No concrete evidence, there can't be any without practical examples. But besides concrete evidence, there is another element, named common sense. It seems that most people in that site are lacking that element. Most probably because they do not understand the game at all.
Classy.
No concrete evidence, there can't be any without practical examples. But besides concrete evidence, there is another element, named common sense. It seems that most people in that site are lacking that element. Most probably because they do not understand the game at all.
Interesting logic... 
Common sense says the moon should fall to earth.... concrete evidence says otherwise... 
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.
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?
At least you're in the record books now, poet666
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.
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?
Every day that this challenge doesn't happen, means that it is less likely to occur, at all. Next week brings what? Houdini 3? Rybka 5? each program stronger than the last....
.... and yet, the GM's don't come forward to take up the guantlet, while they still have a glimmer of a chance. One can only ponder the reasons why. 
November 16th 2003
Game 3 Kasparov v Deep Fritz New York 1-0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X3D_Fritz
The match was drawn 2-2.
That is the last human win that I can find.
Adams lost 5.5-0.5 in 2005 and Kramnik lost 2-0 in 2006. Not bad players.
Any advance on that? Going ... going ...
Heh, I remember that one. Those glasses were such a daft gimmick.
A super-GM can still comfortably beat a machine, if he has enough time to check his lines for tactical flaws (say 2 days per move) - quite simply because he does understand chess, while the machine only understands ones and zeroes. But I guess we will never find out, because there is no motivation. If someone offers Magnus several thousand bucks to beat a machine, I do not have the slightest doubt about the result. The problem is that silicon fans will claim that the actual winner was not MC, but a centaur.
pfren, how do you know? This looks like a complete and utter assumption to me.
Oh, I see, you justify it with common sense. Ok, but what you call "common sense" involves assuming something to be true simply because it sounds natural to you. That's good for making a hypothesis, but if you don't test it, you don't have much scope to measure the accuracy of your speculations -- they may be rational, but speculation is very open-ended.
Common sense rejected continental drift. Nearly everyone was absolutely wrong, and the man that was criticized for bringing it up was quite right (most likely). Doesn't that say a lot about the problem of assumption that makes up common sense?
Hello All,
This might be of interest to the group. Back in 1999 Master Stephen Ham went head to head against a computer in correspondence chess. The machine won--even back then. Anyway, the coverage is excellent. I hope you find this helpful.
Cheers,
brotherbear380
Just don't tell him the world is round.
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?
Every day that this challenge doesn't happen, means that it is less less likely to occur, at all. Next week brings what? Houdini 3? Rybka 5? each program stronger than the last....
.... and yet, the GM's don't come forward to take up the guantlet, while they still have a glimmer of a chance. One can only ponder the reasons why.
Yes, like lack of pay for devoting several months to one game. I think that would be enough. And who is willing to pony up enough cash to entice someone to devote all that time?
If Houdini is 400-500 points stronger than any GM, why shouldn't it win at any time control? Otherwise, the Glicko system, or the Elo system, makes no sense probabilistically.
Do people really think that old saw about "tactical play versus positional play" has any meaning, when the (free) silicone opponent is 500 points stronger than Vishy?
50 years ago, Herbert Simon, a Noble Prize Winner in Economics, and Professor at Carneige Mellon, predicted that (in 5 years) a young child, using a hand-held-computer, would be able to beat the World Chess Champion.
Simon was wrong by about 45 years.
But that day has (now) arrived, has it not?
Interesting comment pfren... My common sense tells me that a computer rated at 3300 would beat 2800 rated humans every time.
I guess your common sense is a little bit different ;-)
Give the computer 2 days to think per move vs an unaided human with 2 days to think per move and my money is still on the top engines.
But do human ratings vs. computer ratings mean the same thing?
The highest ICCF rating is in the 2700's, but obviously an ICCF centaur would beat an OTB 2800 GM almost every time.
It's not so difficult to beat Houdini in correspondence chess. Computers still lack certain elements of positional understanding, and they can certainly be outplayed by a strong player. On rapid/blitz games though, it is a totally different story.
I'd be kind of surprised if humans do better in correspondence chess against a computer than in a 'normal' timed (but not rapid/blitz) game, because it can spend every second calculating (unless restricted in some way) whereas a human has the matter of life to attend to.
No reason to be surprised. Chess engines lack the ability to play positionally. Top GM's can steer the game into positional waters, and have a chance.
I assume that the rating systems are the same, otherwise bragging that an engine has a rating of 3300 would be pretty pointless.
How could they possibly be the same? Engines get there ratings by playing engines, not humans. I'm having a hard time finding information on this, but I'm not great at researching with the internet.
I assume that the rating systems are the same, otherwise bragging that an engine has a rating of 3300 would be pretty pointless.
How could they possibly be the same? Engines get there ratings by playing engines, not humans. I'm having a hard time finding information on this, but I'm not great at researching with the internet.
Only because humans can't compete at that level. Hence the 3300 Elo rating.
No concrete evidence, there can't be any without practical examples. But besides concrete evidence, there is another element, named common sense. It seems that most people in that site are lacking that element. Most probably because they do not understand the game at all.