4 ms·
You are right if by "better" you mean "competitively stronger at tournament or rapid conditions". Humans are still way stronger strategically and competitively
by 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 agoHumans 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 agoThe 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