Why there is no interest in Computer with odds Vs Humans match?

[jp]

Simuls are splitting one human's mental resources, so it's like limiting or splitting hardware resources. I'm not sure what would be analogous to blindfold play for engines. Maybe having no RAM.

Using only a single core is essentially like a simul, since the machine could play as many games as it has cores (or one less than cores) at once with almost no loss in strength below its single core level on one game.

There's no reason why it has to be a minimum of one core per opponent. Having (the equivalent of) 100 humans playing one core is just as valid, or probably more valid, because clearly a human playing a simul is having his strength decreased, even if his opponents are too weak for it to matter.

It all depends what one hopes to gain from the match.

[Ovyron]

It all depends what one hopes to gain from the match.

Oh yeah, I don't think I've seen what is expected to be gained from a Knight odds match.

[Chessqueen]

It all depends what one hopes to gain from the match.

Oh yeah, I don't think I've seen what is expected to be gained from a Knight odds match.

Chess is about winning. Do you play chess against an engine to lose? What is the point, or you play chess to lose as long as you look good losing against an engine? Honestly Humans do NOT have a chance playing against computer engines, and let say that you want to have a least a chance of winning against an engine rated 600 or 800 Elo rating above you, all that you have to do is remove a knight and give it a shot. I will bet that you will enjoy it more than simply being totally outplayed. Nobody want to see a game that you lost against an engine rated 800 points above you, what is the point of that

Try it, pick up an engine that you believe it is between 600 thru 800 Elo above you and let us know how you won and post your interesting game here.

[lkaufman]

It all depends what one hopes to gain from the match.

Oh yeah, I don't think I've seen what is expected to be gained from a Knight odds match.

Chess is about winning. Do you play chess against an engine to lose? What is the point, or you play chess to lose as long as you look good losing against an engine? Honestly Humans do NOT have a chance playing against computer engines, and let say that you want to have a least a chance of winning against an engine rated 600 or 800 Elo rating above you, all that you have to do is remove a knight and give it a shot. I will bet that you will enjoy it more than simply being totally outplayed. Nobody want to see a game that you lost against an engine rated 800 points above you, what is the point of that

Try it, pick up an engine that you believe it is between 600 thru 800 Elo above you and let us know how you won and post your interesting game here.

Both my son and I have played many games against Komodo, Komodo MCTS, and Lc0 11248 (the one that's good at handicap play) at a wide variety of handicaps and time limits. I find "slow blitz" (usually 5' + 5") to be the most enjoyable; slow enough that I don't generally blunder or flag, fast enough to play several games in one session. I can play fairly evenly with level 13, which I believe is a somewhat randomized five ply search, but when I win I just feel like all I've done is beaten a weak player who just avoids huge blunders. But against the full strength engines, knight odds is clearly the most interesting and competitive handicap. Rook odds is just too easy, while smaller handicaps like two pawns, knight for pawn, f7 and 3 moves, etc. are challenging but ultimately we usually lose. Knight odds is just about right, at least for the two Komodos; with Lc0 11248 on my 2080 even at knight odds a draw is usually the best I can do. I'm roughly a 2200 blitz player (FIDE, USCF, or online), my son is 2300 or a bit more. So this doesn't mean knight odds is right for everyone or every time limit. For a 2600 GM the time limit has to be much faster for knight odds to be competitive (maybe 3' + 1"); for a 2000 level player something like 45' + 15" might be right for knight odds. I would just say that knight odds distorts the game less than any other handicap that is suitable for master or near-master level players against Komodo or the old Lc0 network. We often get normal-looking openings; it's easy to overlook that it's a handicap game if you don't count the pieces!

[Nordlandia]

Each year the maximum alloted odds for engines increase as both hardware like cpu & engines get better. Now i'm curious to know what is possible the present sweet spot ? -> two pawns + move or knight for pawn with or without moving first ?

P.S. -> Namakura said few years ago than he will beat any engine in the foreseeable future with knights odds handicap. Is his claim plausible ?

[Uri Blass]

Each year the maximum alloted odds for engines increase as both hardware like cpu & engines get better. Now i'm curious to know what is possible the present sweet spot ? -> two pawns + move or knight for pawn with or without moving first ?

P.S. -> Namakura said few years ago than he will beat any engine in the foreseeable future with knights odds handicap. Is his claim plausible ?

1)I would like to know what is the max possible handicap that it is possible to give to engines and still draw or win.

For example let one side be latest stockfish with million nodes per move and no ponder and the opponent is allowed to use computer help and take back moves with no limit.

What is the maximal handicap that the opponent can win?
What is the maximal handicap that the opponent can draw?

I wonder what is your opinion(I guess the answer for the first question is bigger than a knight when the answer for the second question is bigger than a rook).

2)I think that it may be interesting to have a game between a strong GM and centaur with a knight handicap when the target of the centaur should be not to lose when the centaur is allowed to take back moves with no limit but need to stop the game after 6 hours for adjudication based on the final position(if there is a doubt about the result adjudication can be done simply based on the result of a comp-comp game from the final position at 90+30).

The time limit for the GM can be 90+30(when every takeback by the centaur add 30 seconds to the clock of the GM) when the centaur has no time limit but if the centaur does not get a drawn or a winning position after 6 hours then it is considered to be a win for the GM so playing too slowly is not going to be a good strategy for the centaur.

Can the GM win with knight handicap with these conditions?

[Chessqueen]

It all depends what one hopes to gain from the match.

Oh yeah, I don't think I've seen what is expected to be gained from a Knight odds match.

Chess is about winning. Do you play chess against an engine to lose? What is the point, or you play chess to lose as long as you look good losing against an engine? Honestly Humans do NOT have a chance playing against computer engines, and let say that you want to have a least a chance of winning against an engine rated 600 or 800 Elo rating above you, all that you have to do is remove a knight and give it a shot. I will bet that you will enjoy it more than simply being totally outplayed. Nobody want to see a game that you lost against an engine rated 800 points above you, what is the point of that

Try it, pick up an engine that you believe it is between 600 thru 800 Elo above you and let us know how you won and post your interesting game here.

Both my son and I have played many games against Komodo, Komodo MCTS, and Lc0 11248 (the one that's good at handicap play) at a wide variety of handicaps and time limits. I find "slow blitz" (usually 5' + 5") to be the most enjoyable; slow enough that I don't generally blunder or flag, fast enough to play several games in one session. I can play fairly evenly with level 13, which I believe is a somewhat randomized five ply search, but when I win I just feel like all I've done is beaten a weak player who just avoids huge blunders. But against the full strength engines, knight odds is clearly the most interesting and competitive handicap. Rook odds is just too easy, while smaller handicaps like two pawns, knight for pawn, f7 and 3 moves, etc. are challenging but ultimately we usually lose. Knight odds is just about right, at least for the two Komodos; with Lc0 11248 on my 2080 even at knight odds a draw is usually the best I can do. I'm roughly a 2200 blitz player (FIDE, USCF, or online), my son is 2300 or a bit more.


So this doesn't mean knight odds is right for everyone or every time limit. For a 2600 GM the time limit has to be much faster for knight odds to be competitive (maybe 3' + 1"); for a 2000 level player something like 45' + 15" might be right for knight odds. I would just say that knight odds distorts the game less than any other handicap that is suitable for master or near-master level players against Komodo or the old Lc0 network. We often get normal-looking openings; it's easy to overlook that it's a handicap game if you don't count the pieces!

That is correct knight odds is not not right for everyone or every time limit. But if you know that you are lets say around 1700, 1800 ,1900 or 2000 FIDE player for example for a 2000 FIDE rated, you will pick an engine rated around 2700 or 2800 by the CCRL with a Knight odds and play several games at TC of 5' + 5" etc......

[jp]

It all depends what one hopes to gain from the match.

Oh yeah, I don't think I've seen what is expected to be gained from a Knight odds match.

Chess is about winning. Do you play chess against an engine to lose? What is the point, or you play chess to lose as long as you look good losing against an engine?

Not "playing to lose" may be why humans, and this is more true the stronger the human, prefer to play other humans, not computers (and also part of why some programmers want engines to have more "human-like" play).

Again, if people enjoy playing handicap games against engines, that's good enough reason for them to keep doing so, and I don't want to sound negative about doing it. But there's no natural standard unit of computing power, and all engines have always relied on brute-force calculation to win.

[lkaufman]

Each year the maximum alloted odds for engines increase as both hardware like cpu & engines get better. Now i'm curious to know what is possible the present sweet spot ? -> two pawns + move or knight for pawn with or without moving first ?

P.S. -> Namakura said few years ago than he will beat any engine in the foreseeable future with knights odds handicap. Is his claim plausible ?

It is vital to state the time limit when talking about any computer vs human chess game. We're probably already at the point where Lc0 network 11248 (before they introduced resignation) can give N odds in 3' + 1" blitz to Nakamura with decent results. Lc0 11248 plays it like a super human GM would, looking for any way to complicate, like an early g4 for example. It is just much more effective than playing "proper" chess like any A/B engine will do. But at say 45' + 15" I would say two pawns and move or knight (b1 or g1) for p (b7 or c7) is about the limit.

[jp]

We're probably already at the point where Lc0 network 11248 (before they introduced resignation) can give N odds in 3' + 1" blitz to Nakamura with decent results. Lc0 11248 plays it like a super human GM would, looking for any way to complicate, like an early g4 for example. It is just much more effective than playing "proper" chess like any A/B engine will do.

Do you think Lc0 11248 is playing "practically" or "bluffing", rather than correctly or soundly?
If so, is that just with the handicap or when it's down material?