Humans v Houdini chess engine (Elo 3300)

It looks as if everyone accepts that currently no human unaided can beat a super-engine over-the-board under any of the normal time controls. There is no evidence that this has happened recently.

The 2-0 win in 2005 by the correspondence chess player was with the help of engines.

When was the last time anyone beat a top-rated engine unaided in a normal game? Kasparov v Deep Blue in 1997?

I for one would be super interested to see a pfren vs PEP centaur game.

Me too. I've always thought the human component overstated in centaur chess. I'm unbeaten in two years of centaur chess and I think I've only over-ruled the engine once, in over fifty games (conceeded two draws). I have the latest software and a custom built system (by myself), specifically designed to play chess (20,000 kN/s). It's my contention that:

patzer + extreme system > master + average system

p.s. Of course, I'm only guessing about pfren's system. If it turns out that he has a beast as well, then I might be in for a rough ride. Either way, I would consider the challenge well made.

Cool, I'll let it sit for awhile and see if it decides it's near or at equal.  I'd be really surprised, but I'll try anyway :)

I don't see that as the engine playing, just a database humans have constructed... but I guess that's just semantics as engines are tools we made too.

I guess people aren't accustom to the idea that our tools are better at us in areas we consider closely linked to intelligence.  But when compared to things like forklifts it doesn't seem so novel anymore.

Oh, or did you mean I have to play out some moves and as it approached the 50 move rule the eval will drop to zero?

That's not even catching on at all if you ask me... all it knows is it's running out of moves.

Interesting and relevant article about tablebases here:

http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/can-we-solve-chess-one-day/

Competition :  human against a computer is inmoral.

That can't be right, surely?!

I think human input is understated. You'd never make it to the top of ICCF by blindly following engine advice, even with the newest version of Houdini running on 500 cores. Humans still outplay computers in some types of positions.

Have you ever beaten a really strong player that understands how to use engines?

That would depend on what one means by "a really strong player that understands how to use engines". I've been scratching for opposition on this site but soon I represent this site (chess.com) in a team competition on ICCF. Guess we'll find out then.

You seem to have very strong opinions. Do you have some specialist background or centaur history? or merely regurgitating what others have written? I try to avoid repeating the thoughts of others, there's just no (original) mileage in it.

p.s. Oh I see, you're eighteen.

Well I guess you figured it out. Most of the things I say are things I've heard from reputable sources, mixed in with my own opinions.

By "a strong player that knows how to use engines", I mostly mean a player that knows his engine's strengths and weaknesses, and knows when to trust his own evalution over the engine's.

Players who aren't GMs will probably never improve on a good engine's suggestion. Any examples of moves by good engines that are so obviously poor that a club player would spot them?

PEP, in the position below, white has a completely, 100% winning move. A human player found it OTB. I am curious how long will it take for your setup to find it.

Quoting single positions doesn't really decide anything because in all likelyhood, the engine would not have arrived at a position it doesn't know how to play.

Anyway, I think I've seen this before.... was it in a women's match?

Running the engine now.

Are you sure this position is right?

It is

Okay, I've given Houdini 40 minutes and it has completed depth 34. It seems to have no idea what's going on (1. Qxe5 fxe5 2. Rf1 and Black is zugzwanged). Nothing new there, it has always been possible to set up positions that computers don't get (especially zugzwang themes).

Another interesting position, not sure how that impacts on anything, really.

These positions are so rare in practice, that they become famous.

The position comes from a game played in 1951, Gusev vs. Averbakh, and it apparently stumped Rybka Cluster as well (see the post dated 2010-12-24 04:02 and followups).

It seems to me that it proves the point that sometimes people are able to see lines that computers won't.

Sure, never thought any different.

However, when you play a whole game against an engine, it steals centipawns from you continually. You just don't get those sort of chances, you get crushed. That's why GM's are not falling over themselves to play the machines anymore.

p.s. Even if by pure luck the GM stumbles upon (or constructs) this sort of position (one where the machine suffers a lack of conceptual foresight), he's just going to be bullied in the next eleven games.

One swallow does not a summer make.

I see, so you really meant "Humans have virtually no chance against good software/good hardware combinations, at any time control."

Cheers .