Human versus Machine

chess 16/7 ?

I guess this is a good nickname for chess.com Chess16/7.

You don't know how I am waiting for the time when the top engines are going to be able to beat

the top humans...

I will post this here, as it has some relevance to computer chess and human-engine competition. 
After doing an extensive study of the Fischer game collection, with the help of Stockfish, I just published a book on the theme:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078NSTR3K/ref=s9_acsd_newrz_hd_bw_b194_c_x_6_w?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-5&pf_rd_r=JNC827XRAWWDGW4HYCNC&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=17355592-3237-51ea-a6a2-f95fdeea28ea&pf_rd_i=4406

While going through the positional test suite, including 112 test positions, I had to ascertain that Stockfish still fails to solve around one third, but maybe even close to half of the puzzles. With the tactical set, Stockfish has no problems at all, all solved.

Make the conclusions yourselves how weak actually Stockfish is and how strong Fischer. 
So, you might just want to forget anything about alleged engine superiority in chess.

So, actually, why are you perplexed I am able to beat SF, when Fischer is performing much better than SF?

Really funny how people think engines are strong.

Machine will win, but machine was made for human.
Is better don't think too much about that, better join this tournament and have a good time playing Sicilian:
https://www.chess.com/tournament/sicilian-defense-tourney-3

Three ways to "beat" Usain Bolt in a 100m race:

1. Have a good head start
2. Imobilise one of his legs so fhat he has to hop
3. Blindfold him

Ha-ha-ha, I really like this.

I can solemnly swear I did not blindfold or immobilise SF in any conceivable way.

I also readily acknowledge having wide experience playing one and the same engine and similar opening systems is very much comparable to having a head start into the game.

Indeed, this gives me considerable relative advantages, when facing SF.

However, why no one ever does the same any more, in general?

I can also easily draw SF with any normal opening, not a closed set-up, but winning with similar strategy is close to impossible for me, especially at fast TC.

Here one position from the positional suite SF does not see:

Why would SF fail to see 17. h4 wins here?

And even pick it as the best move?

Is Fischer really that much stronger than SF?

This is from Fischer-Benko, New York 1965

That is a weird flaw. I can see that it looks at g5 as a follow-up but initially fails to see how much potential this has, and discards this move for white Nf3. Even weirder, as soon as it gets to the position after h4 c4 Bc2 Nd5, it sees that g5 wins in less than 1/100th of a second!

Yes, but again, this doesn’t mean Fischer is better than Stockfish, just that a handful of his moves are beyond the ability of current engines.

But this means he is better.

No, it means that a) current engines have a small flaw that needs to be fixed, b) that Fischer’s move sits right on top of that flaw and c) that the move is absolutely brilliant.  Only given those three conditions does Fischer play a move that is better than Stockfish in one of its weakest areas. Roughly 1 out of every 200 Fischer moves, at most, meet these criteria. The fact that Fischer played a 3300-level move every once in a while did not make him stronger than Stockfish, in comparison to all of the (relatively few) inaccuracies and mistakes he made. Of course, this is from a hypertheoretical standpoint. I make no claim to knowing when or if Fischer made mistakes, but I’m sure he made enough of them to be substantially weaker than Stockfish.

"I make no claim to knowing when or if Fischer made mistakes, but I’m sure he made enough of them to be substantially weaker than Stockfish."

You don't know but you are sure. Rock-solid logic!

Me too.

But that is an engine. SF has some penalties for missing/advanced shelter pawns, and as the lines are long for a convincing score, it probably goes astray.

As said, SF does not see anything longer than 2 moves.

Not weird, if you ask me, typical SF behaviour.

Those engines are weak, it is about time that everyone understands that.

That is why I am having easy time against SF.

Not a handful, 50 out of 100, that means Fischer is twice better.

That concerns the positional suite, SF sees everything in tactics.

If you don't know, then ask me.

I just browsed/analysed ALL of Fischer's 800 or so games. Fischer until 1965 makes a lot of tactical mistakes, SF corrects him all too often.

Fischer after 1965 in another story: only rarely he would throw a win for a draw or not see a win. But that happens, of course.

Fischer got really strong, only when he took a creative/theoretical break, not playing in tournaments at all. That is why I am currently following his example, it is only that I have taken a much longer break.

I don't know what you are talking about, maybe you should ask it again.

You also have not quite answered which country you hail from.

If you mean a position, I saw nothing special about it, so no need to comment.