Is Stockfish really better than all these human chess coaches?

[Uri]

Is Stockfish really better than chess teachers like Igor Smirnov, Robert Ris, Valeri Lilov, Adrian Mikhalchisin, Ruslan Ponomariov, Herman Grooten, Simon Williams, Sergery Karjakin and Gary Kasparov?

[towforce]

Is Stockfish really better than chess teachers like Igor Smirnov, Robert Ris, Valeri Lilov, Adrian Mikhalchisin, Ruslan Ponomariov, Herman Grooten, Simon Williams, Sergery Karjakin and Gary Kasparov?

Stockfish is not a coach. Most people cannot understand its move choices.

Better question: are humans better chess coaches than chess coaching software?

The answer: it depends!

[syzygy]

Is Stockfish really better than chess teachers like Igor Smirnov, Robert Ris, Valeri Lilov, Adrian Mikhalchisin, Ruslan Ponomariov, Herman Grooten, Simon Williams, Sergery Karjakin and Gary Kasparov?

Stockfish is a lot better at playing chess than all of them together.
Stockfish was not designed to teach you chess. It is not a chess teacher.

Of course many players successfully use Stockfish and other engines as tools to analyse games including their own games (and to prepare openings). Stockfish can be used as an "oracle", telling you what are the best moves in any given position. Thanks to Stockfish and other engines with superhuman abilities, the level of play in human chess has gone up tremendously.

In the past Russian players were generally superior because Russia had an efficient system of chess coaching and easy access to information. Today this advantage has completely disappeared, which is why Russian players no longer stand out. Instead, there are very young miracle kids popping up all over the world.

[BrendanJNorman]

Is Stockfish really better than chess teachers like Igor Smirnov, Robert Ris, Valeri Lilov, Adrian Mikhalchisin, Ruslan Ponomariov, Herman Grooten, Simon Williams, Sergery Karjakin and Gary Kasparov?

This is really not a very intelligent question.

What does "better" mean? What are you even talking about?

Because we all know that a 3800 Elo engine is *stronger* at playing chess than these guys.

But could Stockfish explain to a class of 8 year olds why material matters in some positions and doesn't in others.

Could Stockfish explain to a class of 8 year olds why rook endings can be drawn - even if you're a pawn down - as long as the pawns are on the same side of the board?

So what are you even referring to? Better at *what*?

[Father]

Is Stockfish really better than chess teachers like Igor Smirnov, Robert Ris, Valeri Lilov, Adrian Mikhalchisin, Ruslan Ponomariov, Herman Grooten, Simon Williams, Sergery Karjakin and Gary Kasparov?

This is really not a very intelligent question.

What does "better" mean? What are you even talking about?

Because we all know that a 3800 Elo engine is *stronger* at playing chess than these guys.

But could Stockfish explain to a class of 8 year olds why material matters in some positions and doesn't in others.

Could Stockfish explain to a class of 8 year olds why rook endings can be drawn - even if you're a pawn down - as long as the pawns are on the same side of the board?

So what are you even referring to? Better at *what*?

BrendanJNorman, this is my opinion: I would think that in order to explain more accurately to an 8-year-old child or to any human being about the behavior of a computer and the meaning of the movements of the computer and the human, a person would need to simultaneously possess five characteristics: 1- Be an expert in computing and chess programming; 2- Be a Grandmaster (those of us who are not masters lack the skills and chess development of a Grandmaster); 3- Be accustomed to the ecosystem of human versus machine and machine versus machine games; and finally, 4- Be a good teacher and conveyer of knowledge. Now, I would believe that even despite the advanced development of both chess computers and humans, probably, the computer is incapable of fully understanding the human, and the human is incapable of fully understanding the computer.

[Father]

Is Stockfish really better than chess teachers like Igor Smirnov, Robert Ris, Valeri Lilov, Adrian Mikhalchisin, Ruslan Ponomariov, Herman Grooten, Simon Williams, Sergery Karjakin and Gary Kasparov?

This is really not a very intelligent question.

What does "better" mean? What are you even talking about?

Because we all know that a 3800 Elo engine is *stronger* at playing chess than these guys.

But could Stockfish explain to a class of 8 year olds why material matters in some positions and doesn't in others.

Could Stockfish explain to a class of 8 year olds why rook endings can be drawn - even if you're a pawn down - as long as the pawns are on the same side of the board?

So what are you even referring to? Better at *what*?

BrendanJNorman, this is my opinion: I would think that in order to explain more accurately to an 8-year-old child or to any human being about the behavior of a computer and the meaning of the movements of the computer and the human, a person would need to simultaneously possess five characteristics: 1- Be an expert in computing and chess programming; 2- Be a Grandmaster (those of us who are not masters lack the skills and chess development of a Grandmaster); 3- Be accustomed to the ecosystem of human versus machine and machine versus machine games; and finally, 4- Be a good teacher and conveyer of knowledge. Now... 5. I would believe that even despite the advanced development of both chess computers and humans, probably, the computer is incapable of fully understanding the human, and the human is incapable of fully understanding the computer.

... I would prefer to receive lessons from a human with the characteristics I told you, assisted by AI... in my life I have never had the chance to play chess at will, over and over, against human GMs or to receive chess lessons from them, both things make me sad.

[BrendanJNorman]

Is Stockfish really better than chess teachers like Igor Smirnov, Robert Ris, Valeri Lilov, Adrian Mikhalchisin, Ruslan Ponomariov, Herman Grooten, Simon Williams, Sergery Karjakin and Gary Kasparov?

This is really not a very intelligent question.

What does "better" mean? What are you even talking about?

Because we all know that a 3800 Elo engine is *stronger* at playing chess than these guys.

But could Stockfish explain to a class of 8 year olds why material matters in some positions and doesn't in others.

Could Stockfish explain to a class of 8 year olds why rook endings can be drawn - even if you're a pawn down - as long as the pawns are on the same side of the board?

So what are you even referring to? Better at *what*?

BrendanJNorman, this is my opinion: I would think that in order to explain more accurately to an 8-year-old child or to any human being about the behavior of a computer and the meaning of the movements of the computer and the human, a person would need to simultaneously possess five characteristics: 1- Be an expert in computing and chess programming; 2- Be a Grandmaster (those of us who are not masters lack the skills and chess development of a Grandmaster); 3- Be accustomed to the ecosystem of human versus machine and machine versus machine games; and finally, 4- Be a good teacher and conveyer of knowledge. Now, I would believe that even despite the advanced development of both chess computers and humans, probably, the computer is incapable of fully understanding the human, and the human is incapable of fully understanding the computer.

You are mixing two things together which do not fit together.

NOBODY MENTIONED EXPLAINING STOCKFISH'S PLAY TO CHILDREN.

The OP asked the vague question "who is better" - a human chess coach or Stockfish.

I answered that basically the word "better" is too vague to get a real answer.


Obviously, computers have already been too strong - as an *opponent* for humans - for over a decade or more.

While nobody can match the patience, communication skill and lifetime of knowledge of a decent coach.

I did not say, nor ask who is better at explaining the moves of *computers*, since this is irrelevant to the discussion.

You need to understand the play of 2000 Elo before you try to understand the play of 3000 Elo.

And none of the chess teachers mentioned focus on explaining the play of computers anyway.

Would "yeah and Stockfish saw here that in 14 moves he'll get doubled pawns, so he played this weird rook move" be useful to learning players?

Not really. And kids get bored quickly.

An 8 year old school kid isn't pondering why Stockfish plays 16.Rc1, he wants a low theory way to handle the Sicilian, as an example.

This is why I said:

But could Stockfish explain to a class of 8 year olds why material matters in some positions and doesn't in others.

Could Stockfish explain to a class of 8 year olds why rook endings can be drawn - even if you're a pawn down - as long as the pawns are on the same side of the board?

Apples and oranges. Stockfish is a tool for stronger players (and computer chess lovers like us),while coaches guide you to becoming a stronger player yourself.

[tapio]

The question makes no sense, but I am really curious in how there'll be AI companions explaining games in a human way.

[towforce]

A lot of pro-human bias ("anthropocentrism") in this thread. If effort and dedication go into chess-coaching software, then it will...

1. present patterns of play that raise chess skill more quickly

2. adapt more quickly to the coaching requirements of the human it is teaching

3. teach patterns that humans don't even know