Answers.Body: <p>The machine, hands down. </p>
  
  <p>These days the machine is so incomparably stronger than a player, that even if a player comes up with a better long-term strategy, they will still lose to inevitably missing tactics.  Even if they don't outright drop material, they will overlook threats and walk into a situation where they need to concede positional advantage to not lose that material.</p>
  
  <p>It's good to understand the role of Engines in human opening preparation.  Players would play through various lines against a computer looking for a good position, and using the engine to spot and avoid tactical problems for themselves, while laying tactical problems for the opponent.  Thus when they get to the board, if the line played out matches the studies of one player more than the other, they will instantly know which moves to play and the other is in danger of falling prey to the tactics uncovered by the machine.</p>
  
  <p>This is why Fischer invented Random, to get away from excessive analysis.  It is impossible for a player to memorize 960 opening schemes.  Yet a computer is capable of memorizing, playing itself thousands of matches AFK.  But even if you throw that opening book out (and with the new generation following Alpha Zero, this doesn't even make sense) and elite players win the strategy of the opening, yet machines will crush them in the execution.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-10-26T16:02:09.940Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-10-26T16:02:09.940Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Alan Baljeu
Answers.Body: <p><a href="https://matthewsadler.me.uk/engine-chess/chess960-superhumans/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The engine</a>.</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>It’s Chess960 time at the TCEC! (<a href="https://tcec-chess.com" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://tcec-chess.com</a>) <strong>The more I watch these games, the more I feel that the gap between humans and engines is even higher in Chess960 than in normal chess.</strong> I loved the opening phase of this game between two of the less famous engines on show. I’m not sure I would have thought of any of Black’s moves!</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>(Emphasis mine)</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-09-11T21:57:36.540Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-09-11T21:57:36.540Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Allure
Answers.Body: <p>The basic difference between Chess 960 and Classical Chess is that by switching the pieces around at the start, you've in essence removed the computer's opening book. That would eliminate the potential initial advantage that had afforded, since most humans wouldn't have matched that. However, during the "960" opening and subsequently, the machine would go about business as usual, developing quickly and then searching for all possible tactics. Depending on the depth of search, it should prove superior to the vast majority of humans in that respect.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-09T14:01:14.163Z
Answers.Text: Without any opening pattern, human players would lose one of the most important advantage against a computer. The humans would need to compete with the machine in brutal tactic on move 1. Your answer is totally wrong. Please refer to the other answer by @BlindKungFuMaster, he correctly pointed out the fact about opening book.
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-09T14:33:14.717Z
Answers.Text: I'm certainly no computer expert, but if you re-read my answer it would be hard to categorize it as "just wrong".  It's hard to see how "removing opening knowledge benefits the engine considerably".  And I did say that, "Depending on the depth of search, it should prove superior to the vast majority of humans in that respect."
Answers.UserDisplayName: CConero
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-09T14:39:37.557Z
Answers.Text: Ok. I think the answer was confusing. First, you stated "eliminate the potential initial advantage that had afforded". That means the opening advantage that the computer had was eliminated. But then, you mentioned that the computer was superior to human after the removal. Clearly, there was a problem in the language.
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-15T13:04:42.850Z
Answers.Text: If there's a last word on this, perhaps it should come from the variant's creator - ".....shuffle the first row of the pieces by computer ... and this way you will get rid of all the theory. One reason that computers are strong in chess is that they have access to enormous theory.  I think if you can turn off the computer's book, which I've done when I've played the computer, they are still rather weak, at least at the opening part of the game, so I think this would be a good improvement." - Bobby Fischer, Sept. 1, 1992
Answers.UserDisplayName: CConero
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-09-15T17:38:53.000Z
Answers.Text: @CConero 1992?  No one in 1992 should have the final word on how chess engines play in 2015 (or now, 2021...)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Edward
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-08T15:53:04.017Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-08-08T15:53:04.017Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: CConero
Answers.Body: <p>You have to understand, that a top ten player is superior to an engine in the opening, because he used engines to analyze openings for many years, and because engines usually don't have an opening book on the level of the preparation of a top player.</p>
  
  <p>In chess 960 you basically take away the opening book for both players and at the very top this actually benefits the engine.</p>
  
  <p>So I think there can be no doubt, that engines would be similarly superior in chess960 as in normal chess. But the only Human-Engine match I know of was still won by the human player: Peter Svidler vs Baron, 1,5:0,5 in the year of 2005.
  Of course the big jump in engine strength only came with Rybka in the very same year 2005.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-19T18:34:41.480Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-12-19T18:34:41.480Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Body: <p>I know that the old good question about engines vs humans has been asked multiple times, e. g. <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1997/are-the-best-engines-better-than-the-best-humans">here</a>.</p>
  
  <p>But what about random chess (aka Fischer chess or chess960)? Can humanity feel confortable about struggling machines in this game?</p>
  
  <p>Do you know of plays or championships that throws any light about the question?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-12-19T20:50:45.633Z
Comments.Text: This is really no different than asking who is best at chess, humans or engines?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Travis J
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-09-10T17:47:21.603Z
Comments.Text: @TravisJ are you sure? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePfQOKA9Oe4
Comments.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Tags: <chess-variants><chess960><human-versus-machine>
Title: Who is best at Fischer Random chess, humans or engines?
ThreadText: # Who is best at Fischer Random chess, humans or engines?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2014-12-19)
  
  I know that the old good question about engines vs humans has been asked multiple times, e. g. [here](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1997/are-the-best-engines-better-than-the-best-humans).
  
  But what about random chess (aka Fischer chess or chess960)? Can humanity feel confortable about struggling machines in this game?
  
  Do you know of plays or championships that throws any light about the question?
  
  **Tags:** chess-variants, chess960, human-versus-machine
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: This is really no different than asking who is best at chess, humans or engines?  
  > **username_2**: @TravisJ are you sure? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePfQOKA9Oe4  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2014-12-19. Score: 8 | Accepted answer
  
  You have to understand, that a top ten player is superior to an engine in the opening, because he used engines to analyze openings for many years, and because engines usually don't have an opening book on the level of the preparation of a top player.
  
  In chess 960 you basically take away the opening book for both players and at the very top this actually benefits the engine.
  
  So I think there can be no doubt, that engines would be similarly superior in chess960 as in normal chess. But the only Human-Engine match I know of was still won by the human player: Peter Svidler vs Baron, 1,5:0,5 in the year of 2005.
  Of course the big jump in engine strength only came with Rybka in the very same year 2005.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2018-10-26. Score: 5
  
  The machine, hands down.
  
  These days the machine is so incomparably stronger than a player, that even if a player comes up with a better long-term strategy, they will still lose to inevitably missing tactics. Even if they don't outright drop material, they will overlook threats and walk into a situation where they need to concede positional advantage to not lose that material.
  
  It's good to understand the role of Engines in human opening preparation. Players would play through various lines against a computer looking for a good position, and using the engine to spot and avoid tactical problems for themselves, while laying tactical problems for the opponent. Thus when they get to the board, if the line played out matches the studies of one player more than the other, they will instantly know which moves to play and the other is in danger of falling prey to the tactics uncovered by the machine.
  
  This is why Fischer invented Random, to get away from excessive analysis. It is impossible for a player to memorize 960 opening schemes. Yet a computer is capable of memorizing, playing itself thousands of matches AFK. But even if you throw that opening book out (and with the new generation following Alpha Zero, this doesn't even make sense) and elite players win the strategy of the opening, yet machines will crush them in the execution.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2021-09-11. Score: 2
  
  [The engine](https://matthewsadler.me.uk/engine-chess/chess960-superhumans/).
  
  > It’s Chess960 time at the TCEC! (<https://tcec-chess.com>) **The more I watch these games, the more I feel that the gap between humans and engines is even higher in Chess960 than in normal chess.** I loved the opening phase of this game between two of the less famous engines on show. I’m not sure I would have thought of any of Black’s moves!
  
  (Emphasis mine)
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2015-08-08. Score: -1
  
  The basic difference between Chess 960 and Classical Chess is that by switching the pieces around at the start, you've in essence removed the computer's opening book. That would eliminate the potential initial advantage that had afforded, since most humans wouldn't have matched that. However, during the "960" opening and subsequently, the machine would go about business as usual, developing quickly and then searching for all possible tactics. Depending on the depth of search, it should prove superior to the vast majority of humans in that respect.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_6**: Without any opening pattern, human players would lose one of the most important advantage against a computer. The humans would need to compete with the machine in brutal tactic on move 1. Your answer is totally wrong. Please refer to the other answer by @username_8, he correctly pointed out the fact about opening book.  
  > **username_5**: I'm certainly no computer expert, but if you re-read my answer it would be hard to categorize it as "just wrong".  It's hard to see how "removing opening knowledge benefits the engine considerably".  And I did say that, "Depending on the depth of search, it should prove superior to the vast majority of humans in that respect."  
  > **username_6**: Ok. I think the answer was confusing. First, you stated "eliminate the potential initial advantage that had afforded". That means the opening advantage that the computer had was eliminated. But then, you mentioned that the computer was superior to human after the removal. Clearly, there was a problem in the language.  
  > **username_5**: If there's a last word on this, perhaps it should come from the variant's creator - ".....shuffle the first row of the pieces by computer ... and this way you will get rid of all the theory. One reason that computers are strong in chess is that they have access to enormous theory.  I think if you can turn off the computer's book, which I've done when I've played the computer, they are still rather weak, at least at the opening part of the game, so I think this would be a good improvement." - Bobby Fischer, Sept. 1, 1992  
  > **username_7**: @username_5 1992?  No one in 1992 should have the final word on how chess engines play in 2015 (or now, 2021...)  
  
  ---
  
  