Around June, Rubik's Cube extraordinaire and chess aficionado Tyson Mao approached me with a fascinating proposal. Together with his friend Jesse Levinson, Tyson was exploring the current state of computer chess engines.
It is well established that the days of human-computer rivalry are long gone. In a four- or five-game match, even Magnus Carlsen will stand no chance against Houdini or Stockfish running on decent hardware.
But Jesse and Tyson began to wonder if a powerful engine would find it as easy to vanquish a human and a weaker computer working in tandem.
In other words, will a human grandmaster be able to make up the difference between two engines of varying strength?
When Tyson wrote to me in May, he had the experiment planned out: I would play a four-game match against Stockfish 5 (currently rated 3290, 13 points above Houdini 4) using the 2008 version of Rybka (rated approximately 3050).
The time control would be 45 minutes for the entire game, with a 30-second increment from move one.
My interest was instantly piqued: I was quite pessimistic about my chances of winning the match, but I was practically sure that Rybka and I would be tough to crack. Furthermore, I've always wondered if there are certain types of positions in which humans can still outfox their silicon fiends.
Was my confidence misplaced? Could a GM working together with an old version of Rybka beat Stockfish 5? Read on to find out!
Man or Machine? by Nathan Rupert
Game 1:
I chose White for the first game -- since Stockfish had no opening book installed, I figured that I would have a significant advantage in the opening. Furthermore, I had the option of analyzing the position on my computer (i.e. moving the pieces around) at any time during the game, which would (in theory) allow me to counterbalance the disparity in tactical vision and calculation speed.
However, by move 15, I began to understand just how mistaken I was on practically every count.
1.
e4
e6
2.
d4
d5
3.
Nd2
c5
4.
Ngf3
Nf6
5.
e5
Nfd7
6.
c3
Be7
7.
Bd3
b6
!? 8.
Ne4
!? 8...
Ba6
(8...
a5
?! 9.
Nd6+
Bxd6
10.
exd6
Ba6
11.
Bf4
Bxd3
12.
Qxd3
Nc6
13.
O-O
c4
14.
Qe2
b5
15.
b3
)
(8...
h6
9.
Nd6+
Bxd6
10.
exd6
O-O
11.
Bf4
Ba6
12.
Bxa6
Nxa6
13.
O-O
)
9.
Bxa6
Nxa6
10.
Nd6+
(10.
Ng3
O-O
11.
O-O
Rc8
12.
Be3
12...
Nab8
13.
Nh5
Nc6
14.
Qe2
Re8
)
10...
Bxd6
11.
exd6
O-O
12.
O-O
Nf6
13.
Bf4
13...
Rc8
!
(13...
Ne4
?! 14.
Qa4
Nb8
15.
c4
! 15...
g5
(15...
Nxd6
16.
dxc5
bxc5
17.
cxd5
exd5
18.
Rad1
Nc4
19.
Qc2
Qf6
20.
Rxd5
!
Qxf4
21.
Ng5
f5
22.
Ne6
) 16.
Be3
Qxd6
17.
cxd5
exd5
18.
Nxg5
Nxg5
19.
Bxg5
)
14.
Qe2
?!
(14.
Qa4
14...
Nb8
15.
Qxa7
Ne4
16.
a4
(16.
Qe7
Nc6
17.
Qxd8
Rfxd8
18.
a4
cxd4
19.
Nxd4
Nxd6
20.
Bxd6
Rxd6
) 16...
cxd4
17.
Nxd4
Nxd6
18.
a5
bxa5
19.
Rfd1
Nc6
20.
Nxc6
Rxc6
21.
Qxa5
Qxa5
22.
Rxa5
Nc4
23.
Ra2
)
14...
Nb8
15.
h3
?
(15.
Rfe1
Nh5
(15...
Ne4
?! 16.
c4
Nxd6
17.
cxd5
exd5
18.
dxc5
Rxc5
19.
Qd3
) 16.
Be5
f6
17.
d7
Nxd7
18.
Bd6
Re8
19.
h3
19...
Nb8
20.
Bh2
g6
)
15...
c4
! 16.
Qc2
(16.
Nd2
16...
Ne8
17.
b3
cxb3
18.
axb3
a5
19.
Rac1
Nxd6
)
16...
Ne4
17.
Rfe1
Nxd6
18.
Ng5
18...
g6
(18...
Nf5
? 19.
g4
h6
20.
gxf5
hxg5
21.
fxe6
! 21...
fxe6
22.
Bxb8
Rxb8
23.
Rxe6
g4
24.
Rh6
!! )
19.
b4
19...
Qd7
20.
a4
f6
! 21.
Nf3
(21.
Nxe6
Rfe8
22.
Nc5
(22.
Qe2
Nf5
) 22...
bxc5
23.
dxc5
Nf5
24.
Rxe8+
Rxe8
25.
b5
d4
)
21...
Nc6
22.
Re2
a6
23.
Rae1
Rce8
24.
Bh6
Rf7
25.
Bf4
25...
Nf5
26.
Qb2
(26.
h4
26...
h5
! (26...
h6
?? 27.
Bxh6
Rh7
28.
Bf4
) 27.
Qb2
Nd8
28.
a5
b5
29.
g3
Rfe7
30.
Kg2
Nf7
31.
Qc2
Qc6
)
26...
g5
! 27.
Bh2
(27.
Bxg5
fxg5
28.
Nxg5
Rf6
29.
Nf3
29...
b5
30.
a5
Rg6
)
27...
b5
28.
a5
?
(28.
axb5
axb5
29.
Qc1
h5
30.
Nd2
Rfe7
31.
Qd1
31...
Kg7
32.
Nf1
Kg6
)
28...
Rg7
29.
Qa1
h5
30.
Nd2
30...
e5
(30...
g4
31.
hxg4
Rxg4
32.
Nf1
h4
33.
Qd1
Qg7
34.
Ne3
Nxe3
35.
Rxe3
Rxg2+
36.
Kh1
)
31.
dxe5
fxe5
32.
Qc1
e4
33.
Nf1
g4
34.
hxg4
hxg4
35.
Kh1
(35.
Qd2
35...
Qe6
36.
Bf4
Rf8
37.
Ng3
Rh7
)
35...
g3
! 36.
Bxg3
(36.
Nxg3
Nxg3+
37.
Bxg3
Ne5
! 38.
Bxe5
Rxe5
39.
Qf4
Rh5+
40.
Kg1
Qh3
)
36...
Nxg3+
37.
Nxg3
Ne5
38.
Qe3
Rf8
39.
Kg1
Nd3
40.
Qd4
40...
Qf7
!
(40...
Nxe1
41.
Rxe1
Qe6
42.
Re2
Rg5
43.
Nf1
Qf6
44.
Qxf6
Rxf6
45.
Ne3
)
41.
Qe3
Qe7
42.
Qb6
Nf4
! 0-1
A frustrating start to the match!
I was particularly amazed by Stockfish's positional understanding (13...Rc8, and 15...c4 were especially noteworthy), and rather chagrined at Rybka's tactical myopia -- it hugely underestimated 15...c4, entirely overlooked the kingside pawn storm (which I actually saw coming), and could not comprehend Stockfish's tactical wizardry at the end of the game.
Nevertheless, much of the blame fell on my shoulders -- after all, I was the one making the moves!
Game 2:
I learned my lesson the hard way: I had no chance of surviving in a tactically complex position, and sacrifices were simply out of the question. With that comforting thought in mind, I started the clock.
1.
d4
Nf6
2.
c4
e6
3.
Nc3
Bb4
4.
e3
O-O
5.
Ne2
d5
6.
a3
Bd6
7.
c5
(7.
Ng3
7...
c6
8.
Bd3
(8.
e4
dxe4
9.
Ngxe4
Nxe4
10.
Nxe4
Bc7
) 8...
e5
9.
dxe5
Bxe5
10.
cxd5
cxd5
11.
O-O
Re8
)
7...
Be7
8.
b4
8...
a5
9.
Bb2
(9.
b5
9...
c6
! 10.
b6
e5
11.
Ng3
11...
h5
! 12.
Nxh5
Nxh5
13.
Qxh5
Bf6
)
9...
b6
10.
Nf4
c6
11.
Be2
(11.
Bd3
11...
Nbd7
12.
O-O
Qc7
13.
Nfe2
Ba6
14.
f4
Rfb8
15.
Rb1
axb4
16.
axb4
Bxd3
17.
Qxd3
bxc5
18.
bxc5
Rb4
)
11...
Ba6
12.
Bxa6
Nxa6
(12...
Rxa6
13.
O-O
Nbd7
)
13.
Nd3
Qc7
14.
O-O
14...
Qb7
15.
Na4
Nd7
16.
bxa5
16...
bxa5
(16...
bxc5
?! 17.
dxc5
Rab8
(17...
Naxc5
? 18.
Ndxc5
Nxc5
19.
Qg4
f6
20.
Nxc5
Bxc5
21.
Qxe6+
Kh8
22.
Bc3
) 18.
Bc3
Qc7
19.
Qe2
e5
20.
Rac1
Rfe8
21.
Nxe5
Naxc5
22.
Nxc5
Nxc5
23.
Bd4
)
17.
Rb1
Rfb8
18.
Bc3
Qa7
19.
Rxb8+
Rxb8
20.
Qd2
(20.
Bxa5
20...
Naxc5
! 21.
Naxc5
Nxc5
22.
Ne5
Rc8
23.
Bb4
Ne4
24.
f3
Bxb4
25.
axb4
Nd6
)
20...
Bd8
21.
g3
(21.
Bxa5
21...
Naxc5
22.
Naxc5
Bxa5
23.
Qc2
Nxc5
24.
Qxc5
Qxc5
25.
Nxc5
Rb2
)
21...
h6
22.
Kg2
Rb5
23.
Ra1
23...
Qa8
24.
Rc1
Rb3
25.
Qc2
Rb8
26.
Be1
Rb5
27.
h3
Nab8
28.
f3
28...
Rb7
29.
e4
Qa6
(29...
dxe4
? 30.
fxe4
Nf6
31.
Ne5
!
Bc7
32.
Nc4
Nbd7
33.
e5
)
30.
e5
Nf8
31.
Qd1
Ng6
32.
Rb1
32...
Rxb1
33.
Qxb1
Nd7
34.
Nab2
Ne7
35.
f4
(35.
g4
35...
Ng6
36.
f4
f6
! 37.
Qc2
fxe5
38.
fxe5
Ndf8
)
35...
Nf5
36.
Bf2
Qb7
37.
Qc2
Nf8
38.
a4
Qb8
39.
Nc1
Qb4
40.
Nbd3
Qb7
41.
Qb3
Qa7
42.
Ne2
42...
Ng6
43.
Ndc1
Kf8
44.
Qd3
h5
45.
Kh2
Qb7
46.
Be1
Kg8
47.
Qb3
Qa7
48.
Bd2
48...
Nh6
(48...
Qa8
49.
g4
hxg4
50.
hxg4
Nh6
51.
Kh3
51...
Bc7
! 52.
Qf3
Qd8
53.
Qf2
f5
54.
exf6
Qxf6
)
49.
Qf3
Qa6
50.
Kg1
(50.
Qxh5
?
Qc4
! 51.
g4
Qc2
52.
Be3
Qe4
)
50...
Ne7
(50...
Qc4
51.
Qb3
)
51.
Qd3
51...
Qa7
(51...
Qc4
?! 52.
Qb3
52...
Qa6
(52...
Kh7
?! 53.
Kf2
f6
54.
exf6
gxf6
55.
Qb8
Nf7
56.
Bxa5
!
Bxa5
57.
Qf8
) 53.
Qb8
Nc8
54.
Kf2
54...
Kf8
55.
Kf3
Nf5
56.
g4
hxg4+
57.
hxg4
Nfe7
58.
Qb1
)
52.
Nb3
Nef5
53.
Nec1
g6
54.
Qf3
Qa6
55.
Qe2
(55.
g4
55...
Nh4
56.
Qf1
Qb7
57.
Qe2
Kg7
)
55...
Qb7
56.
Be1
(56.
g4
?
Ng3
! 57.
Qe1
Ne4
58.
f5
Nxd2
59.
Qxd2
Kh7
)
56...
h4
??
(56...
Qa8
57.
g4
57...
Nh4
58.
Kh2
(58.
gxh5
?!
N6f5
59.
hxg6
Nxg6
) 58...
Kg7
59.
Kg3
hxg4
60.
hxg4
g5
! 61.
fxg5
Bxg5
62.
Bd2
(62.
Bxa5
??
N4f5+
! 63.
gxf5
Nxf5+
64.
Kf2
Bxc1
65.
Nxc1
Qxa5
) 62...
Qd8
(62...
Bxd2
63.
Nxd2
Qd8
64.
Qf2
Ng8
65.
Qe3
) 63.
Bxa5
Qe7
64.
Nd3
Ng6
)
57.
g4
Ng3
58.
Bxg3
hxg3
59.
Qd2
! 59...
Qa6
(59...
Kh7
60.
Kg2
Bh4
61.
Qxa5
)
60.
f5
Kh7
61.
f6
! 61...
Qc4
62.
Qd3
62...
Qxa4
(62...
Qxd3
63.
Nxd3
Bc7
64.
Kg2
Kg8
65.
Kxg3
Kh7
(65...
g5
66.
Nd2
Kh7
67.
Nf3
Kg6
68.
h4
gxh4+
69.
Kxh4
) 66.
Kf4
Kg8
67.
Kg5
Kh7
68.
h4
Ng8
69.
h5
gxh5
70.
Kxh5
)
63.
Qxg3
Qb4
64.
Qh4
64...
g5
65.
Qxg5
Qe1+
66.
Kg2
Qe4+
67.
Kf2
(67.
Kf2
Qg6
68.
Qxg6+
Kxg6
69.
Nd3
Bc7
70.
Nb2
) 1-0
And this, folks, is why computers are no longer playable! It was not any individual move, but rather Stockfish's endgame play as a whole, that made an indelible impression on me.
Even Bobby Fischer would have probably acquiesced to a draw by move 40, but the silicon monster truly made something out of nothing.
Game 3:
After re-energizing with a burrito (I must confess that I barely resisted the temptation to hurl it at the computer), I sat back down at the board for the second half of the match. By now, I was firmly convinced of my opponent's total infallibility, but I was determined to at least die standing.
1.
e4
e6
2.
d4
d5
3.
Nc3
? 3...
Nf6
4.
e5
4...
Nfd7
5.
f4
c5
6.
Nf3
Nc6
7.
Be3
Be7
8.
Qd2
O-O
9.
dxc5
Nxc5
10.
O-O-O
b6
11.
Kb1
(11.
Bb5
!?
Bb7
12.
Bxc6
Bxc6
13.
Nd4
13...
Qc7
(13...
Bb7
14.
f5
!
Qd7
15.
f6
gxf6
16.
exf6
Bxf6
17.
Bh6
Rfc8
18.
Qf4
) (13...
Bd7
14.
Kb1
Qc7
15.
Nf5
!
Bc6
16.
Nxe7+
Qxe7
17.
Rhf1
) 14.
f5
!?
Bb7
15.
Bf4
Qd7
16.
Bg5
exf5
17.
Bxe7
Qxe7
18.
Nxf5
Qxe5
19.
Qg5
Kh8
20.
Rhe1
Ne4
21.
Nxd5
Qxb2+
(21...
Nxg5
22.
Rxe5
Rad8
23.
c4
) 22.
Kxb2
Nxg5
23.
Re7
)
11...
Qc7
12.
h4
(12.
Bb5
Bb7
13.
h4
13...
Ne4
14.
Nxe4
dxe4
15.
Nd4
Nb4
! )
(12.
g4
12...
Bb7
13.
Bg2
Na5
14.
Qe2
Rac8
15.
Bd4
Ba6
16.
Qf2
)
12...
a6
13.
Qe1
(13.
Qf2
13...
f6
14.
exf6
Bxf6
)
13...
b5
14.
Qf2
Na4
! 15.
Ne2
?
(15.
Nxa4
bxa4
16.
Nd4
16...
Bd7
17.
Nxc6
Qxc6
18.
Bd4
Rfc8
19.
h5
Bc5
20.
Bxc5
Qxc5
21.
Qxc5
Rxc5
22.
Rd4
)
15...
f6
! 16.
Qg3
(16.
exf6
?
Bxf6
17.
Ned4
Bxd4
18.
Nxd4
e5
! 19.
Nxc6
Qxc6
)
16...
fxe5
17.
fxe5
Nc5
18.
h5
?
(18.
Nf4
Ne4
19.
Qh2
(19.
Qh3
Rxf4
20.
Bxf4
Nf2
) 19...
Bd8
20.
Nd3
)
18...
Ne4
19.
Qh2
a5
20.
Ned4
a4
! 21.
Nxc6
(21.
Nxb5
21...
Qa5
! 22.
a3
Rb8
23.
h6
g6
)
21...
Qxc6
22.
Nd4
Qb7
23.
Bd3
(23.
Bxb5
a3
24.
g4
axb2
25.
Kxb2
Bd7
)
23...
a3
24.
Bxe4
(24.
b3
Nc3+
)
24...
axb2
! 25.
Bxh7+
(25.
Bd3
Qa6
26.
Kxb2
Qa3+
27.
Kb1
Bb4
)
25...
Kxh7
26.
Kxb2
Qa7
27.
h6
g6
(27...
g6
28.
Rd3
Qxa2+
29.
Kc1
Qc4
30.
Nb3
Ra2
) 0-1
When Stockfish blitzed out 15...f6, tearing open the center and the seizing the initiative, I realized that my days were numbered. Instead of calmly drying the position out with a London System or King's Indian Attack, I managed to choose an opening that played right into Stockfish's hands. Mea culpa, Rybka!
Game 4:
Any thoughts of winning the game with Black were entirely out of the window at this point, but losing 4-0 was not something I was particularly keen on either. As it turns out, determination is a powerful force indeed.
1.
d4
Nf6
2.
Nf3
g6
3.
c4
Bg7
4.
Nc3
O-O
5.
e4
d6
6.
Be2
e5
7.
d5
7...
a5
8.
O-O
Na6
9.
Be3
(9.
Bg5
h6
10.
Bh4
(10.
Be3
!? 10...
Ng4
11.
Bd2
f5
12.
g3
f4
13.
Nh4
Qg5
14.
Kh1
Rf7
15.
Bf3
Bd7
16.
Qe2
) 10...
Bd7
11.
Nd2
11...
Nc5
12.
f3
b6
13.
Re1
(13.
Nb3
Na4
14.
Nxa4
Bxa4
15.
Qe1
Qe8
) 13...
Qe8
14.
Nb5
Rc8
15.
a3
a4
16.
Bf2
h5
)
9...
Nc5
?!
(9...
Ng4
10.
Bg5
f6
11.
Bh4
(11.
Bd2
f5
12.
Ng5
Nf6
13.
exf5
Bxf5
14.
Be3
Qe7
) 11...
Qe8
12.
Ne1
f5
13.
Nd3
Nf6
)
10.
Nd2
10...
Ne8
11.
Nb3
?
(11.
a3
! 11...
f5
(11...
a4
12.
Bxc5
dxc5
13.
Nxa4
Qe7
14.
Nc3
) 12.
exf5
(12.
f3
a4
! 13.
Bxc5
dxc5
14.
Nxa4
Bh6
15.
Nc3
Qh4
) 12...
gxf5
(12...
Bxf5
13.
Bxc5
dxc5
14.
Nde4
) 13.
Qc2
a4
14.
Rae1
Bd7
15.
f3
)
11...
b6
12.
Nxc5
(12.
Nd2
12...
f5
13.
f3
Nf6
14.
Bg5
h6
15.
Bh4
Qe8
)
12...
dxc5
! 13.
Bd3
(13.
f4
13...
Nd6
14.
Bd3
Ba6
! 15.
Qe2
Qe7
16.
f5
gxf5
17.
exf5
e4
)
13...
Nd6
14.
f3
Qe7
15.
b3
f5
16.
Bc1
16...
f4
17.
Bb2
g5
18.
h3
Bd7
19.
Nb5
Nxb5
20.
cxb5
Qd6
21.
a4
21...
h5
22.
Be2
22...
h4
?
(22...
Rf6
23.
Rc1
Rg6
24.
Kf2
Kf7
25.
Rh1
Rg8
26.
Qd3
Bf6
27.
Rh2
27...
g4
28.
hxg4
hxg4
29.
Ke1
29...
gxf3
(29...
g3
30.
Rh7+
Bg7
31.
Kd2
Rh6
32.
Rh1
Rxh1
33.
Rxh1
) 30.
Bxf3
Ke7
)
23.
Qd2
Bf6
24.
Rac1
Bg7
25.
Bd3
Rfe8
26.
Bb1
Bf6
27.
Qc3
Bg7
28.
Rfd1
Kf7
29.
Rd3
Kg8
30.
Bc2
Kf7
31.
Qe1
Kg8
32.
Rdd1
Kf7
33.
Qc3
Kg8
34.
Bd3
Kf7
35.
Re1
Kg8
36.
Rcd1
Bf6
37.
Rf1
Bg7
38.
Rc1
Bf6
39.
Rfd1
Bg7
40.
Re1
Bf6
41.
Kh1
Bg7
42.
Rf1
Bf6
43.
Ra1
Bg7
44.
Kg1
Kf7
45.
Rac1
Kg8
46.
Ba1
Kf7
47.
Rfd1
Kg8
48.
Qd2
Kf7
49.
Bb2
Kg8
50.
Ba3
Bf8
51.
Qc3
Ra7
52.
Bb2
Bg7
53.
Bb1
Raa8
54.
Bc2
Ra7
55.
Qd2
Raa8
56.
Kf2
Bf6
57.
Ba1
Kg7
58.
Bd3
Kg8
59.
Qe2
Kg7
60.
Bc3
Kg8
61.
Be1
Kg7
62.
Kg1
Kg8
63.
Kh2
Kg7
64.
Bf2
Be7
65.
Bc4
Bf6
66.
Kg1
Be7
67.
Bd3
Kg8
68.
Rc3
Bf8
69.
Bb1
Be7
70.
Ba2
Kh7
71.
Bb1
Kg8
1/2-1/2
Not a particularly eventful game, but at least it was a consolation goal of sorts. (Indeed, the Germany-Brazil thrashing in the World Cup bears quite a resemblance to this match.) Although I cannot say that I am fully satisfied with our play in the first three games, the match was an unforgettable experience and -- to put it simply -- I had a lot of fun!
Finally, I would like to thank Tyson, Jesse, and Mr. Levinson for putting on a world-class event. The free sandwiches, the live broadcast on Chess.com, and the flawless computer-and-board setup were all indications of the impeccable organization, and more than 30 people came to watch the games live.
And now, back to human chess!
https://www.chess.com/live/game/5155384559
this game
yes
" “I believe in intuitions and inspirations...I sometimes FEEL that I am right. I do not KNOW that I am.” -Albert Einstein
Your Stockfish and Rybka DON'T possess intuition, inspiration, imagination, strategic insight, any of those the human abilities that have brought us here and made us superior of any other species.
Machines are non-intelligent devices simply because they just follow instructions some HUMAN mind have written for them. Thus, the bundle of cheap-chips cannot be intelligent, in the same way I couldn't aspire for it if I just follow somebody's instructions as to what to do, how to behave, what to say, every second of my existence."
I would also like it to be this way. Unfortunately the "inspiration" part you are so proud of will soon be overcome by the "machines" . I hoped , it would delay some decades, but it seems I may be quite wrong.
I don't believe it's rybka's fault.
Probably some error from the grandmaster. I would love
to see newer engines getting better, but as of 2016, unfortunately, rybka 4.1
destroys stockfish 7 consistenly. Nowhere near 3500 , 2900-3000 would be more accurate.
Stockfish 6 The Stongest Chess Engine in The World!
Which just Happens to be FREE!
Check out the Only 24/7 Testing Site below...
http://spcc.beepworld.de
Stockfish 6 Rating = 3276 ELO
The Nearest Rival (After another (10) Stockfish Versions :) is Komodo 9.2 + = 3521
Stockfish will be the first Chess Engine to Rate at (3500) ELO :)
I would like to see many of the elite grandmasters team up and battle the top computer with long time controls (week per move?). I think That they should stand a chance.
Can a GM and Stockfish beat Stockfish?
Can a GM and Stockfish beat Stockfish?
Did you upload the wrong article? I remember this one from a year ago.
@PamirLeopard87 your absoluly right! for years chess freaks will develop engines that are very hard to beat by a human beings. not by a long shot!!!!
@MomirRadovic: In 1983 machines were pretty slow. 40 hours then can now be computed in seconds. With all intuition, Man vs. Machine is lost.
repost...
can somebody ban all the carlsen's ass lickers from this site? It's unbelievable how stupid you are and how you claim that he could beat a 3400 engine. You must be either menthally retarded or completely devoted to kiss his butt. You idiots.
What a sad FIXATION of humans on machines!
“The only real valuable thing is intuition,” –Albert Einstein.
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations...I sometimes FEEL that I am right. I do not KNOW that I am.” -Albert Einstein
Your Stockfish and Rybka DON'T possess intuition, inspiration, imagination, strategic insight, any of those the human abilities that have brought us here and made us superior of any other species.
Machines are non-intelligent devices simply because they just follow instructions some HUMAN mind have written for them. Thus, the bundle of cheap-chips cannot be intelligent, in the same way I couldn't aspire for it if I just follow somebody's instructions as to what to do, how to behave, what to say, every second of my existence.
Not only digital morons don't have intuition, they KILL it in humans. See what GM Ljubojevic (#3 on the 1983 ELO list) had to say about it (in an interview given to Evgeny Surov recently)
Lj.Lj: “Intuition is all. I will tell you, computers kill it. Let us say you are young, intuitive, talented, you win most of your games. And at a certain moment your intuition tells you that you have to make that hunch move. But your computer corrects you, it is not a good move, you should play this move. And the young man loses confidence in themselves as the chess engine keeps showing different moves.”
“But chess engines are not always right. I have experimented with it a number of times, in a position I would make a move using my intuitive judgment and then turn my last generation engine on to show me that my move wasn’t even the forth, or fifth line of calculation. But after forty hours of constant crunching the machine finally shows that my move was the first line of play. After forty hours, can you imagine that?!”
E. S.: "If you need to spend forty hours on every move…”
Lj.Lj: "And young chess players looking for a quick solution, or doing some analysis when preparing for the game, want to know in a minute or two what the best move in the position may be, thus killing their intuition! The computer is suppressing their judgment, forcing them to make moves that don’t match their intuition. Gradually, they are losing this blessed gift of nature. And it is very sad when we see the computer is killing intuition in them.”
♦♦♦
So who cares if machines can run faster than I can (say a car), or tell the time more precisely than I can (say a watch, or cell phone), they still don't THINK.
So stop idolizing and wasting your time with stupid morons. THINK! Use them only as a tool, or a good servant. NOT as a replacement, or dominant partner to YOUR intellect.
Peace
Who is winning Machines-Humans war?
AI Ended Chess. Is Humankind to Follow?
To ralfindus:
really? I think, no one from super GM can now beat Stockfish 6 & Komodo 9.
How human players rated with 2800+ with inconsistent play can beat mashine with 3300+ & no human mistakes & blunders? Absolutly hopeless :)
GM Carlsen can defeat Stockfish 5 + Rybka;)
a question for you, GM Naroditsky.
Don't you think that it is rather logical that Stockfish displays such a high positional strength?
Positional skills are a mean a human player can use in order to evaluate the board, make a plan and play strong moves without having to go deep into variations. I perceive a great positional ability as a sort of "shortcut" to victory without dwelling too much on calculations. Tactic calculation is also a mean to reach victory, just through another road. The difference is that a human can't possibly think to calculate every variation dozens of moves deep and therefore we all have to relie on some kind of positional understanding, rather than calculating.
My conclusion, therefore, is that if a powerful engine as Stockfish can calculate hundreds of moves deep into every variation, it is pretty much the same as if it had a human understanding of the position, because it simply goes through every single possible move until the end. And it evaluates the position from there.
There is a point where all the moves have been calculated and analised: that is the point where tactical vision and positional skills converge and are the same thing. A human can't do that, but an engine can. That's why we don't stand a chance.
I dont see the point of a human collaborating with a CPU playing against a CPU. Computerchess is different from human chess. So the human has to be better as the CPU he is working with otherwise he will only sabotage the outcome the CPU has in mind. The CPU has no tools to communicatie with his human counterpartner so its all in the eye of the human beholder.
And with what future point in mind? Kasparov also played together with a CPU and it was boring. The fact Carlsen doesnt use a CPU to improve on his chess says it all.
Very interested expirience, Daniel! Thanks!
Now, would you try to beat Stockfish 6 with help of Houdini 4 (seems we have no see Houdini 5 :)
Best wishes.