Answers.Body: <p>Losing games to computers because of mistakes made under time pressure was probably a thing about 20 years ago, when Kasparov lost to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_versus_Garry_Kasparov" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DeepBlue</a> after such a mistake(correction: it was Kramnik with the blunder, not Kasparov (see edit 2)). But after <a href="https://en.chessbase.com/post/man-vs-machine-shocker-kramnik-allows-mate-in-one" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kramnik's</a> loss in early 2000s, no world champion ever tried to play against a computer (to my knowledge). Nowadays, there are computer only <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Chess_Engine_Championship" rel="nofollow noreferrer">tournaments</a> among programs with ratings well above 3300 (for comparison, Carlsen's peak rating was around 2880), and it is not uncommon for computers to make moves with no apparent meaning to humans.</p>
  <p>No time limit for humans also mean no time limit for computers so I doubt any human can win a single game against a computer. Older models like Stockfish 8 depend on their computational power as it can look at several millions of position per second, <a href="https://deepmind.com/blog/article/alphazero-shedding-new-light-grand-games-chess-shogi-and-go" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Google AlphaZero</a>  managed to beat <a href="https://www.chess.com/news/view/updated-alphazero-crushes-stockfish-in-new-1-000-game-match" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Stockfish</a> with 80000 positions per second: they don't seem to depend on brute force calculations any more. Keep in mind that this is without any prior knowledge of openings etc, they are trained using reinforcement learning, starting from the rules of the game only. From there, they can develop their own strategies and implement them without making any mistakes. They create their own openings from scratch, so existing libraries is not going to be very useful.</p>
  <p>I am not aware of any research on this but lack of a challenge from humans is probably enough evidence. Also, Grand Masters regularly use chess engines in their training routine to analyze positions, so there is that.</p>
  <p>A few years ago there was a game between Stockfish against GM Nakamura + Rybka, which <a href="https://www.chess.com/news/view/stockfish-outlasts-nakamura-3634" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Stockfish won</a>. It is possible that human GM + Stockfish might have better chances against AlphaZero in correspondence without any time limits, but we probably will never know.</p>
  <p><a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=n5ltO5jfniM&amp;t=86" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here</a> is an interview with Carlsen after a game, very interesting to show what he thinks about AlphaZero.</p>
  <p>Both Kramnik and Kasparov made serious mistakes in their matches against computers. Kasparov resigned in a drawn position and missed a knight sacrifice, and Kramnik missed a mate in 1.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-01-22T01:28:09.210Z
Answers.Text: Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/118771/discussion-on-answer-by-serali-are-humans-superior-to-machines-in-chess).
Answers.UserDisplayName: nbro
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-11-10T10:42:40.010Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-01-22T01:25:46.247Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-01-22T01:25:46.247Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: serali
Body: <p>A friend of mine, who is an International Master at chess, told me that humans were superior to machines provided you didn't impose the time constraints that exist in competitive chess (40 moves in 2 hours) since very often games were lost, to another human or a machine, when a bad move is made under time pressure.</p>
  
  <p>So, with no time constraints and access to a library of games, the human mind remains superior to the machine is my friend's contention.  I'm an indifferent chess player and don't really know what to make of this.  I was wondering if any research had been made that could back up that claim or rebut it.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-11-11T08:53:41.797Z
Comments.Text: He's assuming the computer isn't under time pressure. It is. Removing time limits is not giving an advantage to the human player, it's giving even _more_ advantage to the computer. Of course, unless the game simply goes on forever :)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Luaan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-11-11T19:41:42.707Z
Comments.Text: The problem seems under-specified to me, because if you stipulate "no time constraints," then surely a computer could in principle search the *entire* game tree of chess and only play optimal moves (even though you wouldn't even be 1% done by the heat death of the universe). You have to have _some_ time constraints to make the question meaningful.
Comments.UserDisplayName: David Zhang
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-11-11T20:09:27.770Z
Comments.Text: @DavidZhang  I guess what I have in mind is time constraints that are so lax that Zeitnot is not an issue at all, like, for example, 40 moves in 40 weeks or 40 months.  Enough time at any rate to make it possible for the human mind and its creativity to seriously challenge the computing capacity of the machine and maybe defeat it.
Comments.UserDisplayName: grandtout
Tags: <comparison><chess>
Title: Are humans superior to machines in chess?
UserDisplayName: grandtout
ThreadText: # Are humans superior to machines in chess?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-11-10)
  
  A friend of mine, who is an International Master at chess, told me that humans were superior to machines provided you didn't impose the time constraints that exist in competitive chess (40 moves in 2 hours) since very often games were lost, to another human or a machine, when a bad move is made under time pressure.
  
  So, with no time constraints and access to a library of games, the human mind remains superior to the machine is my friend's contention. I'm an indifferent chess player and don't really know what to make of this. I was wondering if any research had been made that could back up that claim or rebut it.
  
  **Tags:** comparison, chess
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: He's assuming the computer isn't under time pressure. It is. Removing time limits is not giving an advantage to the human player, it's giving even _more_ advantage to the computer. Of course, unless the game simply goes on forever :)  
  > **username_2**: The problem seems under-specified to me, because if you stipulate "no time constraints," then surely a computer could in principle search the *entire* game tree of chess and only play optimal moves (even though you wouldn't even be 1% done by the heat death of the universe). You have to have _some_ time constraints to make the question meaningful.  
  > **username_0**: @DavidZhang  I guess what I have in mind is time constraints that are so lax that Zeitnot is not an issue at all, like, for example, 40 moves in 40 weeks or 40 months.  Enough time at any rate to make it possible for the human mind and its creativity to seriously challenge the computing capacity of the machine and maybe defeat it.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2019-11-10. Score: 22
  
  Losing games to computers because of mistakes made under time pressure was probably a thing about 20 years ago, when Kasparov lost to [DeepBlue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_versus_Garry_Kasparov) after such a mistake(correction: it was Kramnik with the blunder, not Kasparov (see edit 2)). But after [Kramnik's](https://en.chessbase.com/post/man-vs-machine-shocker-kramnik-allows-mate-in-one) loss in early 2000s, no world champion ever tried to play against a computer (to my knowledge). Nowadays, there are computer only [tournaments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Chess_Engine_Championship) among programs with ratings well above 3300 (for comparison, Carlsen's peak rating was around 2880), and it is not uncommon for computers to make moves with no apparent meaning to humans.
  
  No time limit for humans also mean no time limit for computers so I doubt any human can win a single game against a computer. Older models like Stockfish 8 depend on their computational power as it can look at several millions of position per second, [Google AlphaZero](https://deepmind.com/blog/article/alphazero-shedding-new-light-grand-games-chess-shogi-and-go) managed to beat [Stockfish](https://www.chess.com/news/view/updated-alphazero-crushes-stockfish-in-new-1-000-game-match) with 80000 positions per second: they don't seem to depend on brute force calculations any more. Keep in mind that this is without any prior knowledge of openings etc, they are trained using reinforcement learning, starting from the rules of the game only. From there, they can develop their own strategies and implement them without making any mistakes. They create their own openings from scratch, so existing libraries is not going to be very useful.
  
  I am not aware of any research on this but lack of a challenge from humans is probably enough evidence. Also, Grand Masters regularly use chess engines in their training routine to analyze positions, so there is that.
  
  A few years ago there was a game between Stockfish against GM Nakamura + Rybka, which [Stockfish won](https://www.chess.com/news/view/stockfish-outlasts-nakamura-3634). It is possible that human GM + Stockfish might have better chances against AlphaZero in correspondence without any time limits, but we probably will never know.
  
  [Here](http://youtube.com/watch?v=n5ltO5jfniM&t=86) is an interview with Carlsen after a game, very interesting to show what he thinks about AlphaZero.
  
  Both Kramnik and Kasparov made serious mistakes in their matches against computers. Kasparov resigned in a drawn position and missed a knight sacrifice, and Kramnik missed a mate in 1.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/118771/discussion-on-answer-by-serali-are-humans-superior-to-machines-in-chess).  
  
  ---
  
  