Whats the point of Naka playing Stockfish?

Currently, Nakamura is in a match against a computer, but he is using a computer as well. If he wins, it doesn't really prove anything. It is computer vs computer (with a bit of naka on the side.) Any ideas? I just see it as somewhat meaningless. 

He's using a much lower-rated computer to make up for playing the best chess engine in the world.

I agree.  Has it been proven that no human can compete with computers at correspondence chess?  I would really be interested in something like that. 

Who Won? what is the point? and is there any link to see it?

theEnt, he can't just use Rybka as many times as he wants he can only see Rybka's analysis 3 times and he starts with pawn odds

So we can all watch him choke away a drawn game and lose.  It's very exciting.

@premio53, I think It has been proven that computers are better, which is why it's kind of pointless. I would however way rather watch Naka play without any assistance from computers. That way the results are more legit.

@vij619. last I checked it was .5 for Naka, and 1.5 for the computer. One draw and one loss for Naka. It was on chess.com tv. Maybe there's a recording.

@Tom_Hindle Okay, I didn't know that. That does make a lot more sence. What do you mean by "pawn odds" ? 

@SpikeWilliam. Yeah, it is interesting to see a mortal challenge the menacing emotionless monster again. But at this point, everyone knows that computers are far superior. Over 15 years ago, one of the best chess players ever was taken down. Now, technology has lifted the machines to even more superhuman strength that has left even super GM’s coughing in the dust. I’m as interested to watch the games play out as the next guy, but I also see it as kind of pointless. 

@SilentKnight5. Taking a draw is commendable. And fighting for a win in a drawn game is very gutsy. Especially against something rated way higher.

The first two games, Nakamura had the assistance of Rybka 3 (no limits Tom_Hindle was suggesting), a weaker engine on weaker hardware. The latter two games, he had pawn odds against Stockfish (the third game Stockfish had no h pawn; the fourth game Stockfish had no b pawn), playing white both games.

Computer ratings are not equivalent to GM ratings. A handful of computers were given ratings quite a while ago based on a small sample of games with humans. Since that time, their ratings are based on computer vs computer tournaments. It is accepted that top computers are better than top GMs, but the difference is not equal to the rating difference (of course, that means it could be even more extreme!)

Yeah but if one can create a hierarchy that goes all the way into the 3000s, that means that each 100 points (or whatever increment you want to use) will represent an increase in skill (e.g., fewer blunders). Even if computers are all playing each other, for one computer to beat another more often, fewer mistakes need to be made. And I believe computers have the ability to play at less than their full strength if the user desires, which again helps to associate certain strengths with certain ratings.

So I'm not sure how problematic it is that computers only play each other for their rating. The main thing you want is just a good variance of strength within the player pool.

I doubt Naka's motive is as much beating the engine as it is, helping him to learn how to play more like a machine, so that he can deal with the likes of Carlsen, who does play more like a machine, than any other human, that he has played so far.

It was a fascinating match. And he could have easily done better if he didn't have to play so many games in one day. Clearly he knows how to close up the position and make it impossible for the computer to progress.

Idk

I guess Stockfish is just lonely, looking for attention.

I never watched chess live on twitch, but, that 6 hour bout had me on the edge of my seat the whole time.

Nothing more exciting than moving a bishop back and forth between c8 and d7 for 40 moves.

The reason I asked about correspondence chess is because of an interview a few years ago I saw concerning Hans Berliner who was a correspondence GM and it was pointed out that correspondence grandmasters would be much higher rated than any over the board master because they had all the time they wanted to analyze. 

Have there been any correspondence games between grandmasters and chess engines?

Naka has already indicated on another thread that game 2 was lost from a drawn position because Rybka didn't analyse the position deeply enough and gave Hikaru some duff information about his winning chances.

Correspondence grandmasters use engines; I'm not aware of any games between unaided humans and engines.

He always has an excuse, doesn't he?

It's a good way to protect your ego..find someone else or something else to blame..admirable, especially when you have a supergm tournament starting in a few days.

Of course blaming Rybka may just be another example of Hikaru's sense of humour.