23 ms·

Knowing very little about chess, what is the current state of the best chess AI compared to human players like Magnus Carlsen?

andrepd 4y ago
No humans have won against a top engine in over a decade, and they almost surely never will.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  This is somewhat misleading because there have also been no classical time control human-computer matches since 2006 when Kramnik played against Fritz. That match more or less ended interest in these matches. Every game was drawn until Kramnik randomly blundered a trivial mate-in-1 in a simple position. That mistake was undoubtedly driven by psychological reasons. Playing against an engine is nothing like playing against a human and it's difficult if not impossible to put oneself in the proper mindset to play well. The following games were then also drawn until Kramnik decided to do the chess equivalent (when playing against a computer) of going for a hail mary, with black, in the final game to try to even the match score. Suffice to say, that failed and the match ended as a generally disappointing, for everybody, 4-2. There have been a variety of gimmicky matches since (fast time controls, various odds matches, etc), but nothing serious.
franknstein 4y ago
Magnus Carlsen: 2864 Elo Stockfish: 3585 Elo "Elo suggested scaling ratings so that a difference of 200 rating points in chess would mean that the stronger player has an expected score (which basically is an expected average score) of approximately 0.75, and the USCF initially aimed for an average club player to have a rating of 1500." I guess that means that Magnus has expected score of roughly 0.25^((3585 - 2864)/200) = 0.00675 against Stockfish 15, which is basically 1 in 200 games?
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  Machine and human ELO ratings are decorrelated. No games are played between a full strength engine and a human anymore. Even Magnus can’t win against a top engine. He might draw if he is lucky.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  ELO is dependent upon the pool of players that one plays in. Engine ELO's have no relationship to human ratings because no humans play computers under normal conditions. For an example of this phenomena taken to extremes, Claude Bloodgood [1] was a strong amateur who ended up as officially rated as one of the top players in the world (and #2 in the US) simply because he was only playing against a pool of other prison inmates who were in turn playing only against each other. So all his rating reflected was his relative strength in the prison pool. Computers are definitely much stronger than humans, but not 3600 better. Magnus would certainly be able to eek out plenty of draws, if not only because white can create "simplified" (as a euphemism for dead) positions in just about any variation if he really wants. And Magnus regularly plays these sort of positions literally at the level of supercomputers. I'd also add that much of the dominance of computers is not based just on raw ability alone, but more psychological issues. Humans can become tilted, intimidated, frustrated, tired, and so on. One of the last major human vs computer events was Kramnik vs Fritz. Kramnik, in a relatively simple position, ended up blundering mate in 1 with plenty of time on his clock. It's unlikely he would have ever made the same mistake against a human. It's just very difficult to get in the same mindset when playing against a human as when playing against a computer. Chess, in spite of being a game of complete information, is still extremely influenced by psychology. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Bloodgood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Bloodgood
- mda 4y ago
  Winning chance is basically 0.0% against current strong engines for a human. There are possible draw lines but if engine is configured correctly draw chance is also 0.0%
  - gnulinux 4y ago
    As some other commenter calculated Stockfish wins in about ~>98% of the cases. The other ~<2% of the cases aren't Magnus winning, rather them drawing. I think no GM is known to beat a modern competitive AI in chess, however there are known/recorded instances of draws.

andrepd 4y ago

No humans have won against a top engine in over a decade, and they almost surely never will.

somenameforme 4y ago
This is somewhat misleading because there have also been no classical time control human-computer matches since 2006 when Kramnik played against Fritz. That match more or less ended interest in these matches. Every game was drawn until Kramnik randomly blundered a trivial mate-in-1 in a simple position. That mistake was undoubtedly driven by psychological reasons. Playing against an engine is nothing like playing against a human and it's difficult if not impossible to put oneself in the proper mindset to play well. The following games were then also drawn until Kramnik decided to do the chess equivalent (when playing against a computer) of going for a hail mary, with black, in the final game to try to even the match score. Suffice to say, that failed and the match ended as a generally disappointing, for everybody, 4-2. There have been a variety of gimmicky matches since (fast time controls, various odds matches, etc), but nothing serious.

franknstein 4y ago

Magnus Carlsen: 2864 Elo Stockfish: 3585 Elo "Elo suggested scaling ratings so that a difference of 200 rating points in chess would mean that the stronger player has an expected score (which basically is an expected average score) of approximately 0.75, and the USCF initially aimed for an average club player to have a rating of 1500." I guess that means that Magnus has expected score of roughly 0.25^((3585 - 2864)/200) = 0.00675 against Stockfish 15, which is basically 1 in 200 games?

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
Machine and human ELO ratings are decorrelated. No games are played between a full strength engine and a human anymore. Even Magnus can’t win against a top engine. He might draw if he is lucky.
somenameforme 4y ago
ELO is dependent upon the pool of players that one plays in. Engine ELO's have no relationship to human ratings because no humans play computers under normal conditions. For an example of this phenomena taken to extremes, Claude Bloodgood [1] was a strong amateur who ended up as officially rated as one of the top players in the world (and #2 in the US) simply because he was only playing against a pool of other prison inmates who were in turn playing only against each other. So all his rating reflected was his relative strength in the prison pool. Computers are definitely much stronger than humans, but not 3600 better. Magnus would certainly be able to eek out plenty of draws, if not only because white can create "simplified" (as a euphemism for dead) positions in just about any variation if he really wants. And Magnus regularly plays these sort of positions literally at the level of supercomputers. I'd also add that much of the dominance of computers is not based just on raw ability alone, but more psychological issues. Humans can become tilted, intimidated, frustrated, tired, and so on. One of the last major human vs computer events was Kramnik vs Fritz. Kramnik, in a relatively simple position, ended up blundering mate in 1 with plenty of time on his clock. It's unlikely he would have ever made the same mistake against a human. It's just very difficult to get in the same mindset when playing against a human as when playing against a computer. Chess, in spite of being a game of complete information, is still extremely influenced by psychology. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Bloodgood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Bloodgood
mda 4y ago
Winning chance is basically 0.0% against current strong engines for a human. There are possible draw lines but if engine is configured correctly draw chance is also 0.0%
- gnulinux 4y ago
  As some other commenter calculated Stockfish wins in about ~>98% of the cases. The other ~<2% of the cases aren't Magnus winning, rather them drawing. I think no GM is known to beat a modern competitive AI in chess, however there are known/recorded instances of draws.