Who is stronger at chess? Computers or Humans?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Human Grandmasters are still much better than computers. It is also logical because humans were the creators of computers and a creation can never be better (or smarter) than the creator.

Computers are just tools, nothing more.

Are still much better

Do you actually believe in this

[Uri]

I beg to disagree: even my neighbor's Renault Twingo is faster than me... (And this is only half a joke: Karpov had the exact same argument regarding Deep Thought).

In speed yes but when it comes to artificial intelligence that is still not the case. When it comes to who is smarter, human chess champions still outsmart computers by far.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Human Grandmasters are still much better than computers. It is also logical because humans were the creators of computers and a creation can never be stronger than the creator.

Computers are just tools, nothing more.

I beg to disagree: even my neighbor's Renault Twingo is faster than me... (And this is only half a joke: Karpov had the exact same argument regarding Deep Thought).

The Twingo outruns you

Shame on you then

[Sedat Canbaz]

Human Grandmasters are still much better than computers. It is also logical because humans were the creators of computers and a creation can never be stronger than the creator.

Computers are just tools, nothing more.

I beg to disagree: even my neighbor's Renault Twingo is faster than me... (And this is only half a joke: Karpov had the exact same argument regarding Deep Thought).

Actually Zlatnik has right...

I can give you another example about the current complicated issue:
-Humans are the creators of invalid bicycles,but i can run faster than them

I mean for some chess friends: Houdini is best,for some Rybka or for some Komodo...

Even there are some people who believe that Chess Tiger is best software or Rebel...and so on

In other words,the engine elo performance depends on what kind of chess software

I think,Maurizio should be more clear with announcing 'best software'


Best,
Sedat

[Sedat Canbaz]

Hi all,

who is stronger: computers or humans? I mean, best software on i7 980x (6 cores 3,33 GHz, 16 GB of RAM) against best human player. 15 Moves of book for the computer, taken from the best recent public book. No tablebases.
How much elo distance on 120/40 repeated?

Thanks for voting

Best regards

Dear Maurizio,

First of all thank you for your poll

I see you cloned my poll,without my permission and now i will loose many voters !!
I am just joking

Actually your poll is good,it has more detailed options...

But anyway i think you handicapped the match conditions

Why i7 980X processor should run be run at default speed 3.33 GHz?

i7 980X can easily be overclocked to @4.0GHz or @4.4GHz

Why you did not mentioned also 12 core Intel Xeon machines,those processor are real monster for chess?

Another handicapped condition is 'no tablebases' why no endgames ??

The most handicapped condition is,if the engines will be played with 'public book' why ??

Plus,how can we be sure ?...GMs can look for weakness in the public books
I mean,before starting the serious matches-Man vs Machine

Note also that i am organizing serious opening book tournaments since several years and so far i did not find 'best' book
In opening theory, there is no such term 'best book'

All experienced users know very well that the strongest opening books are private

Btw,which are the best chess softwares ?



Best,
Sedat

Hello Sedat, i wanted to give voice to your poll here live.

As regards the conditions i mentioned a single processor not overclocked but anyway powerful because i didn't consider needed something more extreme for the judge of the people.

About the tablebases, considering that the human has no tablebases or if he has it is due to his extraordinary memory, i preferred avoiding to give this benefit to the engine.

As regards the opening book, i choose a 15 moves of high quality and recent, trying to give both the same chances. Perhaps it would have been better a private book, but if i gave a private book, it would have been certainly made anti-human.

As regards the best software (without s) i let people decide what it should be. I have an idea, of course, but i didn't want to force the decision.

Same for the human player.

Thanks for interesting.

Best Regards

Dear Maurizio,

Thank you again...

But doubling a similar clone poll...we will not gain nothing,exception only comments

I think, its better idea for next time, if you make a new poll:
Challenge:Top GMs vs Sedat Canbaz's Top Engines

What will be the Elo difference ?
1)More than 500 Elo
2)Less than 500 Elo



Best,
Sedat

[Uri]

Are still much better

Do you actually believe in this

Depends against whom. A leading chess algorithm like Stockfish 2.2.2JA or Houdini 2.0c Pro running on a Xeon E7-2870 PC would probably defeat 98% of chess players in the world.

But there is still this 2% of high-quality chess players left that this chess algorithm would probably lose to.

[JuLieN]

Are still much better

Do you actually believe in this

Depends against whom. A leading chess algorithm like Stockfish 2.2.2JA or Houdini 2.0c Pro running on a Xeon E7-2870 PC would probably defeat 98% of chess players in the world.

But there is still this 2% of high-quality chess players left that this chess algorithm would probably lose to.

A 80ies' chess computer of good quality could yet defeat 99% of the people in the world, Uri So I think you really underestimate the programs. Are you aware that any man-machine match has been won by the machines since a decade? (this include World Champions like Kramnik). Nowadays, no top-20 Super-GM would risk to get ridiculed by such a match. Or they would money their shame for a big pile of money and some advantages against the machine (like during the recent GM<>Rybka matches).

[Sedat Canbaz]

Are still much better

Do you actually believe in this

Depends against whom. A leading chess algorithm like Stockfish 2.2.2JA or Houdini 2.0c Pro running on a Xeon E7-2870 PC would probably defeat 98% of chess players in the world.

But there is still this 2% of high-quality chess players left that this chess algorithm would probably lose to.

+1

[MM]

Are still much better

Do you actually believe in this

Depends against whom. A leading chess algorithm like Stockfish 2.2.2JA or Houdini 2.0c Pro running on a Xeon E7-2870 PC would probably defeat 98% of chess players in the world.

But there is still this 2% of high-quality chess players left that this chess algorithm would probably lose to.

Hi,

the point is:

the engines have a very limited knowledge of chess. The few they know has been teached them by their programmers. For the rest, their strenght is based on calculation. In fact, more you give them power of calculation and more they become stronger and stronger.
They cannot plan. They search the best lines (they search what they think they are the best lines, even engines make many mistakes in analysis, just need to observe a game with the analysis of some engine).

humans have a vast and deep knowledge of chess.
They perfectly know what is important and what is not. They can plan easily, on short medium and long range.
They can judge, with a little calculation, if an apparently difficult endgame is won, draw or lost.

They suddenly recognize a bad piece (for example a bad bishop blocked by its own pawns, typical of the bishop b7 for black in many endgames and sometimes in middlegame).

They know (and they know what and why are) the main concept of a position on the board and calculation, for humans, it is only a method to be sure to go for the right road.

Althought in recent years the positional play of the engines has been improved, i think there is still a huge difference in this field in favour of humans as there is a huge (of course) difference of tactics ability in favour of engines.

The main point is: can humans compensate their relative weakness in tactics with their deep knowledge of basic principle of chess?

Let's make an example: sometimes, some very strong human (some years ago Carlsen) sacrifices its rook for a minor for two reasons: the bad coordination of the opponent pieces and the total control of the light squares.

How many engines would have done the same thing basing on these factors so relatively axtract?

Carlsen had a huge advantage for the whole game but its opponent found a good defence and it was a drew.

But it was an example.

I think a 2800 is not there cause its tactical ability against other humans.
I think he has a very deep knowledge of every corner of a chess game.

If he had a micro chip in the head, he would be almost perfect.

In the same way, if modern engines would have the neurons of a 2800 GMs would be almost perfect.

Mikhail Botvinnik, former world champion (many times) was famous for many things: one of this was that he forced himself to avoid any kind of tactical position against Tal in the rematch for the world title. And he won.

Would have he lost against a computer?

I don't know, who knows, he was strategical and positional (and tactical of course, like everybody).

Tigran Petrosian, probably the best defender of chess history (Bobby Fischer suffered so many times against him)..

The correspondant players are extremely strong, not only nowadays. In history they have been always very strong. The quality of their games have always been at the top.
Why?

It's obvious, because they have a huge amount of time to ponder.

But this thing, what does it mean?

It means simply that humans scales perfectly, that if you give enough time to think, human can explore every corner of the position and very hardly he can make a strategical or tactical mistake.

Everybody, of course, is free to have an idea and i don't think that what i wrote will make someone change its mind.

My hope is just that someone could consider it like a point a new, deeper thinking.

Thank you for reading

Best Regards

[rbarreira]

Human Grandmasters are still much better than computers. It is also logical because humans were the creators of computers and a creation can never be better (or smarter) than the creator.

Computers are just tools, nothing more.

Are still much better

Do you actually believe in this

I propose a battle between Uri and an industrial robot.