3 ms·
> Two humans playing each other, it's just a question: who's score goes down less each time they make a move? It became a little sad. It seemed like either you
by keerthiko 5y ago
> Two humans playing each other, it's just a question: who's score goes down less each time they make a move? It became a little sad. It seemed like either you can make the right move, or you make a sub-optimal move, and the winner is simply the one who makes the fewer sub-optimal moves.
What you describe is when a perfect chess-playing computer (approx AlphaZero) observes two humans playing. What humans observe watching two humans playing (including the participating humans) is very similar to what you described AlphaZero vs Stockfish as. The only difference is we don't ask human players to ascribe a score to their opponent's move (and wouldn't expect it to be accurate)
- tetha 5y agoThis depends on the level of the player observing the game, compared to the players level. It's pretty common to have a strong player at a masters level pointing out subtle positional or tactical mistakes, but the enemy is not skilled enough to exploit those - so the mistakes do not matter at that level. This is also something to keep in mind to not get discouraged: Just because every move is terrible to a 3500+ chess engine at some level, it does not mean these concerns always apply to you at half that rating.