3 ms·
> It's certainly true that having a human in the loop leads to worse outcomes in chess (unless the human has enough modesty to just not do anything). No, this
by CrazyStat 5y ago
> It's certainly true that having a human in the loop leads to worse outcomes in chess (unless the human has enough modesty to just not do anything).
No, this is actually totally false. There is a world championship in computer-aided correspondence chess [1], and you won't get anywhere near the top ranks by having "enough modesty to just not do anything."
[1] https://www.iccf.com/ https://www.iccf.com/
- grey-area 5y agoDoes deep blue participate? If not your assertion is false.
- CrazyStat 5y agoDeep blue is 25 years out of date and far far weaker than modern chess engines.
- grey-area 5y agoI think that strengthens the point, don't you? Deep blue could beat humans a long time ago, and it's still the case that computers don't need humans to play chess, and play it better than humans do.
- CrazyStat 5y ago> Deep blue could beat humans a long time ago Yes > and it's still the case that computers don't need humans to play chess, Sure, I guess > and play it better than humans do. In the sense that they can beat humans in a 1v1, yes. But none of that is relevant to the original claim, which is that a human in the loop makes a computer play worse--i.e., that human+computer is worse than computer alone. This claim is false, as the ICCF championship demonstrates each year.
- iopq 5y agoThe best chess-playing program is Stockfish and it could give deep blue and any human a handicap and still win easily The state of art is much better now than before