Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Humans v Houdini chess engine (Elo 3300)


  • 8 weeks 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)

  • 8 weeks ago · Quote · #602

    NewArdweaden

    Human with computer can beat a computer.

  • 8 weeks ago · Quote · #603

    bendzsa12

    Can carlsen beat stockfish?

  • 8 weeks 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?

  • 8 weeks ago · Quote · #605

    bendzsa12

    :D

  • 8 weeks 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.

  • 8 weeks 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.

  • 8 weeks 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). 

  • 8 weeks 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.

  • 8 weeks 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. 

  • 8 weeks ago · Quote · #611

    MuhammadAreez10

    Vettel is in a Ferrari now.

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #612

    VuThuong

    For anyone interessted, here the (probably) last human vs machine experiment:

    On July 19, 2014, Stockfish 5 played a four game match versus Daniel Naroditsky plus Rybka 3 (2008), 45 minutes plus 30-second increment. Stockfish won 3½ - ½ [10][11]. A few weeks later the experiment continued with Hikaru Nakamura in Burlingame, California [12]. Supported two games by Rybka 3, Nakamura lost ½ - 1½, two games with pawn odds (Stockfish both Black without h- and b-pawn) ended ½ - 1½ in favour to Stockfish 5 as well. It played the latest development build compiled for OS X running on a 3 GHz 8-Core Mac Pro [13]

    (Source: https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Stockfish)

    So even with the help of a (slightly weaker) engine, the number 3 of the world still can not beat the world-best chess engine in a tournament condition!

    Can he beat the machine in a correspondence chess without help of computer? That is the interessting question!

  • 5 weeks ago · Quote · #613

    NewArdweaden

    VuThuong wrote:

    For anyone interessted, here the (probably) last human vs machine experiment:

    On July 19, 2014, Stockfish 5 played a four game match versus Daniel Naroditsky plus Rybka 3 (2008), 45 minutes plus 30-second increment. Stockfish won 3½ - ½ [10][11]. A few weeks later the experiment continued with Hikaru Nakamura in Burlingame, California [12]. Supported two games by Rybka 3, Nakamura lost ½ - 1½, two games with pawn odds (Stockfish both Black without h- and b-pawn) ended ½ - 1½ in favour to Stockfish 5 as well. It played the latest development build compiled for OS X running on a 3 GHz 8-Core Mac Pro [13]

    (Source: https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Stockfish)

    So even with the help of a (slightly weaker) engine, the number 3 of the world still can not beat the world-best chess engine in a tournament condition!

    Can he beat the machine in a correspondence chess without help of computer? That is the interessting question!

    The answer to the last question is yes. Wink If it wasn't true, there would no longer be any correspondence chess championships.


Back to Top

Post your reply: