Who is stronger at chess? Computers or Humans?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

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.

Unfortunately,this can be seen only if these 2% of players will actually step forward and play the machines....
Dr.D

[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.

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

Hello Maurizio,

Thank you again for your interesting comments...

I have no doubt the mentioned GMs are GREAT players in human chess history

I respect all GMs...e.g my favorite human players are Kasparov,Carlsen...

But however,just i's like to point out that the things are changed

I mean for nowadays,the current top mp engines play much stronger than any human players

Honestly,my wish is that:the top chess program to be in equal in strenght as GMs
Like in 1990-2000 years...then Man-Machine matches were much more interesting
Because in those years we did not know or estimate exactly about who will be the winner

But today,there is a very small chance to see even draws between Man vs Machine

Btw,i can give you another examples about the current issue

Michael Schumacher (one of the best formula one racing drivers)
Usain Bolt (one of the fastest sprinters)


First example (100 meters race):
-Do you think Usain Bolt will be faster than Michael Schumacher's rally race machine ?!

Second example (100 meters race):
-Do you think Michael Schumacher (on slowest auto machine) will become faster than Usain Bolt?!


In other words,
Here are the main important factors,which are required for maximum engine Elo performance:
-Top MP Engines (recommended Houdini,Rybka,Critter)
-Fastest decent hardwares (recommended i7 6/12 or more cores is better)
-Strong Opening Book (recommended to be used a decent private book)
....



Hope this helps...


Best Regards,
Sedat

[Uri]

It doesn't really matter who is stronger. Computers are just tools for us to use. And no they can't do everything that we do. We can do alot more.

For example there is no completely computerized car in existence that can drive itself to the desired destination without making mistakes.

Chess is just a game. People take the game too seriously.

In everything you do in life, there will always be someone who is better than you at it. But so what?

[Sedat Canbaz]

It doesn't really matter who is stronger. Computers are just tools for us to use. And no they can't do everything that we do. We can do alot more.

For example there is no completely computerized car in existence that can drive itself to the desired destination without making mistakes.

Chess is just a game. People take the game too seriously.

In everything you do in life, there will always be someone who is better than you at it. But so what?

Dear Zlatnik,

Really i like your comments...

I agree with the most of your notes,even sometimes i am wondering: Computers are our worst enemies or best friends ?!

Its true that the computers make our life more enjoyable,comfortable...

There is no doubt too that many chess friends improved their playing skills by using the help of the machines

But note also that,if we really need healthy life,we should spend less time in front of our computers


Regards,
Sedat

[Milos]

Second example (100 meters race):
-Do you think Michael Schumacher (on slowest auto machine) will become faster than Usain Bolt?!

Michael Schumacher (and any other man that can shift gears if it's not an automatic car) is certainly faster than Usain Bold on 100m race with any car that can reach 100km/h in under 15s, which practically means 99.9% of normal (meaning under 2t of weight and with more than 1000ccm engine) cars not older than 10 years.
It's a matter of simple physics.

[Milos]

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.

No human was ever born or will ever be born that could win a best of 5 (no-odds/even) games match against any of those programs on that hardware. End of story. Believing differently is no different than believing in Santa.

[Sedat Canbaz]

Second example (100 meters race):
-Do you think Michael Schumacher (on slowest auto machine) will become faster than Usain Bolt?!

Michael Schumacher (and any other man that can shift gears if it's not an automatic car) is certainly faster than Usain Bold on 100m race with any car that can reach 100km/h in under 15s, which practically means 99.9% of normal (meaning under 2t of weight and with more than 1000ccm engine) cars not older than 10 years.
It's a matter of simple physics.

Actually i was meaning for older auto machines (not on decent auto cars)

Usain Bolt would win,if Michael Schumacher in an Ford Model T

or

Any Top GMs of 2800 Elo would win,if Houdini,Rybka,Critter are on Intel Pentium MMX 233



Best,
Sedat

[Uri]

I never understood why people take Chess so seriously. It's just a game.

I was never really good at chess and I will probably never become a Grandmaster (2500 Elo). I play terribly in real-life tournaments and often make terrible mistakes, often losing a rock and sometimes even a Queen.

I also can't "see" or picture the whole board and where the pieces are located all the time in my mind. First I need to be able to see the whole board without the help of a computer.

[Milos]

Actually i was meaning for older auto machines (not on decent auto cars)

Usain Bolt would win,if Michael Schumacher in an Ford Model T

Saying Ford Model T is like saying chess on Charles Babbage's mechanical computer, therefore completely meaningless.

Any Top GMs of 2800 Elo would win,if Houdini,Rybka,Critter are on Intel Pentium MMX 233

Any top GM of 2800 Elo (out of a whole bunch of one ) would hardly ever have LOS greater then 50% in a longer (even) match against any of Houndini, Rybka, Critter engines on Intel Pentium MMX 233. That is also pretty obvious since (according to your own list) the fastest hardware today is not even 400 times faster than Pentium 233 in NPS, which in real time per fixed depth is probably below 250, which again is only 8 doublings or 400-480 Elo .

[Sedat Canbaz]

Actually i was meaning for older auto machines (not on decent auto cars)

Usain Bolt would win,if Michael Schumacher in an Ford Model T

Saying Ford Model T is like saying chess on Charles Babbage's mechanical computer, therefore completely meaningless.

Any Top GMs of 2800 Elo would win,if Houdini,Rybka,Critter are on Intel Pentium MMX 233

Any top GM of 2800 Elo (out of a whole bunch of one ) would hardly ever have LOS greater then 50% in a longer (even) match against any of Houndini, Rybka, Critter engines on Intel Pentium MMX 233. That is also pretty obvious since (according to your own list) the fastest hardware today is not even 400 times faster than Pentium 233 in NPS, which in real time per fixed depth is probably below 250, which again is only 8 doublings or 400-480 Elo .

Wait a minute...it seems you and me see the world differently

If all of us will be same, the world would not be !!

Btw,what do you want to say exactly ?

What is your Elo estimation about for the current top 3 engines on on Intel Pentium MMX 233 ?

Do you mean that Houdini would be rated round 2700-2800 Elo points (on Intel Pentium MMX 233 ) ?

Code: Select all

Hardware-Processor        Speed      Cores     kN/s
2x Intel Xeon X5667     @ 4.60 GHz    12      28827
Intel Pentium MMX 233      260 MHz     1         61