional analysis. And it can see that in 30+ moves, the position is pretty much still equal with no real breakthroughs. This makes it give much more even results for those closed positions, and it wont just throw away the game to break out of a closed position unless it think's the position is still pretty even afterwards, which it is much better at evaluating. Of course, these Machine Learning AI still are not nearly as strong as humans in single positional evaluation. Humans are by far the best at evaluating a single position intuitively without any thinking ahead or move considerations. But since machine learning systems are still hybrids, they can still brute force many many many orders of magnitude more positions than a human to largely make up that difference. But a strong enough human can still play very anti-engine chess and get draws using similar methods of forcing closed positions which the Engine may be too quick to agree to in exchange for a minor advantage it can never truly capitalize on. But beating a modern strong engine using a method like this is significantly less likely. Especially one on proper hardware in a classical time format where it has plenty of time to calculate. There are still some positions modern engines are bad at calculating, but its usually not enough of an error for a human to be able to beat them, at least not in any "traditional" game of chess. You CAN make positions though that an engine THINKS is winning for the engine, but then beat the engine, but these require really extreme positions that arent possible in a normal game of chess.

This is true. I don't know how to do a 7 bishop checkmate either. Every time I'm in that position, I stick 6 of the bishops in my butt and end up stalemating with the last bishop. But what other moves are there?

LOL

Yes, it's interesting! In Russian, it means the same, BTW

Isn't rybka like a small fish ? A fishlet, if you will ? With "ryba" being "fish" and -ka being cutesy/hypocoristic

It is!@@paulbarbat1926

My chess machine, back in the 1980s, won the first (and only) computer correspondence chess championship. Its name was Piranha. 6502 48K RAM, 1 140k floppy drive, used Monte Carlo to play many thousands of full games while playing (deep analysis ca 60-200 games per move). It also had a contempt factor, so Piranha bad sacced a pawn. Opponent was cheating (human moves) and tried to win with the horizon effect (which would have beaten any stock computer chess machine of the time) but since my bot played full games with a bit of Hans Kmoch (pawn structure database) it refused to gobble a "free" pawn, which would give the cheater a passed pawn (it would have been protected). Closed position, single bishop (his) vs single monster central knight (Piranha). My Apple 2 died shortly after that, and all the code was on thermal paper. The computer magazine that sponsored the contest went out of business later in the 1980s. Piranha means fish, very hungry.

Wow! An impressive story! Where can I find the games? Can you email them to mazdrid@gmail.com?@@Galahad54

I can imagine!

Has he put it un a video as yet?

LOL

​@@MustreaderChess I got 150ug dr seuss d.s.3s

I've heard about Tinsley. His life story is very impressive!

It was true in case of Rybka. It had built in instructions that it should avoid draws with lower rated opponents - and you can see this very well in the movie. It run exactly 49 moves without moving a pawn or taking anything , and than, becouse next move like that would be a draw with lower rated opponent - it's evaluation of best move gets overrided by build in instruction to do anything that can prolong the game, even if it's at the cost of loosing material and worsening it's own position. So it's giving up a pawn for no reason, just to not get a draw announced. it did not had anything to do with it's evaluating algorithm - this one was fine (of course way weaker than this of the current top engines). Problem was exactly this instruction that should never exist. Under no condition engine should do a move that it's own evaluating alghorytm sees as worsening the position.

@@kkmiroslaw " It had built in instructions that it should avoid draws with lower rated opponents" I doubt that it had "instructions", but if you have some official confirmation about this please share it. The only thing can be used in engines for this is the contempt factor which is the value of the draw itself which is usually 0 . It does not know the rating of the opponent, a chess engine just trying to find the best move in a given time assuming perfect play. They might set this to minus anything but this is risky.

@@kkmiroslaw also the big mistake of rybka does not come from anything like this, it is in timetrouble and basically has no time to do any deep analyses.

@@mgoogyi I guess we don't know how it evaluated the position internally, but just on piece score if it was at +4, then a 50th move which resulted in a draw would have seemed worse than giving up a pawn that resulted in a piece score of +3. So without the ability to see far enough into the game to understand that the +3 was really just drawn as well then it would obviously favour giving up the pawn to keep the game going when it thinks it has an advantage.

@@mattc3581 It would definetly give up pawns until it sees that's better than a draw. It had 2 rooks vs 2 minor pieces and it was way before neural network based engines so it is likely does not see that's a dead draw. It does not lost because of this whatever was the contempt value. It lost because of time trouble and most engines can't handle it properly. (My hobby was actually chess engine programming for around 8 years and all the engines are quite similar in main functionality.)

Disrespect Speedrun by Rybka xD

I'm glad you liked it! Check out my other videos!

The greatest weakness (or, rather, bug in the system) seems to be its lack of objectivity in a dead drawn position. Time pressure probably just made it worse. As for other cases of humans defeating engines on equal terms, I’ve heard only about such cases in hyperbullet (15 sec games)

But why on super low time, we have change? I mean almost no one can play 15 sec game. I barely play one min with just move piece

@@dimitriskontoleon6787 The big advantage these old engines had over humans was that they could crunch millions of positions per second. But the game tree is huge if you evaluate every legal combination of moves. So even the computer can run into time trouble if it searches only "randomly". Rybka used of course methods to only search parts of the game tree that look promising, but this is much more sophisticated in newer engines.

Yes, but in this case, any human pro will know it's a dead draw

@@MustreaderChess yes but atleast they will try to win considering you are playing against a player significantly weaker than you

However, this was before the modern-day neural networks emerged, this has changed everything (in chess as well as other aspects of life)

@@MustreaderChess has anyone since 2008 beaten or perhaps drawed a modern chess AI (within the last three years for example)? or was 2008 the last time this happened?

@@MustreaderChess They still not thinking or reading. They just better at the brute force massive calculations and pattern solving after all a lot of this copied by how this process done in nature by various animals. But it stuff done by animals that can't beat the higher end predators thinking.

Computers not beating Poker or Bridge yet. In particular bluffing hard to deal with as good players will change their bluffing pattern. They are dang good at both but the top players own them.

Yep!

Humans also have their own bugs! xD

Yep it how you beat human look for their bugs in play.

Glad that you liked it!

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it, check out my other videos!

Thanks!

Its impossible. Happenend thousands times and why do you want that? You can practic against stockfish always you want but you will feel bullyed

@@flacsomtodosclas2165 skill issue

😥

LOL