6 ms·

AFAIK Garry Kasparov to this day does computer&human vs. computer&human chess research, and it's far from a solved problem.

nl 6y ago
If by "it's far from a solved problem" you mean that chess isn't a solved game that's true. But Kasparov and others have given up on the idea that a human provides any unique insight into chess anymore. Computers are just better.
- sukilot 6y ago
  That's absurd. He works on human+chess research. He obviously hasn't given up on human insight. What he has given up on is a single human beating a computer.
  - nl 6y ago
    I haven't seen any recent (last 5 years or so) articles by him showing he's doing any work on it. There's a few recent articles where he talks about how humans should work with machine learning, but nothing specific. When he recently came out of chess retirement he didn't talk about it at all in either 2017 or 2019: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/06/king-back-chess-legend-garry-kasparov-comes-retirement/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/06/king-back-chess-... https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/06/chess-leonard-barden-garry-kasparov-loses-to-fabiano-caruana https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/06/chess-leonard-... There's nothing recent about him on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess
  - thelean12 6y ago
    Can a human + computer beat just a computer? I can't imagine a human doing anything besides making things worse or even.
    - scheveningen 6y ago
      It's much more difficult than it used to be, but I think there is still some value to human guidance, more as a "referee" than anything else. Right now we have essentially two top tier engines -- traditional brute force with alpha beta pruning (stockfish), and ML (leela). Both alone are incredibly strong, but they are strongest and weakest in different types of positions. A computer chess expert, who knows what kind of positions favor stockfish and what kind favor leela, could act as a "referee" between the two engines when they disagree, and when they are unanimous, simply accept the move. Ten years ago, a grandmaster driving a single engine could typically beat an equal strength engine. I don't think that's the case anymore. But I think if you have someone who is an expert at computer chess -- not so much a chess grandmaster, and you gave them Leela AND SF, and let them pick which one to use when in the case of conflicts -- they would score positive against either leela or stockfish in isolation. Larry Kaufman designed his new opening repertoire book by doing exactly this -- running Leela on 2 cores + GPU, and stockfish on 6 cores, and doing the conflict resolution with his own judgement. The human can certainly no longer pull his own moves out of thin air, though.
      - roenxi 6y ago
        Computer mastery of Go has reached the point where it is a difficult task for an expert (read: grandmaster level) human to even follow what is happening. It is totally implausible that a human could resolve a conflict between top engines in a meaningful way. It is unlikely that Chess is any different. Any superficial understanding by a human of which move is 'better' is just ignorance of the issues around evaluating a position. If you have statistical evidence that is something. 'But I think' is not evidence. It might be entertaining to have a human involved. It isn't going to help with winning games.
        tuxiano 6y ago
        I can't speak for Go but in Chess the best players in the world understand the nuances of a position still better than the computer engines and - if occasionally proven wrong by the computer analysis - are able to understand the refutation and refine their strategic eveluation. I know this because it's what I've been doing in the past seven years in the realm of correspondence chess to gain the title of international master.
- tuxiano 6y ago
  You are right if by "better" you mean "competitively stronger at tournament or rapid conditions". Humans are still way stronger strategically and competitively if given enough time and resources to avoid tactical mistakes. So yes, humans still provide unique insight into chess every day in correspondence chess or analytic research.
  - nl 6y ago
    Humans aren't stronger strategically anymore either, under any conditions. In 2014 a heavily handicapped Stockfish beat the 5th ranked player in the world (Nakamura) under tournament conditions despite no access to its opening or closing books and a one pawn handicap.
    - tuxiano 6y ago
      The match you are referring to was played under tournament conditions that clearly handicapped the human Grandmaster. I read from the report of the match [0] that "The total time for the match was more than 10 hours [...] The two decisive games lasted 147 and 97 moves." This unfavourable conditions clearly penalized the human and so the result can hardly be taken as meaningful regarding the strategic superiority. From the quietness of my room I instead regularly find strategic plans that overcome my and my opponent's computers. Feel free to join the correspondence chess federation [1] to experience the joy and pain of strategic research! [0] https://www.chess.com/news/view/stockfish-outlasts-nakamura-3634 https://www.chess.com/news/view/stockfish-outlasts-nakamura-... [1] www.iccf.com
air7 6y ago
Is human&computer better than computer only?
- pps43 6y ago
  Not really. It was tried and it turns out that the best strategy for the human is to just do what the computer suggests.
  - Strilanc 6y ago
    Could you provide a source for this?
    - tuxiano 6y ago
      I suppose he can’t because it isn’t true at all. The best correspondence players usually improve significantly over the computer suggestions. Source: I’m a corrspondence chess international master
      - vecter 6y ago
        > The best correspondence players usually improve significantly over the computer suggestions. I might be misunderstanding your claim, but how can humans playing correspondence chess beat Stockfish or Lc0?
        tuxiano 6y ago
        In official correspondence games the computer assistance is allowed so most (if not all) of the players usually start their analysis with the computer suggestions (Stockfish, Lc0 or others). Some players limit themselves to this and play the engine's move, others try to improve with their own contribution. If no human contribution was possible, correspondence chess would become an hardware fight while results show that the best players can defeat "naive" opponents that rely on computer suggestions. In this sense, every correspondence chess win is a win over the opponent's hardware and engine.
blueboo 6y ago
He recently spoke quite dismissively of computer- augmented chess on the Lex Friedman podcast. Essentially, the computer knows best...so computer and human isn’t meaningfully different from computer and rubber stamper.
- microtherion 6y ago
  Maybe the future of computer augmented chess is to form teams of a computer, a person, and a dog. The computer comes up with chess moves. The person feeds the dog. The dog makes sure the person does not touch the board.
- tuxiano 6y ago
  I strongly disagree. The best correspondence chess players often improve over the computer suggestions. It takes time, energy and a great strategic knowledge, but it’s still possibile. Source: I’m a correspondence chess international master

nl 6y ago

If by "it's far from a solved problem" you mean that chess isn't a solved game that's true. But Kasparov and others have given up on the idea that a human provides any unique insight into chess anymore. Computers are just better.

sukilot 6y ago
That's absurd. He works on human+chess research. He obviously hasn't given up on human insight. What he has given up on is a single human beating a computer.
- nl 6y ago
  I haven't seen any recent (last 5 years or so) articles by him showing he's doing any work on it. There's a few recent articles where he talks about how humans should work with machine learning, but nothing specific. When he recently came out of chess retirement he didn't talk about it at all in either 2017 or 2019: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/06/king-back-chess-legend-garry-kasparov-comes-retirement/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/06/king-back-chess-... https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/06/chess-leonard-barden-garry-kasparov-loses-to-fabiano-caruana https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/06/chess-leonard-... There's nothing recent about him on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess
- thelean12 6y ago
  Can a human + computer beat just a computer? I can't imagine a human doing anything besides making things worse or even.
  - scheveningen 6y ago
    It's much more difficult than it used to be, but I think there is still some value to human guidance, more as a "referee" than anything else. Right now we have essentially two top tier engines -- traditional brute force with alpha beta pruning (stockfish), and ML (leela). Both alone are incredibly strong, but they are strongest and weakest in different types of positions. A computer chess expert, who knows what kind of positions favor stockfish and what kind favor leela, could act as a "referee" between the two engines when they disagree, and when they are unanimous, simply accept the move. Ten years ago, a grandmaster driving a single engine could typically beat an equal strength engine. I don't think that's the case anymore. But I think if you have someone who is an expert at computer chess -- not so much a chess grandmaster, and you gave them Leela AND SF, and let them pick which one to use when in the case of conflicts -- they would score positive against either leela or stockfish in isolation. Larry Kaufman designed his new opening repertoire book by doing exactly this -- running Leela on 2 cores + GPU, and stockfish on 6 cores, and doing the conflict resolution with his own judgement. The human can certainly no longer pull his own moves out of thin air, though.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      Computer mastery of Go has reached the point where it is a difficult task for an expert (read: grandmaster level) human to even follow what is happening. It is totally implausible that a human could resolve a conflict between top engines in a meaningful way. It is unlikely that Chess is any different. Any superficial understanding by a human of which move is 'better' is just ignorance of the issues around evaluating a position. If you have statistical evidence that is something. 'But I think' is not evidence. It might be entertaining to have a human involved. It isn't going to help with winning games.
      - tuxiano 6y ago
        I can't speak for Go but in Chess the best players in the world understand the nuances of a position still better than the computer engines and - if occasionally proven wrong by the computer analysis - are able to understand the refutation and refine their strategic eveluation. I know this because it's what I've been doing in the past seven years in the realm of correspondence chess to gain the title of international master.
tuxiano 6y ago
You are right if by "better" you mean "competitively stronger at tournament or rapid conditions". Humans are still way stronger strategically and competitively if given enough time and resources to avoid tactical mistakes. So yes, humans still provide unique insight into chess every day in correspondence chess or analytic research.
- nl 6y ago
  Humans aren't stronger strategically anymore either, under any conditions. In 2014 a heavily handicapped Stockfish beat the 5th ranked player in the world (Nakamura) under tournament conditions despite no access to its opening or closing books and a one pawn handicap.
  - tuxiano 6y ago
    The match you are referring to was played under tournament conditions that clearly handicapped the human Grandmaster. I read from the report of the match [0] that "The total time for the match was more than 10 hours [...] The two decisive games lasted 147 and 97 moves." This unfavourable conditions clearly penalized the human and so the result can hardly be taken as meaningful regarding the strategic superiority. From the quietness of my room I instead regularly find strategic plans that overcome my and my opponent's computers. Feel free to join the correspondence chess federation [1] to experience the joy and pain of strategic research! [0] https://www.chess.com/news/view/stockfish-outlasts-nakamura-3634 https://www.chess.com/news/view/stockfish-outlasts-nakamura-... [1] www.iccf.com

air7 6y ago

Is human&computer better than computer only?

pps43 6y ago
Not really. It was tried and it turns out that the best strategy for the human is to just do what the computer suggests.
- Strilanc 6y ago
  Could you provide a source for this?
  - tuxiano 6y ago
    I suppose he can’t because it isn’t true at all. The best correspondence players usually improve significantly over the computer suggestions. Source: I’m a corrspondence chess international master
    - vecter 6y ago
      > The best correspondence players usually improve significantly over the computer suggestions. I might be misunderstanding your claim, but how can humans playing correspondence chess beat Stockfish or Lc0?
      - tuxiano 6y ago
        In official correspondence games the computer assistance is allowed so most (if not all) of the players usually start their analysis with the computer suggestions (Stockfish, Lc0 or others). Some players limit themselves to this and play the engine's move, others try to improve with their own contribution. If no human contribution was possible, correspondence chess would become an hardware fight while results show that the best players can defeat "naive" opponents that rely on computer suggestions. In this sense, every correspondence chess win is a win over the opponent's hardware and engine.

blueboo 6y ago

He recently spoke quite dismissively of computer- augmented chess on the Lex Friedman podcast. Essentially, the computer knows best...so computer and human isn’t meaningfully different from computer and rubber stamper.

microtherion 6y ago
Maybe the future of computer augmented chess is to form teams of a computer, a person, and a dog. The computer comes up with chess moves. The person feeds the dog. The dog makes sure the person does not touch the board.
tuxiano 6y ago
I strongly disagree. The best correspondence chess players often improve over the computer suggestions. It takes time, energy and a great strategic knowledge, but it’s still possibile. Source: I’m a correspondence chess international master