is it impossible for human to beat most advanced software such as Rybka in chess?


One could give you a lengthy essay on computer vs. human play, or one could give you a simple, blunt answer. Both have their pros and cons, however one type of answer is far better suited to my lazy nature.




In a hypothetical Anand-Rybka 4 match, the human would be lucky to win once.


I would be inclined to agree, but it seems for as long as i can remember, people have been saying the same. So i now have to wonder what has changed that might make it so?


The playing algorithms have improved drastically so computers now can include positional and strategical considerations into their calculations as well as raw tactics.  And of course technology advances also, so today's PCs can calculate faster than Deep Blue v Kasparov.  Put those two together and you have one bad-asp chessplayer!

The leading programs now are estimated to be more than a full rating class (200 points) in strength better than Carlsen, Topalov, Anand, and Kramnik.  What would your chances be against those guys?

Up through about Fritz 6, I could win or draw an occasional game (better against the earlier versions, but even they were too tactically sharp to trick).  Since then, it's just no contest.