3 ms·
I'd be careful about overvaluing the mystique of the human element. In classical chess computers are absolutely, positively dominating humans. There was a time
by tbrake 12y ago
I'd be careful about overvaluing the mystique of the human element. In classical chess computers are absolutely, positively dominating humans.
There was a time when perhaps the top, top grandmasters (2750+) could handwave about understanding positional motifs better and maybe, occasionally, have a chance of winning, but those days are over. Engines routinely get into the 30 and 40 ply (15 and 20 moves ahead) range in under a minute these days, running on off-the-shelf hardware. Whatever advantages humans could have once claimed to have are annihilated by the pure depth of vision an engine has into a position.
Nakamura's win, while amusing, was at 3 0 time control, shuffling pieces hoping for a win on time. You couldn't get me to bet on him vs Rybka (or Komodo, Shredder or Stockfish) at normal time controls.
- halfcat 12y ago>I'd be careful about overvaluing the mystique of the human element. In classical chess computers are absolutely, positively dominating humans. It's not that computers are perfect, they are not, but they are so dominate at the aspects they are good at, humans cannot cope. It's like a soccer player whose only skill is being able to run 10x faster than everyone else. It doesn't matter if that player can barely kick the ball, they will be so fast that they will cover all of their mistakes and dominate every other human player on the field by a large margin.