lichess.org
Donate

[Outside the Box] Can brilliant Grandmasters crush Stockfish?

Obviously, It's very well known no human on earth can have a chance against modern Engines even when it's implemented on a very poor hardware. But why? and I mean a "deep Why".

Undoubtedly, Engines are beasts in calculations but on the other hand they don't understand chess like humans do; they only understand numbers and in many occasions we saw them completely overlook a position (according to their numbers) just like the puzzles that engines failed to solve until now or like when Stockfish was completely crushed by [AI] Alphazero (who taught itself chess in 6 hours).

Back then when I reviewed the games between (Stockfish 8) and (Alphazero) that took place in 2018, it was clear to me that chess isn't only about calculation and it's more about "Understanding".. As I believe, the more you understand chess strategically the better your chances are against the top engines. And there is no doubt how brilliant humans can be when it comes to chess understanding so WHY humans are so psychologically defeated against the computers!! is it all about the psychological advantage that engines wouldn't miscalculate?.

Objectively speaking, What would happen if brilliant minds like (Fisher, Morphy, Alekhine ..etc) played against the modern Engines and somehow without the information they are playing computers.. What would the results turn to be then? can't humans get a single win??? I honestly believe humans will get many wins once they break the psychological barrier.

Eventually, I'd love to mention "George Dantzig" homework story. When he was a college student he arrived late to his course and assumed the problems on the board were a homework assignment. According to Dantzig, they "seemed to be a little harder than usual", but a few days later he handed in completed solutions for both problems, still believing that they were an assignment that was overdue but later he found out that his professor was giving them "The Unsolvable Math Problem" to demonstrate how some problems are IMPOSSIBLE TO BE SOLVED.

Thank you, can't wait to hear your opinions!

Obviously, It's very well known no human on earth can have a chance against modern Engines even when it's implemented on a very poor hardware. But why? and I mean a "deep Why". Undoubtedly, Engines are beasts in calculations but on the other hand they don't understand chess like humans do; they only understand numbers and in many occasions we saw them completely overlook a position (according to their numbers) just like the puzzles that engines failed to solve until now or like when Stockfish was completely crushed by [AI] Alphazero (who taught itself chess in 6 hours). Back then when I reviewed the games between (Stockfish 8) and (Alphazero) that took place in 2018, it was clear to me that chess isn't only about calculation and it's more about "Understanding".. As I believe, the more you understand chess strategically the better your chances are against the top engines. And there is no doubt how brilliant humans can be when it comes to chess understanding so WHY humans are so psychologically defeated against the computers!! is it all about the psychological advantage that engines wouldn't miscalculate?. Objectively speaking, What would happen if brilliant minds like (Fisher, Morphy, Alekhine ..etc) played against the modern Engines and somehow without the information they are playing computers.. What would the results turn to be then? can't humans get a single win??? I honestly believe humans will get many wins once they break the psychological barrier. Eventually, I'd love to mention "George Dantzig" homework story. When he was a college student he arrived late to his course and assumed the problems on the board were a homework assignment. According to Dantzig, they "seemed to be a little harder than usual", but a few days later he handed in completed solutions for both problems, still believing that they were an assignment that was overdue but later he found out that his professor was giving them "The Unsolvable Math Problem" to demonstrate how some problems are IMPOSSIBLE TO BE SOLVED. Thank you, can't wait to hear your opinions!

FYI

https://lichess.org/hSs2Zhfs

FYI https://lichess.org/hSs2Zhfs

Edit cant make new topic captcha bugged

Edit cant make new topic captcha bugged

@BrilliantAdam
Does Fisher, Morphy, Alekhine ..etc have a gun?
It better be or It's stockfish in three minutes less.
As for Stockfish 8 vs Alphazero
Today's Stockfish (15) Is going to smack Alphazero like a fly on a swatter. Place your bet? A hundred to zero. Stockfish 8 was still able to beat Alphazero. Even if the statistic shows 290 games lost. Stockfish won 24 games.
Stockfish 15 vs Stockfish 8, who's gonna win? Even Stockfish 8 cannot weasel a draw in contrast to that 886 games that were dead heat against Alphazero. Alphazero sure was special considering that it ran on a multi-million (company) machine. It also had NNUE which was a novelty during that time. You might find some Youtube videos where it shows Alphazero playing against Stockfish 15, Dragon 3, or even Leelazero. To those who believe that it's Alphazero who is playing. It's not, It's a dupe.

@BrilliantAdam Does Fisher, Morphy, Alekhine ..etc have a gun? It better be or It's stockfish in three minutes less. As for Stockfish 8 vs Alphazero Today's Stockfish (15) Is going to smack Alphazero like a fly on a swatter. Place your bet? A hundred to zero. Stockfish 8 was still able to beat Alphazero. Even if the statistic shows 290 games lost. Stockfish won 24 games. Stockfish 15 vs Stockfish 8, who's gonna win? Even Stockfish 8 cannot weasel a draw in contrast to that 886 games that were dead heat against Alphazero. Alphazero sure was special considering that it ran on a multi-million (company) machine. It also had NNUE which was a novelty during that time. You might find some Youtube videos where it shows Alphazero playing against Stockfish 15, Dragon 3, or even Leelazero. To those who believe that it's Alphazero who is playing. It's not, It's a dupe.

@KenulL_76 I already knew that Zug won against Stockfish8 (I actually was watching his stream when that happened) but that game doesn't prove anything due to the lack of time for the engine to think and also not optimum hardware (lichess engine servers) no brilliancy needed to defeat engines under time pressure indeed.

@Shreksify Thank you for adding a new information to me (I had no clue that Stockfish15 NNUE outplayed Strockfish8 and capable of defeating Alphazero itself now) However, I'm a bit upset you took the topic to bets of who is gonna win and who is gonna lose. The topic meant to discuss the human brilliancy (and their chess understanding) against the engines calculations without any psychological advantage.

Thank you guys for your time and your comments. I truly appreciate it!

@KenulL_76 I already knew that Zug won against Stockfish8 (I actually was watching his stream when that happened) but that game doesn't prove anything due to the lack of time for the engine to think and also not optimum hardware (lichess engine servers) no brilliancy needed to defeat engines under time pressure indeed. @Shreksify Thank you for adding a new information to me (I had no clue that Stockfish15 NNUE outplayed Strockfish8 and capable of defeating Alphazero itself now) However, I'm a bit upset you took the topic to bets of who is gonna win and who is gonna lose. The topic meant to discuss the human brilliancy (and their chess understanding) against the engines calculations without any psychological advantage. Thank you guys for your time and your comments. I truly appreciate it!

@BrilliantAdam said in #5:

@KenulL_76 I already knew that Zug won against Stockfish8 (I actually was watching his stream when that happened) but that games doesn't prove anything due to the lack of time for the engine to think and also not optimum hardware (lichess engine servers) no brilliancy needed to defeat engines under time pressure indeed.

While what u say is true, no briliancy is highly underrated. It is still a hard Pieve of work, which has been attempted and has fallen many times

@BrilliantAdam said in #5: > @KenulL_76 I already knew that Zug won against Stockfish8 (I actually was watching his stream when that happened) but that games doesn't prove anything due to the lack of time for the engine to think and also not optimum hardware (lichess engine servers) no brilliancy needed to defeat engines under time pressure indeed. While what u say is true, no briliancy is highly underrated. It is still a hard Pieve of work, which has been attempted and has fallen many times

@BrilliantAdam said in #5:

@KenulL_76 I already knew that Zug won against Stockfish8 (I actually was watching his stream when that happened) but that game doesn't prove anything due to the lack of time for the engine to think and also not optimum hardware (lichess engine servers) no brilliancy needed to defeat engines under time pressure indeed.

@Shreksify Thank you for adding a new information to me (I had no clue that Stockfish15 NNUE outplayed Strockfish8 and capable of defeating Alphazero itself now) However, I'm a bit upset you took the topic to bets of who is gonna win and who is gonna lose. The topic meant to discuss the human brilliancy (and their chess understanding) against the engines calculations without any psychological advantage.

Thank you guys for your time and your comments. I truly appreciate it!
It's simple, how long can humans calculate? Well about 10-20. Kasparov and Fischer claimed that they can up to 40-50.
Against top engine today? Stockfish, Dragon, LeelaZero etc... They can calculate millions of move ahead. Even if we boycott that up to 1 CPU which is approximately 500-1 Mil nodes. It's still 20,000 + more than they can calculate (Maybe even more).
Personally, as for creativity and brilliancy. Well creativity goes below the bottom. Just as what Fischer said. Chess is a more on pre-arrangements. It's was either initial seting up,memory of lines and "then" creativity. Hence why Fischer hated Chess and moved on Fischer-Random. The true romantic and creative chess was back in the 18-20 century. See those beautiful and crazy madman sacrifices? It was unbelievable!
Personally, despite of where Chess has been. I still believe that theres hope in creativity. IM Michael Basman who sadly passed away was really creative. He plays the Grob, Borg, St George, Creepy Crawly. Either ways even if handicapped the game is sure a hundred percent crazy. He is original, creative, I would pursue to be like him.

@BrilliantAdam said in #5: > @KenulL_76 I already knew that Zug won against Stockfish8 (I actually was watching his stream when that happened) but that game doesn't prove anything due to the lack of time for the engine to think and also not optimum hardware (lichess engine servers) no brilliancy needed to defeat engines under time pressure indeed. > > @Shreksify Thank you for adding a new information to me (I had no clue that Stockfish15 NNUE outplayed Strockfish8 and capable of defeating Alphazero itself now) However, I'm a bit upset you took the topic to bets of who is gonna win and who is gonna lose. The topic meant to discuss the human brilliancy (and their chess understanding) against the engines calculations without any psychological advantage. > > Thank you guys for your time and your comments. I truly appreciate it! It's simple, how long can humans calculate? Well about 10-20. Kasparov and Fischer claimed that they can up to 40-50. Against top engine today? Stockfish, Dragon, LeelaZero etc... They can calculate millions of move ahead. Even if we boycott that up to 1 CPU which is approximately 500-1 Mil nodes. It's still 20,000 + more than they can calculate (Maybe even more). Personally, as for creativity and brilliancy. Well creativity goes below the bottom. Just as what Fischer said. Chess is a more on pre-arrangements. It's was either initial seting up,memory of lines and "then" creativity. Hence why Fischer hated Chess and moved on Fischer-Random. The true romantic and creative chess was back in the 18-20 century. See those beautiful and crazy madman sacrifices? It was unbelievable! Personally, despite of where Chess has been. I still believe that theres hope in creativity. IM Michael Basman who sadly passed away was really creative. He plays the Grob, Borg, St George, Creepy Crawly. Either ways even if handicapped the game is sure a hundred percent crazy. He is original, creative, I would pursue to be like him.

@BrilliantAdam said in #1:

Obviously, It's very well known no human on earth can have a chance against modern Engines even when it's implemented on a very poor hardware. But why? and I mean a "deep Why".

Undoubtedly, Engines are beasts in calculations but on the other hand they don't understand chess like humans do; they only understand numbers and in many occasions we saw them completely overlook a position (according to their numbers) just like the puzzles that engines failed to solve until now or like when Stockfish was completely crushed by [AI] Alphazero (who taught itself chess in 6 hours).

Back then when I reviewed the games between (Stockfish 8) and (Alphazero) that took place in 2018, it was clear to me that chess isn't only about calculation and it's more about "Understanding".. As I believe, the more you understand chess strategically the better your chances are against the top engines. And there is no doubt how brilliant humans can be when it comes to chess understanding so WHY humans are so psychologically defeated against the computers!! is it all about the psychological advantage that engines wouldn't miscalculate?.

Objectively speaking, What would happen if brilliant minds like (Fisher, Morphy, Alekhine ..etc) played against the modern Engines and somehow without the information they are playing computers.. What would the results turn to be then? can't humans get a single win??? I honestly believe humans will get many wins once they break the psychological barrier.

Eventually, I'd love to mention "George Dantzig" homework story. When he was a college student he arrived late to his course and assumed the problems on the board were a homework assignment. According to Dantzig, they "seemed to be a little harder than usual", but a few days later he handed in completed solutions for both problems, still believing that they were an assignment that was overdue but later he found out that his professor was giving them "The Unsolvable Math Problem" to demonstrate how some problems are IMPOSSIBLE TO BE SOLVED.

Thank you, can't wait to hear your opinions!

Your rating will get higher as much calculation force you have.

Super GMs can calculate +/-30 moves ahead, with various alternatives simultaneously. They can achieve +/- 2900 ELO points. They will manage to find the next best move 90% (average) of the time.

Computers can calculate millions of positions simultaneously and they will always find the best next move. As (nowadays) there's no way to surpass the 3600 ELO barrier, you won't see a computer over that figure but, eventually, they (machines) would reach any possible ELO.

When quantum computing will be available, we'll see the real limits of chess.

Regards.

@BrilliantAdam said in #1: > Obviously, It's very well known no human on earth can have a chance against modern Engines even when it's implemented on a very poor hardware. But why? and I mean a "deep Why". > > Undoubtedly, Engines are beasts in calculations but on the other hand they don't understand chess like humans do; they only understand numbers and in many occasions we saw them completely overlook a position (according to their numbers) just like the puzzles that engines failed to solve until now or like when Stockfish was completely crushed by [AI] Alphazero (who taught itself chess in 6 hours). > > Back then when I reviewed the games between (Stockfish 8) and (Alphazero) that took place in 2018, it was clear to me that chess isn't only about calculation and it's more about "Understanding".. As I believe, the more you understand chess strategically the better your chances are against the top engines. And there is no doubt how brilliant humans can be when it comes to chess understanding so WHY humans are so psychologically defeated against the computers!! is it all about the psychological advantage that engines wouldn't miscalculate?. > > Objectively speaking, What would happen if brilliant minds like (Fisher, Morphy, Alekhine ..etc) played against the modern Engines and somehow without the information they are playing computers.. What would the results turn to be then? can't humans get a single win??? I honestly believe humans will get many wins once they break the psychological barrier. > > Eventually, I'd love to mention "George Dantzig" homework story. When he was a college student he arrived late to his course and assumed the problems on the board were a homework assignment. According to Dantzig, they "seemed to be a little harder than usual", but a few days later he handed in completed solutions for both problems, still believing that they were an assignment that was overdue but later he found out that his professor was giving them "The Unsolvable Math Problem" to demonstrate how some problems are IMPOSSIBLE TO BE SOLVED. > > Thank you, can't wait to hear your opinions! Your rating will get higher as much calculation force you have. Super GMs can calculate +/-30 moves ahead, with various alternatives simultaneously. They can achieve +/- 2900 ELO points. They will manage to find the next best move 90% (average) of the time. Computers can calculate millions of positions simultaneously and they will always find the best next move. As (nowadays) there's no way to surpass the 3600 ELO barrier, you won't see a computer over that figure but, eventually, they (machines) would reach any possible ELO. When quantum computing will be available, we'll see the real limits of chess. Regards.

@BrilliantAdam said in #1:

Obviously,

Then why say it?

It's very well known

Let's see what happens if we ask random people on the street.

no human on earth can have a chance against modern Engines

Smart to leave yourself an out with non-Earth-based humans.

even when it's implemented on a very poor hardware.

Have you seen my phone?

But why?

Humans dumb?

and I mean a "deep Why".

Oh, um . . . they really dumb?

Undoubtedly

Good to leave no room for debate.

Engines are beasts in calculations

growl

but on the other hand they don't understand chess like humans do;

If they did they'd lose more.

they only understand numbers

What does it mean to say an engine "understands" a number?

and in many occasions we saw them completely overlook a position (according to their numbers)

Is this like saying a human overlooks positions according to their neurons?

just like the puzzles that engines failed to solve until now or like when Stockfish was completely crushed by [AI] Alphazero (who taught itself chess in 6 hours).

What's the relevance here that one number based engine beat another?

Back then when I reviewed the games between (Stockfish 8) and (Alphazero)

Why the parentheses?

that took place in 2018,

Good vintage.

it was clear to me that chess isn't only about calculation and it's more about "Understanding"..

How is understanding not a calculation? Very curious about your cognitive theories.

As I believe, the more you understand chess strategically the better your chances are against the top engines.

Hard to see why strategy wouldn't matter at all so we will give you this even if it's not clearly a significant point.

And there is no doubt

Once again, grand to cut off any debate.

how brilliant humans can be

Like you according to your name!

when it comes to chess understanding

The only thing humans can fairly compare themselves to in chess are computers. And the computers handily win. So what's the basis for saying humans are brilliant at chess? Compared to monkeys and parakeets?

so WHY humans are so psychologically defeated against the computers!!

The computers winning almost all the time might be a factor.

is it all about the psychological advantage that engines wouldn't miscalculate?.

Well they do miscalculate. Still haven't solved chess.

Objectively speaking, What would happen if brilliant minds like (Fisher, Morphy, Alekhine ..etc) played against the modern Engines and somehow without the information they are playing computers.. What would the results turn to be then?

Probably worse. The few times humans win against a non-hobbled engine is by applying strategies specifically effective against them. Also, top players will often recognize they are playing computers without being told. This is seen when they face cheaters.

can't humans get a single win???

Sometimes the power does go out so . . .

I honestly believe

I appreciate you not lying to us.

humans will get many wins once they break the psychological barrier.

This possibly was true to a degree for Kasparov in the Deep Blue days. But I think the computer advantage is now so overwhelming it matters not a great deal. I appreciate your optimism though.

Eventually, I'd love to mention "George Dantzig" homework story. When he was a college student he arrived late to his course and assumed the problems on the board were a homework assignment. According to Dantzig, they "seemed to be a little harder than usual", but a few days later he handed in completed solutions for both problems, still believing that they were an assignment that was overdue but later he found out that his professor was giving them "The Unsolvable Math Problem" to demonstrate how some problems are IMPOSSIBLE TO BE SOLVED.

A great story. Also immensely rare. Don't think it will apply here but one can dream.

Thank you,

You're welcome!

can't wait to hear your opinions!

You might regret that.

@BrilliantAdam said in #1: > Obviously, Then why say it? >It's very well known Let's see what happens if we ask random people on the street. >no human on earth can have a chance against modern Engines Smart to leave yourself an out with non-Earth-based humans. >even when it's implemented on a very poor hardware. Have you seen my phone? >But why? Humans dumb? >and I mean a "deep Why". Oh, um . . . they really dumb? > Undoubtedly Good to leave no room for debate. >Engines are beasts in calculations *growl* >but on the other hand they don't understand chess like humans do; If they did they'd lose more. >they only understand numbers What does it mean to say an engine "understands" a number? >and in many occasions we saw them completely overlook a position (according to their numbers) Is this like saying a human overlooks positions according to their neurons? >just like the puzzles that engines failed to solve until now or like when Stockfish was completely crushed by [AI] Alphazero (who taught itself chess in 6 hours). What's the relevance here that one number based engine beat another? > Back then when I reviewed the games between (Stockfish 8) and (Alphazero) Why the parentheses? >that took place in 2018, Good vintage. >it was clear to me that chess isn't only about calculation and it's more about "Understanding".. How is understanding not a calculation? Very curious about your cognitive theories. >As I believe, the more you understand chess strategically the better your chances are against the top engines. Hard to see why strategy wouldn't matter at all so we will give you this even if it's not clearly a significant point. >And there is no doubt Once again, grand to cut off any debate. >how brilliant humans can be Like you according to your name! >when it comes to chess understanding The only thing humans can fairly compare themselves to in chess are computers. And the computers handily win. So what's the basis for saying humans are brilliant at chess? Compared to monkeys and parakeets? >so WHY humans are so psychologically defeated against the computers!! The computers winning almost all the time might be a factor. >is it all about the psychological advantage that engines wouldn't miscalculate?. Well they do miscalculate. Still haven't solved chess. > Objectively speaking, What would happen if brilliant minds like (Fisher, Morphy, Alekhine ..etc) played against the modern Engines and somehow without the information they are playing computers.. What would the results turn to be then? Probably worse. The few times humans win against a non-hobbled engine is by applying strategies specifically effective against them. Also, top players will often recognize they are playing computers without being told. This is seen when they face cheaters. >can't humans get a single win??? Sometimes the power does go out so . . . >I honestly believe I appreciate you not lying to us. >humans will get many wins once they break the psychological barrier. This possibly was true to a degree for Kasparov in the Deep Blue days. But I think the computer advantage is now so overwhelming it matters not a great deal. I appreciate your optimism though. > Eventually, I'd love to mention "George Dantzig" homework story. When he was a college student he arrived late to his course and assumed the problems on the board were a homework assignment. According to Dantzig, they "seemed to be a little harder than usual", but a few days later he handed in completed solutions for both problems, still believing that they were an assignment that was overdue but later he found out that his professor was giving them "The Unsolvable Math Problem" to demonstrate how some problems are IMPOSSIBLE TO BE SOLVED. A great story. Also immensely rare. Don't think it will apply here but one can dream. > Thank you, You're welcome! >can't wait to hear your opinions! You might regret that.

@MentalFugues said in #9:

Then why say it?
I wanted to make myself clear I already knew that to avoid frequent comments like that.

Smart to leave yourself an out with non-Earth-based humans.

got me laughing so hard xD

Have you seen my phone?

LOL

Humans dumb?
:D

Oh, um . . . they really dumb?
At this point I can't stop laughing :'D

What does it mean to say an engine "understands" a number?
Is this like saying a human overlooks positions according to their neurons?

Well, when I said "they only understand numbers" I was trying to emphasize engines are only phenomenal at deeply calculating lines. They tend to follow their evaluation (based on the material change in the very future variations) but they (in many occasions) missed deep sacrifices that humans could understand from the initial position.

1.Engines follow their numbers to get a material advantage in the future. Engines could reject (overlook) a long combination line because they followed their numbers to an extent where they didn't find a material advantage so stopped calculating (they actually might stop before the winning move by a move or two and doesn't matter how easy it is in the end BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND, they follow numbers to a fixed extent).

2.Humans understand chess, see ideas, calculate and execute them.

What's the relevance here that one number based engine beat another?
Alphazero isn't an engine, it's an AI. The main difference between an engine and an AI is the way they process a position. Engines act just like calculators they follow numbers but an AI tends to understand chess after analyzing a significant number of games and strengthen its understanding of the value of each piece in different positions. That's why I think AI is so close from humans thinking.

Why the parentheses?
You're right, excuse my horrible punctuation.

How is understanding not a calculation? Very curious about your cognitive theories.
I hope you got my point by now :)

Once again, grand to cut off any debate.
Like you according to your name!
I can't disagree with you, writing a topic while ideas are swiftly flowing could turn out to be so clumsy.

The only thing humans can fairly compare themselves to in chess are computers. And the computers handily win. So what's the basis for saying humans are brilliant at chess? Compared to monkeys and parakeets?
Hmmm, the amount of failed puzzles by engines maybe?

Well they do miscalculate. Still haven't solved chess.
A good point.

Also, top players will often recognize they are playing computers without being told. This is seen when they face cheaters.
I assumed imaginatively what if they had not heard about the engines before and we organized a match, for example, between Carlsen and Fischer and gave the right to Carlsen to use the engine secretly and without Fischer knowing that there was such a thing. What are the odds for humans to win if we completely eliminate the psychological factor?

Sometimes the power does go out so . . .
:'D
I appreciate you not lying to us.
xD xD xD

You might regret that.
Sure, but fortunately not yet xD

I gotta admit you have a great sense of humor :) Thank you a lot for your comment and your time, much appreciated!

@MentalFugues said in #9: > Then why say it? I wanted to make myself clear I already knew that to avoid frequent comments like that. > Smart to leave yourself an out with non-Earth-based humans. got me laughing so hard xD > Have you seen my phone? LOL > Humans dumb? :D > Oh, um . . . they really dumb? At this point I can't stop laughing :'D > What does it mean to say an engine "understands" a number? > Is this like saying a human overlooks positions according to their neurons? Well, when I said "they only understand numbers" I was trying to emphasize engines are only phenomenal at deeply calculating lines. They tend to follow their evaluation (based on the material change in the very future variations) but they (in many occasions) missed deep sacrifices that humans could understand from the initial position. 1.Engines follow their numbers to get a material advantage in the future. Engines could reject (overlook) a long combination line because they followed their numbers to an extent where they didn't find a material advantage so stopped calculating (they actually might stop before the winning move by a move or two and doesn't matter how easy it is in the end BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND, they follow numbers *to a fixed extent*). 2.Humans understand chess, see ideas, calculate and execute them. > What's the relevance here that one number based engine beat another? Alphazero isn't an engine, it's an AI. The main difference between an engine and an AI is the way they process a position. Engines act just like calculators they follow numbers but an AI tends to understand chess after analyzing a significant number of games and strengthen its understanding of the value of each piece in different positions. That's why I think AI is so close from humans thinking. > Why the parentheses? You're right, excuse my horrible punctuation. > How is understanding not a calculation? Very curious about your cognitive theories. I hope you got my point by now :) > Once again, grand to cut off any debate. > Like you according to your name! I can't disagree with you, writing a topic while ideas are swiftly flowing could turn out to be so clumsy. > The only thing humans can fairly compare themselves to in chess are computers. And the computers handily win. So what's the basis for saying humans are brilliant at chess? Compared to monkeys and parakeets? Hmmm, the amount of failed puzzles by engines maybe? > Well they do miscalculate. Still haven't solved chess. A good point. > Also, top players will often recognize they are playing computers without being told. This is seen when they face cheaters. I assumed imaginatively what if they had not heard about the engines before and we organized a match, for example, between Carlsen and Fischer and gave the right to Carlsen to use the engine secretly and without Fischer knowing that there was such a thing. What are the odds for humans to win if we completely eliminate the psychological factor? > Sometimes the power does go out so . . . :'D > I appreciate you not lying to us. xD xD xD > You might regret that. Sure, but fortunately not yet xD I gotta admit you have a great sense of humor :) Thank you a lot for your comment and your time, much appreciated!

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.