Humans are better at positional chess, Corr. chess proves it

[mwyoung]

If you want to argue that people cheat ok.

USCF CC Rules.

3. You may consult chess books and periodicals but not
other players. You cannot use a computer or computer program
(chessplaying algorithms) to evaluate a game, but you
may use computers for record keeping and databases.

Humans are not allowed to use computer in Corr. Chess.

I am not the one playing mental twister and trying to put words in other peoples mouth.

Answer me this one question. If a human master is better then computers at positional chess. Why could not the CC master beat a set of old program like Fritz 6 and Nimzo 7.32 at correspondence chess?

I am showing data, all you can give it hypotheticals with no data. Just your speculation your right.

Read the game analysis:

http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/ham/ham.htm

[michiguel]

What do you think would happen to a human master if playing against Houdini 3 on a multi core i7 computer.....Devastation!

The human master using H3 for analysis would most likely beat H3 quite easily at very long time controls. That is how correspondence chess works. And this is clearly what Leon Coleman meant.

That the human master + H3 beats H3 is clearly not because of the human master's tactical abilities.

The human probably doesn't even need to be close to master level.

Sorry that is not what he said.

"Pure engines playing correspondence chess against humans prove it."

He did not say pure engines playing against cyborgs prove it.

I play correspondence chess, that is not how correspondence chess works. Computer assistants must be stated to be allowed in the rules. No one wants to play against someone else's computer program, so a lot of event have a no computer rule.

But is your only argument is that humans must have Houdini 3 to beat Houdini 3. And you think that somehow this shows humans have better positional ideas on their own then Houdini 3. When they are stealing Houdini 3's own positional moves and analysis.

This is laughable....

No, they could have Stockfish and Chiron (just to name two), as the 3-Hirn experiments of Ingo Althoefer has shown.

Miguel

[syzygy]

Read the game analysis:

I stopped at "unaided".

Now how about the real argument:

- do you agree or disagree that a human master using H3 (and sufficiently adept at it) would beat H3 at (very) long time controls, i.e. that the combination is stronger?
- if you agree, what is your explanation for it? Surely not that the human master's tactical contribution makes the difference?

[mwyoung]

Read the game analysis:

I stopped at "unaided".

Now how about the real argument:

- do you agree or disagree that a human master using H3 (and sufficiently adept at it) would beat H3 at (very) long time controls, i.e. that the combination is stronger?
- if you agree, what is your explanation for it? Surely not that the human master's tactical contribution makes the difference?

Why is this the real argument and not a real match that was played with detailed game analysis showing computers beating a CC master at CC.

I don't know. Can you show us the games where this is true. So we can look at the data.

I have no clue about your hypothetical. I have seen no data to support it one way or the other.

Or why using rocking analysis to force the program to look deeper into positions to find better moves, gives credit to the human for finding the moves because he used rocking analysis. And in theory used it to beat a version of the same program that was left to its on devices.

Your theory is very confusing....

But I await your data proving your point, my data shows program playing human program beating human.

[mwyoung]

What do you think would happen to a human master if playing against Houdini 3 on a multi core i7 computer.....Devastation!

The human master using H3 for analysis would most likely beat H3 quite easily at very long time controls. That is how correspondence chess works. And this is clearly what Leon Coleman meant.

That the human master + H3 beats H3 is clearly not because of the human master's tactical abilities.

The human probably doesn't even need to be close to master level.

Sorry that is not what he said.

"Pure engines playing correspondence chess against humans prove it."

He did not say pure engines playing against cyborgs prove it.

I play correspondence chess, that is not how correspondence chess works. Computer assistants must be stated to be allowed in the rules. No one wants to play against someone else's computer program, so a lot of event have a no computer rule.

But is your only argument is that humans must have Houdini 3 to beat Houdini 3. And you think that somehow this shows humans have better positional ideas on their own then Houdini 3. When they are stealing Houdini 3's own positional moves and analysis.

This is laughable....

No, they could have Stockfish and Chiron (just to name two), as the 3-Hirn experiments of Ingo Althoefer has shown.

Miguel

Lets play Miguel Your team of Stockfish and Chiron and you and you pick the move you want between the two programs Vs. Houdini 3.

All game analysis must be public, to be verified it was played by stockfish or Chiron and we use equal hardware.

Can we put money on this?

Lets play....

[Terry McCracken]

What do you think would happen to a human master if playing against Houdini 3 on a multi core i7 computer.....Devastation!

The human master using H3 for analysis would most likely beat H3 quite easily at very long time controls. That is how correspondence chess works. And this is clearly what Leon Coleman meant.

That the human master + H3 beats H3 is clearly not because of the human master's tactical abilities.

The human probably doesn't even need to be close to master level.

Sorry that is not what he said.

"Pure engines playing correspondence chess against humans prove it."

He did not say pure engines playing against cyborgs prove it.

I play correspondence chess, that is not how correspondence chess works. Computer assistants must be stated to be allowed in the rules. No one wants to play against someone else's computer program, so a lot of event have a no computer rule.

But is your only argument is that humans must have Houdini 3 to beat Houdini 3. And you think that somehow this shows humans have better positional ideas on their own then Houdini 3. When they are stealing Houdini 3's own positional moves and analysis.

This is laughable....

No, they could have Stockfish and Chiron (just to name two), as the 3-Hirn experiments of Ingo Althoefer has shown.

Miguel

Lets play Miguel Your team of Stockfish and Chiron and you and you pick the move you want between the two programs Vs. Houdini 3.

All game analysis must be public, to be verified it was played by stockfish or Chiron and we use equal hardware.

Can we put money on this?

Lets play....

Mark, it's not a wise bet for you to make. However, I'd like to see it.

[mwyoung]

What do you think would happen to a human master if playing against Houdini 3 on a multi core i7 computer.....Devastation!

The human master using H3 for analysis would most likely beat H3 quite easily at very long time controls. That is how correspondence chess works. And this is clearly what Leon Coleman meant.

That the human master + H3 beats H3 is clearly not because of the human master's tactical abilities.

The human probably doesn't even need to be close to master level.

Sorry that is not what he said.

"Pure engines playing correspondence chess against humans prove it."

He did not say pure engines playing against cyborgs prove it.

I play correspondence chess, that is not how correspondence chess works. Computer assistants must be stated to be allowed in the rules. No one wants to play against someone else's computer program, so a lot of event have a no computer rule.

But is your only argument is that humans must have Houdini 3 to beat Houdini 3. And you think that somehow this shows humans have better positional ideas on their own then Houdini 3. When they are stealing Houdini 3's own positional moves and analysis.

This is laughable....

No, they could have Stockfish and Chiron (just to name two), as the 3-Hirn experiments of Ingo Althoefer has shown.

Miguel

Lets play Miguel Your team of Stockfish and Chiron and you and you pick the move you want between the two programs Vs. Houdini 3.

All game analysis must be public, to be verified it was played by stockfish or Chiron and we use equal hardware.

Can we put money on this?

Lets play....

Mark, it's not a wise bet for you to make. However, I'd like to see it.

Ok I will bet a $1, but we agree on something. I want to see how two inferior programs beats a superior program because the human got to pick one of the inferior programs moves. I JUST GOT TO SEE THIS IN ACTION!

If this work like he claims I should make him play with sargon II and battle chess, Hell for the the fun of it he can use 3 programs, Crafty what ever version Miguel likes.

[carldaman]

Some federations allow engine assistance, some don't. ICCF is famous for allowing engine-assisted play.

It is well-known among ICCF players that a human (let's say as low as 1700 rated and above) using an engine will perform better than an unaided engine.

Practically speaking, an ignorant or lazy player blindly following Houdini's moves would qualify as an 'unaided engine'. This is a common occurrence.

Regards,
CL

[mwyoung]

Some federations allow engine assistance, some don't. ICCF is famous for allowing engine-assisted play.

It is well-known among ICCF players that a human (let's say as low as 1700 rated and above) using an engine will perform better than an unaided engine.

Practically speaking, an ignorant or lazy player blindly following Houdini's moves would qualify as an 'unaided engine'. This is a common occurrence.

Regards,
CL

Yes, but this is not due to the great positional knowledge of the player, it has more to do the player analyzing and looking at alternative lines with the computer. This is just a skill one uses to get the most out of the computer engine. I have used this myself, It is called rocking analysis. And I can find better lines using this tactic then the engine may find left to its own devices.

We are playing GMVaruzhan Akobian on Chessgame.com and kicking his ass using this tactic with the computer. But none of us on chessgames.com have the delusion it is because of are human positional skills. We are just able to go very deep into the position by moving forward and seeing how the computer evaluates that line as we proceed deeper. If the line keep going good we play out more of the line. It is very simple and effective use of the computer engine. But it has very little to do with the persons great positional superiority over the computer program.

[Uri Blass]

Some federations allow engine assistance, some don't. ICCF is famous for allowing engine-assisted play.

It is well-known among ICCF players that a human (let's say as low as 1700 rated and above) using an engine will perform better than an unaided engine.

Practically speaking, an ignorant or lazy player blindly following Houdini's moves would qualify as an 'unaided engine'. This is a common occurrence.

Regards,
CL

It is not well known to me and I believe that many humans with at least rating of 1700 perform worse than unaided engines.

Humans who perform better than unaided engines is a small minority of the ICCF players and most ICCF players simply do not give the engines enough computer time to be at the same level of unaided engines.