3 ms·

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 b

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.

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.