Answers.Body: <p>short answer: the computer would still win</p>
  
  <p>long answer: a human player has much more time to think, well. but a chess-computerprogram would also have much more time to calculate much more variants. (and every good "classical" chess-computerprogram would use this time to evaluate as many variants as deep as possible). so the skill-difference would become linear bigger whilst you give them more time to think (assuming the players can use this time really prolific productively). the limits will be reached for a human when he wants to think deeper about more variants. for computers the limits a much broader because a computer would never be confused when it analyzes millions of positions.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-08-20T16:49:58.603Z
Answers.Text: hmm, interesting. So you think the skill difference would become bigger. I was under the impression that without tactical oversight, human's positional superiority would make the match up more even.
Answers.UserDisplayName: CognisMantis
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-09-24T09:49:14.777Z
Answers.Text: This answer seems to assume that the human master would have to play this game like a normal standard game of chess. But if it's 1 move/day I think it would be safe to assume that this can be treated as correspondence chess, in which case the human would be perfectly allowed to move the pieces around on the board and thoroughly analyze a position before making a final decision.
  That the skill difference would increase linearly is an assumption that I don't see how to justify.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-08-20T12:14:30.357Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-08-20T12:14:30.357Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: anion
Answers.Body: <p>Since the GM would also use an engine then he should win as he can add his own judgement to what the computer suggests.</p>
  
  <p>I still say Hans Berliner used an IBM 360 to help him win the world correspondence championship.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-02-07T21:20:38.090Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-02-07T21:20:38.090Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Body: <p>If Magnus Carlsen, for example, faced Stockfish with the time control 1move/day, how well would Magnus do against Stockfish? It seems with so much time per move, tactical oversight disappears. </p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-08-23T22:54:46.307Z
Comments.Text: Any such match is unfair to the human since computers have opening books and endgame table bases they get to use as reference. No human is allowed to bring reference materials into the match. If the human was extremely focused and it was only calculation vs calculation I think the human (magnus carlsen) would win. If we bring reference materials into the game but only the computer could use them, like how they normally set up human vs computer matches, the human would lose. If they both had access to reference materials, but the human couldn't use an engine, I'll say magnus barely wins.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Hockeyfan19
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-08-23T22:55:56.117Z
Comments.Text: This is assuming the computer isn't calculating the entire day, then it might just win anyways. Let's limit it's calculation ability to 30 minutes and only have the resources of a normal computer
Comments.UserDisplayName: Hockeyfan19
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-09-24T13:41:44.607Z
Comments.Text: tactical oversight does not disappear because chess is not solved.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Michael West
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2018-09-24T14:24:26.997Z
Comments.Text: @Hockeyfan19 Regarding reference materials, that's only one way to see it. Playing devil's advocate, the other way to see it would be that humans have access during a match to all the openings and endgames that they can store in their own memory; so do computers, they just have *much* more memory.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Federico Poloni
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-09-28T23:50:54.483Z
Comments.Text: It would be closer, but if grandmasters are allowed to think longer so would engines. So things would still favour the engines. I'm assuming grandmasters aren't allowed to move pieces on a physical board here.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-09T20:38:31.673Z
Comments.Text: Are top grandmasters allowed to use engines?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Allure
Tags: <engines><correspondence-chess>
Title: How would top grandmasters fare against engines in correspondence chess?
ThreadText: # How would top grandmasters fare against engines in correspondence chess?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2018-08-18)
  
  If Magnus Carlsen, for example, faced Stockfish with the time control 1move/day, how well would Magnus do against Stockfish? It seems with so much time per move, tactical oversight disappears.
  
  **Tags:** engines, correspondence-chess
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Any such match is unfair to the human since computers have opening books and endgame table bases they get to use as reference. No human is allowed to bring reference materials into the match. If the human was extremely focused and it was only calculation vs calculation I think the human (magnus carlsen) would win. If we bring reference materials into the game but only the computer could use them, like how they normally set up human vs computer matches, the human would lose. If they both had access to reference materials, but the human couldn't use an engine, I'll say magnus barely wins.  
  > **username_1**: This is assuming the computer isn't calculating the entire day, then it might just win anyways. Let's limit it's calculation ability to 30 minutes and only have the resources of a normal computer  
  > **username_2**: tactical oversight does not disappear because chess is not solved.  
  > **username_3**: @username_1 Regarding reference materials, that's only one way to see it. Playing devil's advocate, the other way to see it would be that humans have access during a match to all the openings and endgames that they can store in their own memory; so do computers, they just have *much* more memory.  
  > **username_4**: It would be closer, but if grandmasters are allowed to think longer so would engines. So things would still favour the engines. I'm assuming grandmasters aren't allowed to move pieces on a physical board here.  
  > **username_5**: Are top grandmasters allowed to use engines?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2018-08-20. Score: 1
  
  short answer: the computer would still win
  
  long answer: a human player has much more time to think, well. but a chess-computerprogram would also have much more time to calculate much more variants. (and every good "classical" chess-computerprogram would use this time to evaluate as many variants as deep as possible). so the skill-difference would become linear bigger whilst you give them more time to think (assuming the players can use this time really prolific productively). the limits will be reached for a human when he wants to think deeper about more variants. for computers the limits a much broader because a computer would never be confused when it analyzes millions of positions.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: hmm, interesting. So you think the skill difference would become bigger. I was under the impression that without tactical oversight, human's positional superiority would make the match up more even.  
  > **username_7**: This answer seems to assume that the human master would have to play this game like a normal standard game of chess. But if it's 1 move/day I think it would be safe to assume that this can be treated as correspondence chess, in which case the human would be perfectly allowed to move the pieces around on the board and thoroughly analyze a position before making a final decision. That the skill difference would increase linearly is an assumption that I don't see how to justify.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2020-02-07. Score: 0
  
  Since the GM would also use an engine then he should win as he can add his own judgement to what the computer suggests.
  
  I still say Hans Berliner used an IBM 360 to help him win the world correspondence championship.
  
  
  ---
  
  