Humans v Houdini chess engine (Elo 3300)

 Do you know the percentage for modern centaurs? How often do they override the computer's #1 pick?

No, but that would be a very interesting statistic.

Because pre-computer match-up are relatively low, (and as pointed out above, the rarity of humans-know-better position is so rare as to make them famous) I just assumed these situations are negligible.

 That statement of the rarity of humans-know-better positions doesn't seem right. There aren't very many positions where the average player can beat the engine, but what about the elite players?

Here are some things quoted from a correspondance GM Stephen Ham:

"strong players know from experience when to use their engine(s) and when to use it less, if at all"

"Dont' be influenced by the computer. It's common for my moves to not be top computer selections while my personal evaluations are always trusted over engine evalutions"

"top-level correspondence chess is not about who has the best computer hardware/software ... many chess engine fanatics with the fastest octal hardware and best programs fare poorly in serious correspondence chess."

He seems to think that humans often know what's up better than computers do.

I think there comes a point where the human is just sick of calculating and wants to just play a move; their brain overflows with ideas, to the point where thinking of a certain amount of time might actually hurt their ability to see the big picture. Of course, I could understand putting in 20 minutes, then coming back to it later, but in any case, I think you are overestimating how much humans would benefit from the time given to them in correspondence. I am not a grandmaster, but if you are trying to think of this as a linear pattern, I could try experimenting by thinking for four hours on a move, seeing how that works. Even given that amount of time, I would not necessarily play like a grandmaster -- if my mind burns out at 5 moves ahead, I don't think more time will alleviate that.

If you tried to compensate a blunderous 1000 player by giving them ten hours for each move, do you really think they would stop blundering?

On the same topic, I visited a particular club once or twice a month were all the players were ~200 rating points better than me.  Fantastically I would tend to break even most nights... but I was taking the games much more seriously (no blitz), pouring over every move, every possibility I could.  It was literally physically tiring and I couldn't bring myself to visit more frequently than I did.

Which is to say, I do think extra time (read taking extra care) can increase your level of play.  But like Elubas is saying, the brain only has so much stamina, and eventually extra thinking does no good.

I tend to believe this too.  However I wonder how much different a game is when played against a computer from move one. 

The famous quote:

I can see the combinations as well as Alekhine, but I cannot get into the same positions.

--- Spielmann

Seems to suggest that understanding isolated positions doesn't guarantee sucess in a full length game (which makes sense to me).

                 Norton Jacobi won the Australian CC championship back in about 1979.  He said that he was spending approximately 10 hours per move.  He had books full of anaysis.  His OTB strength would have been 1900~2000.  Ahhh... the olden days.

Generalisation and opinion goes so far but . . .

My original question was - has a human beaten Houdini - or any of the top engines (Stockfish, Rybka) - recently in the 3000 + Elo era? If so, please post the score so we can all repeat the moves and win as well.

NB: OTB at any time control preferred to correspondence chess because ... well we all know that engines can beat other engines (although even a correspondence game would be better than nowt). 

OR 

Can someone give a specific example (position + machine) of a player successfully overriding an engine's choice in the middle game. The example given previously (Gusev v Averbakh)  is a great example but it a positon like that would occur about once in a million games (if that).

Nothing less than the honour of the human race is at stake here!

Computers are man made creations, so I don't think any honour has been lost. 

When did computer assistance in correspondence chess start being officially sanctioned?

Look, as far as I can tell no one is disputing that a skilled player with a computer can beat a patzer with a computer. That was not the original question! ("Has a Grandmaster ever beaten it [Houdini] in any game?" doesn't imply computer use by the grandmaster.) So, to repeat, has any human (alone!) beaten Houdini?

PEP can test his super-dooper machinery by simply applying for an ICCF tournament. I can safely bet he will be sorely disappointed... 

That may be the case but that has nothing to do with the original question. Take your crumbs of comfort where you find them, while you still can. The day has passed for men providing serious competition for machines.

Then we are back in the realms of belief, not knowing.

How long can it take a computer to calculate a winning line for an endgame tablebase entry? How long would it take a human to do the same thing? If such a position arose in a game between human and computer, would the human stand a chance of finding all the winning moves?

I assume you are talking about an unaided-super-GM.

Is there any evidence at all to support this statement?

Classy.

Interesting logic...  

Common sense says the moon should fall to earth.... concrete evidence says otherwise...  

Common sense says this is the worst example of common sense in recorded history...concrete evidence supports this...

LOL!

I'm not going to disagree.  

Just echoing the OP's wish to see a modern game of an unaided GM beating one of the modern super engines.

At least you're in the record books now, poet666

Demands for evidence cuts both ways. I dont think we have a recorded result of a CC 3 day move game between a super GM and Houdini, which is what leaves open the door for kibitzing.

There is no doubt that humans become stronger relative to machines at longer time controls. The question is, is it enough?

An acheivement I'm not likely to echo in chess.  Sadly.

I'm not really after "evidence".

Would just love to see a game, I thought the Kasparov Deep Blue games were fascinating, and the Man v Machine matches are some of my favourites too.

Been a while since I've seen a GM come out victor against a strong machine.