3 ms·
This title should be changed to "Computers AREN'T beating humans at advanced chess". Here's the key excerpt from the blog post that the Business Insider articl
by pk2200 11y ago
This title should be changed to "Computers AREN'T beating humans at advanced chess". Here's the key excerpt from the blog post that the Business Insider article links to:
"Computer chess expert Kenneth W. Regan has compiled extensive data on this question, and you will see that a striking percentage of the best or most accurate chess games of all time have been played by man-machine pairs."
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/FreestyleStudy.html http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/FreestyleSt...
- gwern 11y ago> This title should be changed to "Computers AREN'T beating humans at advanced chess" How would anyone know? The OP is just linking to the same 2012 thread filled with speculation which you see pop up every so often. There's nothing hard in it establishing that centaurs are still useful/no longer useful, and in any case, 3 years is a long time. > http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/FreestyleSt.. http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/FreestyleSt.... Which will be a lagging indicator (if computer chess AIs had just squeaked over the threshold where a grandmaster's contribution declined to the level of noise, how many years would it take for unaided chess programs to accumulate 'a striking percentage') and in any case, has just a few games post-2010 and none at all post-2013.