Answers.Body: <p>Yes, it's possible. See <a href="https://en.chessbase.com/post/a-history-of-cheating-in-che-3-" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article</a>. The gist is, if for you're in a "draw and I win this tournament" situation, you would quite naturally play moves that might not be the best, but keeps the position simple and avoids tactical melees. You'd do this even if it reduces your chances to win the game. Conversely, if you're in a must-win situation, then you'll take chances and try to complicate the game even if they objectively weaken your position, because a draw is the same as a loss anyway. A computer on the other hand doesn't understand these things. It just makes the best moves.</p>
  
  <p>Below is a quote from the article about this position, after 30...Bf6.</p>
  
  <pre><code>r6k/1p3Rpp/p2p1bq1/3N4/2P5/1P6/P1b2QPP/5RK1 w - - 0 1
  </code></pre>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>I showed the position to a number of players in Wijk aan Zee, and all gave me simple wins – for instance 31.Rxb7, 31.Rd7 or even 31.Rxf6. Remember, the first time control is looming and tournament victory is in grasp.</p>
    
    <p>So what does our hero play? 31.Qa7?!! “Fritzy!” squealed Anand and went into uncontrollable fits of laughter when he saw this and the following moves (I filmed his mirth and included it in my multimedia report in ChessBase Magazine 69). He and the other players immediately recognised the “hand” of the computer.</p>
    
    <p>If you switch on multiple-variation mode you will see that Fritz thinks 31.Qa7 is a tenth of a pawn better than the other alternatives. A computer program simply doesn't understand the difference between cast-iron moves that cannot fail, and a tight-rope walk on the edge of the precipice. I venture no human would undertake the latter course in the given tournament situation. Play through the continuation and judge for yourself.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-11T18:22:49.287Z
Answers.Text: I agree! In fact, this was how a player was found cheating in a xiangqi (chinese chess) tournament: Instead of keeping the situation simple while he has the advantage, the player chose an extremely complicated tactics combination and eventually won a "horse" (similar to a knight) after about 7 or 8 moves and thus won the game. The player did not even spend much time calculating the lines, which becomes very suspecious. Eventually he was found cheating with an engine.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Zuriel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-11T02:53:02.850Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-01-14T06:12:06.503Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-01-14T06:12:06.503Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Allure
Answers.Body: <p>I would say definately yes. One example is the situation of a fortress. Even though one side is up in material the position is not winable. The engines can figure out that the fortress will not break in 10, 20 or whatever moves ahead but cannot figure out that it can <strong>never</strong> break! Then the evaluation function is obviously off and the suggested move is also off. Only a relatively strong human player can assert that it's a dead draw and reject the move and the line that follows.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-09T03:02:39.380Z
Answers.Text: How about the following one? Can engines usually figure that it is a draw? http://www.e4ec.org/images/immr/BlockedPawns.gif
Answers.UserDisplayName: Zuriel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-10T02:32:27.473Z
Answers.Text: Also dont reject tablebases. Most of those fortress might be in tablebases
Answers.UserDisplayName: Isac
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-08T21:38:37.003Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-12-08T21:38:37.003Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: plus1
Answers.Body: <p>Well... absolutely possible and common. Magnus Carlsen himself said <em>"I don't care"</em> on his very positive position in the last game of the 2018 WCC match. Did he offer a draw in a position that a chess engine can very likely to win?</p>
  
  <p>Engine might play stronger chess, but if we don't understand how to do it, it's pointless. Sometimes we don't always make the best objective move. Carlsen did it to his last game. Kramnik tried several unsound openings this year.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-08T14:09:30.777Z
Answers.Text: Thanks for yoru answer! I am also wondering if there exists a move which is recommended by engine but is rejected by most or all top human players. Not in a specific game, but the move is considered "unsound" or "unsafe" or "dubious" by most top players.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Zuriel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-14T11:17:43.433Z
Answers.Text: The last game of the 2018 WCC wasn't about a human rejecting computer moves, though, as even an average club player could see that Carlsen had a good position, and the grandmasters criticising his decision were not referring to specific engine moves.  The issue there was that Magnus wanted to take a draw and head for the playoff, instead of playing for a win in an obviously better position, which many commentators felt showed a lack of fighting spirit (although his decisive victory in the playoff would seem to vindicate his decision).
Answers.UserDisplayName: ddq1708
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-08T13:51:27.123Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-12-08T13:51:27.123Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Answers.Body: <p>Yes, it is very much possible and this is the very reason different openings exist!</p>
  
  <p>Some examples:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>1 e4 as White is suggested by almost all engines. However, some GM's and WC feel that e4 is too committal.</li>
  <li>Sicilian is almost never recommended by engines, whereas lot of GM's and WC's think that is the best way to equalize for Black. Engines usually suggest 1...e5 or 1...e6</li>
  <li>Engine evaluation of KID may not always be understable to humans. See here: <a href="https://en.chessbase.com/post/review-mihail-marin-winning-with-the-kings-indian" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.chessbase.com/post/review-mihail-marin-winning-with-the-kings-indian</a></li>
  </ul>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-08T15:22:40.163Z
Answers.Text: Could you elaborate a bit on your answer? I don't quite see the connection to "moves rejected by humans".
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-08T15:53:23.027Z
Answers.Text: @user1583209 1 e4 is suggested by engines, but lot of GM's and WC's feel that e4 is too commital.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Adhvaitha
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-08T16:05:33.000Z
Answers.Text: Good answer I guess
Answers.UserDisplayName: Akash Roy
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-08T16:32:09.500Z
Answers.Text: Disagree with: "this is the very reason different openings exist!". Different openings existed before engines.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-08T16:45:47.940Z
Answers.Text: @user1583209 I don't understand your comment. These openings continue to exist in the computer era means that humans make decisions differently than a computer and I have also give valid reasons.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Adhvaitha
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-08T17:03:48.033Z
Answers.Text: @Leg: Ok. I misread your answer. What you mean is basicall "...still exist". Anyway your answer seems a bit too black and white to me. Several points: 1) Engines do play moves other than 1. e4 as well (because they are not alway picking the first "best" move only.) 2) I doubt that many GM seriously reject 1. e4. It is just that they prefer other positions.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-08T17:05:18.750Z
Answers.Text: @Leg: Other than that, I like your answer as it approaches the question from another perspective (positions where engine evaluations are bad/meaningless).
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-08T15:17:07.810Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-12-08T15:55:49.150Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2018-12-08T15:55:49.150Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Adhvaitha
Answers.Body: <p>To follow up on plus1's comment, consider things like</p>
  
  <pre><code>6kr/5b1p/2p3pP/rpPp1pP1/pP1PpP2/P3P3/1K6/8 w k - 0 1
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>as well. It is clear that if White takes the rook eventually the Black forces will break through yet many engines can't resist the lure of decreasing the points deficit.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-15T09:11:00.267Z
Answers.Text: Please use the [Contact Us](/contact) form to have your accounts merged, so that you can freely edit your answer.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Glorfindel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-15T12:41:00.143Z
Answers.Text: @Glorfindel, I see your point! How about changing the queen to a rook then? It will seem to be a perfect example. I have never thought of this type of draw game where one side has a huge material advantage while it is not a stalemate.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Zuriel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-15T12:44:22.930Z
Answers.Text: My earlier comment was based on the earlier edition of the diagram. I love this answer as it is an example that human players make objectively better moves than engines.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Zuriel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-17T04:21:45.620Z
Answers.Text: -1 today's top chess engines are very capable of figuring out that taking the rook loses the game. They aren't so capable of figuring out that it's a draw, but they will endlessly shuffle while refusing to take the rook until the 50-move rule helps them prune to a draw.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Allure
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-15T06:13:52.313Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-01-15T12:40:52.167Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-01-15T12:40:52.167Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: sjb-2812
Answers.Body: <p>I see three situations, where something like you describe could happen:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>wild tactical positions with open king, where moves have to be very precise and many humans might be too scared to enter such position</li>
  <li>Many composed studies feature surprising moves that could be rejected by humans. For instance studies in which you give up all your material except for say a bishop with which you mate somehow. In most positions you can't win with a bishop only, so lines leading to such positions would not be considered usually.</li>
  <li>some of the more tricky endgames feature very unnatural/inhuman moves that would be rejected by human players. One example are the computer lines after move 67 in game 6 of the last WC match Carlsen-Caruana. <a href="https://chess24.com/en/read/news/carlsen-caruana-6-fabi-close-in-80-move-thriller" rel="noreferrer">Some quotes</a> regarding the winning lines suggested by computers: </li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>Svidler:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Even when I saw what the machine suggested was winning there I honestly don't think it was humanly possible to find it on the 10 minutes that Fabi had, and it's incredibly weird how the position is conceptually lost after Kg6.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Kasparov:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>The computer shows Black wins with 68..Bh4 here. But had Caruana played the incredible 69.Bd5 Ne2 70.Bf3 Ng1!! they would request metal detectors immediately! No human can willingly trap his own knight like that.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Svidler:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>A move that a human is more or less incapable of making</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Grischuk:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>I would never even dream about Bh4</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Carlsen:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>I’m not going to disagree with the computer, I just don’t understand it!</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-10T02:31:31.930Z
Answers.Text: Those quotes are great
Answers.UserDisplayName: Isac
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-12-08T15:21:16.460Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-12-08T15:21:16.460Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Body: <p>Am wondering if it is possible for a move to be considered "good" by engines but is rejected by professional human players. One possible reason that I can think of is that the in order for this move to be successful, one has to play exactly right for the next 20 moves or so, which is easy for engines but difficult for human players.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-01-16T01:35:56.423Z
Comments.Text: I would argue that it is highly probable that moves exist for which one professional human player considers them to be good and another professional human player considers them to be bad, due to playstyle differences.  That on its own should almost invariably lead the answer to be "yes," without even considering the computer.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Cort Ammon
Tags: <engines><human-versus-machine>
Title: Is it possible for a move to be recomended by engines but rejected by professional human players?
ThreadText: # Is it possible for a move to be recomended by engines but rejected by professional human players?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2018-12-08)
  
  Am wondering if it is possible for a move to be considered "good" by engines but is rejected by professional human players. One possible reason that I can think of is that the in order for this move to be successful, one has to play exactly right for the next 20 moves or so, which is easy for engines but difficult for human players.
  
  **Tags:** engines, human-versus-machine
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I would argue that it is highly probable that moves exist for which one professional human player considers them to be good and another professional human player considers them to be bad, due to playstyle differences.  That on its own should almost invariably lead the answer to be "yes," without even considering the computer.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 6 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2018-12-08. Score: 13 | Accepted answer
  
  I see three situations, where something like you describe could happen:
  
  1. wild tactical positions with open king, where moves have to be very precise and many humans might be too scared to enter such position
  2. Many composed studies feature surprising moves that could be rejected by humans. For instance studies in which you give up all your material except for say a bishop with which you mate somehow. In most positions you can't win with a bishop only, so lines leading to such positions would not be considered usually.
  3. some of the more tricky endgames feature very unnatural/inhuman moves that would be rejected by human players. One example are the computer lines after move 67 in game 6 of the last WC match Carlsen-Caruana. [Some quotes](https://chess24.com/en/read/news/carlsen-caruana-6-fabi-close-in-80-move-thriller) regarding the winning lines suggested by computers:
  
  Svidler:
  
  > Even when I saw what the machine suggested was winning there I honestly don't think it was humanly possible to find it on the 10 minutes that Fabi had, and it's incredibly weird how the position is conceptually lost after Kg6.
  
  Kasparov:
  
  > The computer shows Black wins with 68..Bh4 here. But had Caruana played the incredible 69.Bd5 Ne2 70.Bf3 Ng1!! they would request metal detectors immediately! No human can willingly trap his own knight like that.
  
  Svidler:
  
  > A move that a human is more or less incapable of making
  
  Grischuk:
  
  > I would never even dream about Bh4
  
  Carlsen:
  
  > I’m not going to disagree with the computer, I just don’t understand it!
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: Those quotes are great  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2018-12-11. Score: 6
  
  Yes, it's possible. See this article. The gist is, if for you're in a "draw and I win this tournament" situation, you would quite naturally play moves that might not be the best, but keeps the position simple and avoids tactical melees. You'd do this even if it reduces your chances to win the game. Conversely, if you're in a must-win situation, then you'll take chances and try to complicate the game even if they objectively weaken your position, because a draw is the same as a loss anyway. A computer on the other hand doesn't understand these things. It just makes the best moves.
  Below is a quote from the article about this position, after 30...Bf6.
  r6k/1p3Rpp/p2p1bq1/3N4/2P5/1P6/P1b2QPP/5RK1 w - - 0 1
  
  
  I showed the position to a number of players in Wijk aan Zee, and all gave me simple wins – for instance 31.Rxb7, 31.Rd7 or even 31.Rxf6. Remember, the first time control is looming and tournament victory is in grasp.
  So what does our hero play? 31.Qa7?!! “Fritzy!” squealed Anand and went into uncontrollable fits of laughter when he saw this and the following moves (I filmed his mirth and included it in my multimedia report in ChessBase Magazine 69). He and the other players immediately recognised the “hand” of the computer.
  If you switch on multiple-variation mode you will see that Fritz thinks 31.Qa7 is a tenth of a pawn better than the other alternatives. A computer program simply doesn't understand the difference between cast-iron moves that cannot fail, and a tight-rope walk on the edge of the precipice. I venture no human would undertake the latter course in the given tournament situation. Play through the continuation and judge for yourself.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: I agree! In fact, this was how a player was found cheating in a xiangqi (chinese chess) tournament: Instead of keeping the situation simple while he has the advantage, the player chose an extremely complicated tactics combination and eventually won a "horse" (similar to a knight) after about 7 or 8 moves and thus won the game. The player did not even spend much time calculating the lines, which becomes very suspecious. Eventually he was found cheating with an engine.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2018-12-08. Score: 1
  
  I would say definately yes. One example is the situation of a fortress. Even though one side is up in material the position is not winable. The engines can figure out that the fortress will not break in 10, 20 or whatever moves ahead but cannot figure out that it can **never** break! Then the evaluation function is obviously off and the suggested move is also off. Only a relatively strong human player can assert that it's a dead draw and reject the move and the line that follows.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: How about the following one? Can engines usually figure that it is a draw? http://www.e4ec.org/images/immr/BlockedPawns.gif  
  > **username_4**: Also dont reject tablebases. Most of those fortress might be in tablebases  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2018-12-08. Score: 1
  
  Well... absolutely possible and common. Magnus Carlsen himself said *"I don't care"* on his very positive position in the last game of the 2018 WCC match. Did he offer a draw in a position that a chess engine can very likely to win?
  
  Engine might play stronger chess, but if we don't understand how to do it, it's pointless. Sometimes we don't always make the best objective move. Carlsen did it to his last game. Kramnik tried several unsound openings this year.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thanks for yoru answer! I am also wondering if there exists a move which is recommended by engine but is rejected by most or all top human players. Not in a specific game, but the move is considered "unsound" or "unsafe" or "dubious" by most top players.  
  > **username_6**: The last game of the 2018 WCC wasn't about a human rejecting computer moves, though, as even an average club player could see that Carlsen had a good position, and the grandmasters criticising his decision were not referring to specific engine moves.  The issue there was that Magnus wanted to take a draw and head for the playoff, instead of playing for a win in an obviously better position, which many commentators felt showed a lack of fighting spirit (although his decisive victory in the playoff would seem to vindicate his decision).  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2018-12-08. Score: 1
  
  Yes, it is very much possible and this is the very reason different openings exist!
  
  Some examples:
  
  * 1 e4 as White is suggested by almost all engines. However, some GM's and WC feel that e4 is too committal.
  * Sicilian is almost never recommended by engines, whereas lot of GM's and WC's think that is the best way to equalize for Black. Engines usually suggest 1...e5 or 1...e6
  * Engine evaluation of KID may not always be understable to humans. See here: <https://en.chessbase.com/post/review-mihail-marin-winning-with-the-kings-indian>
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_8**: Could you elaborate a bit on your answer? I don't quite see the connection to "moves rejected by humans".  
  > **username_7**: @username_8 1 e4 is suggested by engines, but lot of GM's and WC's feel that e4 is too commital.  
  > **username_9**: Good answer I guess  
  > **username_8**: Disagree with: "this is the very reason different openings exist!". Different openings existed before engines.  
  > **username_7**: @username_8 I don't understand your comment. These openings continue to exist in the computer era means that humans make decisions differently than a computer and I have also give valid reasons.  
  > **username_8**: @Leg: Ok. I misread your answer. What you mean is basicall "...still exist". Anyway your answer seems a bit too black and white to me. Several points: 1) Engines do play moves other than 1. e4 as well (because they are not alway picking the first "best" move only.) 2) I doubt that many GM seriously reject 1. e4. It is just that they prefer other positions.  
  > **username_8**: @Leg: Other than that, I like your answer as it approaches the question from another perspective (positions where engine evaluations are bad/meaningless).  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_10 on 2019-01-15. Score: 0
  
  To follow up on username_3's comment, consider things like
  6kr/5b1p/2p3pP/rpPp1pP1/pP1PpP2/P3P3/1K6/8 w k - 0 1
  
  as well. It is clear that if White takes the rook eventually the Black forces will break through yet many engines can't resist the lure of decreasing the points deficit.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_11**: Please use the [Contact Us](/contact) form to have your accounts merged, so that you can freely edit your answer.  
  > **username_0**: @username_11, I see your point! How about changing the queen to a rook then? It will seem to be a perfect example. I have never thought of this type of draw game where one side has a huge material advantage while it is not a stalemate.  
  > **username_0**: My earlier comment was based on the earlier edition of the diagram. I love this answer as it is an example that human players make objectively better moves than engines.  
  > **username_2**: -1 today's top chess engines are very capable of figuring out that taking the rook loses the game. They aren't so capable of figuring out that it's a draw, but they will endlessly shuffle while refusing to take the rook until the 50-move rule helps them prune to a draw.  
  
  ---
  
  