Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Humans v Houdini chess engine (Elo 3300)


  • 44 hours ago · Quote · #601

    StormShield

    There are enough proofs of this ,that nowadays engines can't be beaten by any human player,the best that can be reached is some laughable draw ,nothing more.(and it depends on the opening)

  • 44 hours ago · Quote · #602

    NewArdweaden

    Human with computer can beat a computer.

  • 44 hours ago · Quote · #603

    bendzsa12

    Can carlsen beat stockfish?

  • 44 hours ago · Quote · #604

    EscherehcsE

    NewArdweaden wrote:

    Human with computer can beat a computer.

    And an olympic sprinter with a Ferrari can beat a race horse. So what?

  • 43 hours ago · Quote · #605

    bendzsa12

    :D

  • 39 hours ago · Quote · #606

    NewArdweaden

    EscherehcsE wrote:
    NewArdweaden wrote:

    Human with computer can beat a computer.

    And an olympic sprinter with a Ferrari can beat a race horse. So what?

    No, I'm saying that Schumacher with a Ferrari can beat you with a Ferrari.

  • 36 hours ago · Quote · #607

    EscherehcsE

    NewArdweaden wrote:
    EscherehcsE wrote:
    NewArdweaden wrote:

    Human with computer can beat a computer.

    And an olympic sprinter with a Ferrari can beat a race horse. So what?

    No, I'm saying that Schumacher with a Ferrari can beat you with a Ferrari.

    There are many true statements which are completely meaningless to the issue of human vs. computer games. The fact that a human plus a computer can beat a computer at chess is one of those statements.

  • 36 hours ago · Quote · #608

    NewArdweaden

    EscherehcsE wrote:
    NewArdweaden wrote:
    EscherehcsE wrote:
    NewArdweaden wrote:

    Human with computer can beat a computer.

    And an olympic sprinter with a Ferrari can beat a race horse. So what?

    No, I'm saying that Schumacher with a Ferrari can beat you with a Ferrari.

    There are many true statements which are completely meaningless to the issue of human vs. computer games. The fact that a human plus a computer can beat a computer at chess is one of those statements.

    I don't think it's entirely meaningless. It says that there still is something to people that machines lack (for now). 

  • 36 hours ago · Quote · #609

    EscherehcsE

    NewArdweaden wrote:
    EscherehcsE wrote:
    NewArdweaden wrote:
    EscherehcsE wrote:
    NewArdweaden wrote:

    Human with computer can beat a computer.

    And an olympic sprinter with a Ferrari can beat a race horse. So what?

    No, I'm saying that Schumacher with a Ferrari can beat you with a Ferrari.

    There are many true statements which are completely meaningless to the issue of human vs. computer games. The fact that a human plus a computer can beat a computer at chess is one of those statements.

    I don't think it's entirely meaningless. It says that there still is something to people that machines lack (for now). 

    The only thing this tells us is that in a human + comp vs. comp game, the human doesn't have to worry about making tactical mistakes, and he can try to supply long-term strategy that's superior to the computer's ability. However, in a human vs. comp game, the human also has to supply 100% of his side's tactical talent. And that's the critical difference.

  • 27 hours ago · Quote · #610

    NewArdweaden

    EscherehcsE wrote:
    NewArdweaden wrote:
    EscherehcsE wrote:
    NewArdweaden wrote:
    EscherehcsE wrote:
    NewArdweaden wrote:

    Human with computer can beat a computer.

    And an olympic sprinter with a Ferrari can beat a race horse. So what?

    No, I'm saying that Schumacher with a Ferrari can beat you with a Ferrari.

    There are many true statements which are completely meaningless to the issue of human vs. computer games. The fact that a human plus a computer can beat a computer at chess is one of those statements.

    I don't think it's entirely meaningless. It says that there still is something to people that machines lack (for now). 

    The only thing this tells us is that in a human + comp vs. comp game, the human doesn't have to worry about making tactical mistakes, and he can try to supply long-term strategy that's superior to the computer's ability. However, in a human vs. comp game, the human also has to supply 100% of his side's tactical talent. And that's the critical difference.

    And, of course, endgame play. I agree with you, though. In my opinion, that's just enough information for that comment to deserve its place here. 

  • 26 hours ago · Quote · #611

    MuhammadAreez10

    Vettel is in a Ferrari now.


Back to Top

Post your reply: