5 ms·

> the best players would work with the computer rather than against it He was certainly talking about "advanced chess"[1], where computers are used to make mov

> the best players would work with the computer rather than against it He was certainly talking about "advanced chess"[1], where computers are used to make move suggestions but the human player actually selects the move to play. This combination of human+engine is consistently stronger than the strongest chess engines on their own. This fact also demonstrates that chess engines do not simply recommend "the best move". Since chess is not mathematically solved, it is actually meaningless to speak of "the best move", unqualified. Certain positions are solved, such that in those positions an objectively best move does provably exist, but the vast majority of the game is still mysterious. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess

roenxi 5y ago
That sounds optimistic given the advent of the neural nets, which seem to roughly match human positional judgement. Any assumptions from pre-2016 seem suspect.
noir_lord 5y ago
> This combination of human+engine is consistently stronger than the strongest chess engines on their own. This was true when computers where approach/just met the strength of the best humans. I'm not aware anyone has done it seriously recently and at this point the computers are so insanely strong relative to a human I think the human would just be along for the ride.
- routerl 5y ago
  The best chess engines in the world operate at a ~3500 rating level. For context, Magnus Carlsen's peak rating was 2882 (i.e. the highest rating ever achieved by a human). Combinations of human+engine operate at a ~3800 rating level. I take your point, and it is a good one, but you've drawn too strong a conclusion. We haven't yet reached the point where the human adds nothing to the game.
  - thom 5y ago
    Do you have details of recent tournaments between centaurs and engines? Would be interesting to study.
  - dmurray 5y ago
    > Combinations of human+engine operate at a ~3800 rating level. They...really don't? There aren't competitive matches between human/computer teams at classical time controls. There are correspondence games, which is presumably what you're referring to, which are officially played by humans but with unlimited access to computers. But those are played at a time control of multiple days per move. It's true that there still seems to be some human skill involved in leading the computer, balancing the outputs of different engines, finding moves which your opponent's engine may misevaluate. A beginner with a powerful computer won't win the ICCF World Championship. But firstly this is a very niche activity compared to the one Magnus Carlsen competes at, and secondly I don't see any evidence that an unassisted engine scores only 15% against top correspondence players, which would be necessary for a 300-point disparity. At the very least I'd expect it to draw almost all its games as White.
  - hbarka 5y ago
    Human+StackOverflow operate at a high coding level.
    - moffkalast 5y ago
      It is known.
    - wiz21c 5y ago
      only when using the gossip protocol :-)
  - AlbertCory 5y ago
    How tech advances. In 2017, Kasparov said that the best computers were at 3200, and he was 2850.
  - bluecalm 5y ago
    You can't compare ELO ratings from different populations. They are like different units. It used to be the case that human+computer combo was better than a computer alone but it's most likely not the case anymore. Even if it is the difference is miniscule. It seems you're a bit behind recent developments in computer chess. It's worth catching up, modern engines have way superior understanding (in collapsing to human GMs) of positional chess and traditionally hard openings like King's Indian.
causi 5y ago
objectively best move does provably exist Against a perfectly rational opponent, sure. Is it impossible for a sub-optimal move to throw a human player off their game, confuse, or otherwise emotionally-manipulate them in a way that makes it more effective than the "solved" move would be?
- routerl 5y ago
  Of course it is possible to exploit the psychology of the opponent. Bluffing does exist in chess, and it relies on your opponent's inability to realize that you've made a sub-optimal move. For example, at the highest levels, grandmasters often attempt to increase the amount of complications in a position, which is a way of making the claim that "I can calculate more moves, more quickly, than you"; if that isn't true, then it is a bluff, which doesn't mean it won't work. But in a solved position, the best move is irrefutable. Perfect play by both opponents in a solved game always leads to a draw (e.g. tic-tac-toe, checkers). In chess, the best move in a solved position always also anticipates every possible response by the opponent. This is the entire point of opening theory, and is why chess players speak of "punishing" their opponents; if I play an ideal move in a solved position, and you play a less-than-ideal move in response, I have already gained an advantage.
  - chongli 5y ago
    I play an ideal move in a solved position, and you play a less-than-ideal move in response, I have already gained an advantage. That assumes the less-than-ideal move stays within your preparation. If, on the other hand, you dismissed that move during preparation because of its sub optimal evaluation then I have succeeded in getting you out of prep and into a middle game with a small disadvantage but potentially a lot of play. If I can then steer the game down a very sharp line then your small advantage means a lot less due to the dynamics of the position.
    - in3d 5y ago
      Your response doesn’t apply to truly solved positions.

roenxi 5y ago

That sounds optimistic given the advent of the neural nets, which seem to roughly match human positional judgement. Any assumptions from pre-2016 seem suspect.

noir_lord 5y ago

> This combination of human+engine is consistently stronger than the strongest chess engines on their own. This was true when computers where approach/just met the strength of the best humans. I'm not aware anyone has done it seriously recently and at this point the computers are so insanely strong relative to a human I think the human would just be along for the ride.

routerl 5y ago
The best chess engines in the world operate at a ~3500 rating level. For context, Magnus Carlsen's peak rating was 2882 (i.e. the highest rating ever achieved by a human). Combinations of human+engine operate at a ~3800 rating level. I take your point, and it is a good one, but you've drawn too strong a conclusion. We haven't yet reached the point where the human adds nothing to the game.
- thom 5y ago
  Do you have details of recent tournaments between centaurs and engines? Would be interesting to study.
- dmurray 5y ago
  > Combinations of human+engine operate at a ~3800 rating level. They...really don't? There aren't competitive matches between human/computer teams at classical time controls. There are correspondence games, which is presumably what you're referring to, which are officially played by humans but with unlimited access to computers. But those are played at a time control of multiple days per move. It's true that there still seems to be some human skill involved in leading the computer, balancing the outputs of different engines, finding moves which your opponent's engine may misevaluate. A beginner with a powerful computer won't win the ICCF World Championship. But firstly this is a very niche activity compared to the one Magnus Carlsen competes at, and secondly I don't see any evidence that an unassisted engine scores only 15% against top correspondence players, which would be necessary for a 300-point disparity. At the very least I'd expect it to draw almost all its games as White.
- hbarka 5y ago
  Human+StackOverflow operate at a high coding level.
  - moffkalast 5y ago
    It is known.
  - wiz21c 5y ago
    only when using the gossip protocol :-)
- AlbertCory 5y ago
  How tech advances. In 2017, Kasparov said that the best computers were at 3200, and he was 2850.
- bluecalm 5y ago
  You can't compare ELO ratings from different populations. They are like different units. It used to be the case that human+computer combo was better than a computer alone but it's most likely not the case anymore. Even if it is the difference is miniscule. It seems you're a bit behind recent developments in computer chess. It's worth catching up, modern engines have way superior understanding (in collapsing to human GMs) of positional chess and traditionally hard openings like King's Indian.

causi 5y ago

objectively best move does provably exist Against a perfectly rational opponent, sure. Is it impossible for a sub-optimal move to throw a human player off their game, confuse, or otherwise emotionally-manipulate them in a way that makes it more effective than the "solved" move would be?

routerl 5y ago
Of course it is possible to exploit the psychology of the opponent. Bluffing does exist in chess, and it relies on your opponent's inability to realize that you've made a sub-optimal move. For example, at the highest levels, grandmasters often attempt to increase the amount of complications in a position, which is a way of making the claim that "I can calculate more moves, more quickly, than you"; if that isn't true, then it is a bluff, which doesn't mean it won't work. But in a solved position, the best move is irrefutable. Perfect play by both opponents in a solved game always leads to a draw (e.g. tic-tac-toe, checkers). In chess, the best move in a solved position always also anticipates every possible response by the opponent. This is the entire point of opening theory, and is why chess players speak of "punishing" their opponents; if I play an ideal move in a solved position, and you play a less-than-ideal move in response, I have already gained an advantage.
- chongli 5y ago
  I play an ideal move in a solved position, and you play a less-than-ideal move in response, I have already gained an advantage. That assumes the less-than-ideal move stays within your preparation. If, on the other hand, you dismissed that move during preparation because of its sub optimal evaluation then I have succeeded in getting you out of prep and into a middle game with a small disadvantage but potentially a lot of play. If I can then steer the game down a very sharp line then your small advantage means a lot less due to the dynamics of the position.
  - in3d 5y ago
    Your response doesn’t apply to truly solved positions.