Answers.Body: <p>Chess centaurs is not correspondence chess because centaur matches are played under the classical time controls. Unfortunately, centaurs is dead because the best strategy is just follow the engine moves.</p>
  
  <p>In classical time controls, there's generally no advantage for human assistance. Humans are too slow, too clumsy etc ... we need more time.</p>
  
  <p>This is 2018, centaurs matches are absolutely meaningless. They are like computer matches with dumb human intervention. Computer engines play stronger than human+computer unless the human player has sufficient time to digest the positions.</p>
  
  <p>The answer to your question is the <strong>same ELO as the engine itself</strong>.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-03-26T22:29:29.817Z
Answers.Text: Do you have some evidence for what you wrote? I'm under the impression that a GM + computer should still hold a meaningful edge over just the computer.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Allure
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-03-26T23:10:38.153Z
Answers.Text: @Allure your are wrong. Google about Garry Kasparov.
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-03-26T23:14:18.450Z
Answers.Text: "Garry Kasparov" returns a huge list of results, not all of which is related to centaur chess. "Garry Kasparov centaur" doesn't find anything conclusive. Do you have more specific search terms?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Allure
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-03-26T23:15:08.697Z
Answers.Text: @Allure Kasparov mentioned when he talked about advance chess. Sorry I don’t have time to google it further.
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-03-26T23:17:33.730Z
Answers.Text: I can't find any where Kasparov says humans are no help. Instead he says the opposite. For example there is https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/garry-kasparov-tyler-cowen-chess-iq-ai-putin-3bf28baf4dba, where he says "There’s no doubt about it" in response to the question "Today, 2017, do you still think it’s the case that a human paired with a set of programs is better than playing against just the single strongest computer program in chess?"
Answers.UserDisplayName: Allure
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-03-27T00:01:26.500Z
Answers.Text: @Allure Please be patience. I'll find references when I have a chance.
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-06-27T01:47:18.540Z
Answers.Text: Just read this article: https://en.chessbase.com/post/correspondence-chess-and-correspondence-database-2018 Taken at face value it indicates the very best centaurs are still better than engines.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Allure
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-03T16:38:25.037Z
Answers.Text: Here is a more recent interview (from 2018) with Kasaparov on the topic in which he still believes that the combination of humans with AI can lead to better results than AI on its own: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/10/heres_what_garry_kasparov_an_old_world_chess_champion_thinks_of_ai/
Answers.UserDisplayName: twhale
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-01-16T21:26:57.440Z
Answers.Text: @SmallChess Have you had a chance yet? I'm not sure why your answer was upvoted since as yet it's incomplete.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mobeus Zoom
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-03-24T13:59:49.153Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-03-24T14:12:39.043Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2018-03-24T14:12:39.043Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Answers.Body: <p>In <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/world-chess-champion-magnus-carlsen-the-computer-never-has-been-an-opponent/a-19186058" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this 2015 article</a> Magnus Carlsen agrees with the interviewer's claim that the best computers surpass human playing ability:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>Interviewer: Both chess - and more recently the Asian game of Go - are now played better by computers than by humans, even by the very best like you. Does that take away the magic of brain games like chess?</p>
  </blockquote>
  <blockquote>
  <p>Carlsen: Yes, to some extent it takes a bit of the mysticism away. <strong>But as for chess, we've known for a long time that computers are better, so the computer never has been an opponent</strong>. It's a tool to help me analyze and to help me improve at chess.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>However, there are rare times when a human will play a move over the board that the engines being used by analysts in real time do not find.  For example, in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGnpewUKP88" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this video analysis</a> of <a href="https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1309482" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kramnik v Leko 2004 WCC Game 8</a>, the commentator's engine fails to find Leko's brilliant move 25 ... Qd3.</p>
  <pre><code>[FEN &quot;&quot;]
  [Event &quot;2004 World Championship Match Game 8&quot;]
  [White &quot;Vladimir Kramnik&quot;]
  [Black &quot;Peter Leko&quot;]
  
  1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6 12. d4 Bd6 13. Re1 Qh4 14. g3 Qh3 15. Re4 g5 16. Qf1 Qh5 17. Nd2 Bf5 18. f3 Nf6 19. Re1 Rae8 20. Rxe8 Rxe8 21. a4 Qg6 22. axb5 Bd3 23. Qf2 Re2 24. Qxe2 Bxe2 25. bxa6 Qd3 26. Kf2 Bxf3 27. Nxf3 Ne4+ 28. Ke1 Nxc3 29. bxc3 Qxc3+ 30. Kf2 Qxa1 31. a7 h6 32. h4 g4
  </code></pre>
  <p>This fact suggests that perhaps a world-class human player could occasionally find moves that improve the play of one of the best computers.  But it seems that for the most part, the human would go against the recommendation of the computer at great risk.  A centaur match today would probably be quite boring.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-01-16T21:11:54.290Z
Answers.Text: I'm sorry, but that example does not hold up. My Stockfish sees 25...Qd3 in less than a second, Leela being quite a lot slower maybe due to my slow hardware, comes in still in less than 10 seconds.
Answers.UserDisplayName: koedem
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-01-16T21:13:28.620Z
Answers.Text: The analysis video was from 2018, so I guess it's no surprise that now in 2022 the move is seen.  As time passes, surely the potential for a human to outplay the best computers even for a single move will continue to shrink.
Answers.UserDisplayName: wberry
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-01-16T21:27:33.240Z
Answers.Text: Hm, I tried Stockfish 9 now, which came out on Feb 1st 2018. It also saw it in less than a second...
Answers.UserDisplayName: koedem
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-01-16T21:28:56.567Z
Answers.Text: Not saying it's impossible to have such positions of course. I'm sure one can construct such. But in real play those would be extremely rare, so much so that I can't think of a single one.
Answers.UserDisplayName: koedem
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-01-16T22:32:08.793Z
Answers.Text: That's curious.  In the first part of the video agadmator says specifically that he tried it with Stockfish 9 and the move was "invisible" to it.  I wonder what could account for that difference.
Answers.UserDisplayName: wberry
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-01-16T22:33:14.133Z
Answers.Text: Clickbait? I don't know. My processor is from 2013 too so I don't think it's the hardware that would make the difference either.
Answers.UserDisplayName: koedem
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-01-16T22:43:58.323Z
Answers.Text: Using asmfishW_9_popcount (simply the assembly version of SF 9 that I still had lying around), all standard settings to make it reproducible, it was a bit slower due to only using 1 thread and little hash memory but the result was this:
  "info depth 24 seldepth 39 multipv 1 time 5758 nps 2502156 score cp 479 lowerbound nodes 14407418 hashfull 999 tbhits 0 pv g6d3"
Answers.UserDisplayName: koedem
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-01-16T19:28:42.590Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-01-16T19:28:42.590Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: wberry
Body: <p>The last public ranking of chess centaurs was in <a href="http://www.infinitychess.com/Page/Public/Article/DefaultArticle.aspx?id=83" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2014</a>, and only compares centaurs to each other. As of 2018, what would be the ELO rating of the best centaurs compared to the best humans and chess engines?</p>
  
  <p>This is similar to <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/15772/how-do-the-best-centaurs-compare-to-the-best-computers">this</a> question, but two differences:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>It is specifically about if centaurs beat computers, which is a subset of this question</li>
  <li>The top answer is about a GM with a computer who does <em>not</em> have any training as a centaur, while we know that good centaurs have very different skills than good humans do.</li>
  </ul>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-01-19T21:20:35.630Z
Comments.Text: [This post](http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=78346) in talkchess site doesn't answer exactly your questions, but probably can read some interesting ideas here
Comments.UserDisplayName: emdio
Tags: <history><elo>
Title: What would be the ELO of modern-day centaurs?
ThreadText: # What would be the ELO of modern-day centaurs?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2018-03-24)
  
  The last public ranking of chess centaurs was in [2014](http://www.infinitychess.com/Page/Public/Article/DefaultArticle.aspx?id=83), and only compares centaurs to each other. As of 2018, what would be the ELO rating of the best centaurs compared to the best humans and chess engines?
  
  This is similar to [this](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/15772/how-do-the-best-centaurs-compare-to-the-best-computers) question, but two differences:
  
  * It is specifically about if centaurs beat computers, which is a subset of this question
  * The top answer is about a GM with a computer who does *not* have any training as a centaur, while we know that good centaurs have very different skills than good humans do.
  
  **Tags:** history, elo
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: [This post](http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=78346) in talkchess site doesn't answer exactly your questions, but probably can read some interesting ideas here  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2018-03-24. Score: 4
  
  Chess centaurs is not correspondence chess because centaur matches are played under the classical time controls. Unfortunately, centaurs is dead because the best strategy is just follow the engine moves.
  
  In classical time controls, there's generally no advantage for human assistance. Humans are too slow, too clumsy etc ... we need more time.
  
  This is 2018, centaurs matches are absolutely meaningless. They are like computer matches with dumb human intervention. Computer engines play stronger than human+computer unless the human player has sufficient time to digest the positions.
  
  The answer to your question is the **same ELO as the engine itself**.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_3**: Do you have some evidence for what you wrote? I'm under the impression that a GM + computer should still hold a meaningful edge over just the computer.  
  > **username_2**: @username_3 your are wrong. Google about Garry Kasparov.  
  > **username_3**: "Garry Kasparov" returns a huge list of results, not all of which is related to centaur chess. "Garry Kasparov centaur" doesn't find anything conclusive. Do you have more specific search terms?  
  > **username_2**: @username_3 Kasparov mentioned when he talked about advance chess. Sorry I don’t have time to google it further.  
  > **username_3**: I can't find any where Kasparov says humans are no help. Instead he says the opposite. For example there is https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/garry-kasparov-tyler-cowen-chess-iq-ai-putin-3bf28baf4dba, where he says "There’s no doubt about it" in response to the question "Today, 2017, do you still think it’s the case that a human paired with a set of programs is better than playing against just the single strongest computer program in chess?"  
  > **username_2**: @username_3 Please be patience. I'll find references when I have a chance.  
  > **username_3**: Just read this article: https://en.chessbase.com/post/correspondence-chess-and-correspondence-database-2018 Taken at face value it indicates the very best centaurs are still better than engines.  
  > **username_4**: Here is a more recent interview (from 2018) with Kasaparov on the topic in which he still believes that the combination of humans with AI can lead to better results than AI on its own: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/10/heres_what_garry_kasparov_an_old_world_chess_champion_thinks_of_ai/  
  > **username_5**: @username_2 Have you had a chance yet? I'm not sure why your answer was upvoted since as yet it's incomplete.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2022-01-16. Score: 2
  
  In [this 2015 article](https://www.dw.com/en/world-chess-champion-magnus-carlsen-the-computer-never-has-been-an-opponent/a-19186058) Magnus Carlsen agrees with the interviewer's claim that the best computers surpass human playing ability:
  
  > Interviewer: Both chess - and more recently the Asian game of Go - are now played better by computers than by humans, even by the very best like you. Does that take away the magic of brain games like chess?
  
  > Carlsen: Yes, to some extent it takes a bit of the mysticism away. **But as for chess, we've known for a long time that computers are better, so the computer never has been an opponent**. It's a tool to help me analyze and to help me improve at chess.
  
  However, there are rare times when a human will play a move over the board that the engines being used by analysts in real time do not find. For example, in [this video analysis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGnpewUKP88) of [Kramnik v Leko 2004 WCC Game 8](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1309482), the commentator's engine fails to find Leko's brilliant move 25 ... Qd3.
  
  ```
  [FEN ""]
  [Event "2004 World Championship Match Game 8"]
  [White "Vladimir Kramnik"]
  [Black "Peter Leko"]
  
  1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6 12. d4 Bd6 13. Re1 Qh4 14. g3 Qh3 15. Re4 g5 16. Qf1 Qh5 17. Nd2 Bf5 18. f3 Nf6 19. Re1 Rae8 20. Rxe8 Rxe8 21. a4 Qg6 22. axb5 Bd3 23. Qf2 Re2 24. Qxe2 Bxe2 25. bxa6 Qd3 26. Kf2 Bxf3 27. Nxf3 Ne4+ 28. Ke1 Nxc3 29. bxc3 Qxc3+ 30. Kf2 Qxa1 31. a7 h6 32. h4 g4
  
  ```
  
  This fact suggests that perhaps a world-class human player could occasionally find moves that improve the play of one of the best computers. But it seems that for the most part, the human would go against the recommendation of the computer at great risk. A centaur match today would probably be quite boring.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_7**: I'm sorry, but that example does not hold up. My Stockfish sees 25...Qd3 in less than a second, Leela being quite a lot slower maybe due to my slow hardware, comes in still in less than 10 seconds.  
  > **username_6**: The analysis video was from 2018, so I guess it's no surprise that now in 2022 the move is seen.  As time passes, surely the potential for a human to outplay the best computers even for a single move will continue to shrink.  
  > **username_7**: Hm, I tried Stockfish 9 now, which came out on Feb 1st 2018. It also saw it in less than a second...  
  > **username_7**: Not saying it's impossible to have such positions of course. I'm sure one can construct such. But in real play those would be extremely rare, so much so that I can't think of a single one.  
  > **username_6**: That's curious.  In the first part of the video agadmator says specifically that he tried it with Stockfish 9 and the move was "invisible" to it.  I wonder what could account for that difference.  
  > **username_7**: Clickbait? I don't know. My processor is from 2013 too so I don't think it's the hardware that would make the difference either.  
  > **username_7**: Using asmfishW_9_popcount (simply the assembly version of SF 9 that I still had lying around), all standard settings to make it reproducible, it was a bit slower due to only using 1 thread and little hash memory but the result was this: "info depth 24 seldepth 39 multipv 1 time 5758 nps 2502156 score cp 479 lowerbound nodes 14407418 hashfull 999 tbhits 0 pv g6d3"  
  
  ---
  
  