Do you think humans will ever be as good as robots?

No, humans will never be as good as the best playing chess robots. [this is obvious]

However  in duplicate bridge I am far better than the robots I play with. 

In tic tac toe humans and robots are equal.

In checkers humans are close to equal with robots.

Humans are always better than robot players

No.

 Dont refer old programs from 12 years ago.

Latest Stockfish 11 is x100 times smarter than those old program. It means Stockfish can give 1:100 time handicap against those 12 years old peograms.

Although machines have 100,000% improvement in term of playing strength, humans may hardly improve 10% within 12 years.

With equal time and materials to start, can SGMs last 50 moves against Stockfish 11? U1800 players can't last 30 moves.

In 20 years ago, there were Human and Engines match at same time control. 2800 rated Kramnik drew some games.

However, machines improves x1000 times in the last 20 years. In Stockfish website, they claim Stockfish can give 1:1000 time odd to top  no 1 human.

Everyday, technology is improving very fast. 

You can never beat a computer when you play chess against it, you either lose or it lets you win.

The ancient game of Draughts is dead. A Robot solved it in 2007. With best play it's a draw. Any expert can draw the best robot's.

That stuff doesn't work anymore.

That game is ridiculously old.

It's a bit the opposite right?

There's no reason to doubt some kind of deconstructionist view that human constructs like creativity are BS. Just a figment of our imagination. What we call creativity and humor and art can all easily be replicated, and probably within my lifetime.

I rephrase my question. At what maximum Depth can SGMs beat Stockfish 11? 5 ply?

But there still remains  "Fortress" positions , that the best programs will enter into because their evaluations award the most "points", not understanding a material advantage of +10 can be meaningless, as there remains no way to win.

A long time ago I saw something that suggested world championship match level is reached around depth 12 or 15.

As far as winning in ____ # of moves that's a meaningless metric. Some games are dead lost on move 10 but require an additional 40 moves to checkmate.

A program makes it's evaluations and if set to maximum strength, it will always play the move with the highest evaluation. What these programs have as yet to understand, is their evaluations are not always the best, fail to select an alternative move that in reality, offers better chances to draw or win. They can see only so far into the future. Not trivial.

Comps can calculate faster and deeper than any human, hence when Time is involved, as it always is in Chess games, they will win. Does this mean their assessment, evaluation of a position is higher than a human - No,

Can humans beat the top chess programs currently no. Did humans beat top chess programs in the past, yes they did. The analogy given earlier can a human out lift a forklift is a good one. Computers really only beat humans because they can calculate faster and in more depth than humans can, however currently they are very poor at creative thought. However one could see a time in the future where humans maybe be enhanced with some sort of bio chip and computers may be able to truly think for themselves. At that point in time in future there will be more serious questions than can a human beat a computer in chess.

In Zia Mahmood's book, Bridge, My Way (1992), Zia offered a £1 million bet that no four-person team of his choosing would be beaten by a computer. A few years later the bridge program GIB (which can stand for either "Ginsberg’s Intelligent Bridgeplayer" or "Goren In a Box"),^[7] brainchild of American computer scientist Matthew Ginsberg,^[8] proved capable of expert declarer plays like winkle squeezes in play tests. In 1996, Zia withdrew his bet. Two years later, GIB became the world champion in computer bridge, and also had a 12th place score (11210) in declarer play compared to 34 of the top humans in the 1998 Par Contest (including Zia Mahmood).^[9] However, such a par contest measures technical bridge analysis skills only^{[clarification needed]}, and in 1999 Zia beat various computer programs, including GIB, in an individual round robin match.^[10]

There is a major difference between the two games of Chess and Bridge, which explains why humans continue to beat the best programs at Bridge.

Bridge consists in Two parts. Bidding and play. Most likely, the choice of which card is best to play is not that difficult for the program, comparable to the best move to make in chess.

But in the initial phase of Bridge, the bidding, humans remain far better equipped than a program, which can only make it's assessments based on mathematical probability - not necessarily the end all when bidding. 

Robotics can be integrated into human organic body. It's called Cyborgs or Bionic men and women. Metabolism would be like Normal human. Reproduction similarly. A human can qualify for bionic enhancement starting age of 18 or the legal age of his abode. 

https://www.chess.com/news/view/komodo-beats-nakamura-in-final-battle-1331

"Nakamura is no stranger to heroic performances against chess engines. In 2008, he won a much-celebrated blitz game against the top engine of the day, Rybka, by exploiting the engine's failures in closed positions, and its desire to win at all costs."

"These days the top chess engines are considerably stronger than Rybka was in 2008, and most easily exploitable failures of chess understanding have been eradicated."

---

Notice this was written 4 years ago, and that engines have improved even more since then.

Naka drew the two pawn odds games and the exchange odds game. He lost the 4 move odds game.

You think a GM could draw or win in a normal match? You're living 20 years in the past.

Obviously engines aren't oracles. You have to use them correctly to find "best" moves, and you have to ignore their suggestions when they're impractical, but in a game a human will make too many mistakes to be able win or draw.

Speaking of chess, a chess savant from the Asylum can be as good as engines. He can study and play as much as the Asylum director would allows him. With brain boosting steroids, he could become the first human to break 3000 ELO. Only a geniusly insane player can match up with the engines.

I can already beat my computer at kick-boxing.