Something Hikaru Said

[tpoppins]

I'll say it again as well. A 1000+ Elo advantage does not allow you to find a winning or drawing move in a position that is lost. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

You're looking at one side of it only. Your opponent's 1000+Elo disadvantage may lead him to miss winning moves in a position that is won, or worse yet, blunder into a losing line because of a tactical blow hidden beyond his/its horizon (which may be a decisive component of that disadvantage).

[bob]

I'll say it again. In 1970, A human could beat a computer giving the COMPUTER knight odds, trivially. That has changed. Just because they can't do it today doesn't mean they can't do it next year, or next decade, or next century, or next millennium. Just means they can't today. We won't have 32 piece EGTBs ever, as far as that goes.

I'll say it again as well. A 1000+ Elo advantage does not allow you to find a winning or drawing move in a position that is lost. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

The only real question is whether, say, Carlsen is good enough at chess that he is able to convert, against any play, an easily won position into an actual checkmate position. Since we don't actually know the answer in case of knight odds, this is a matter of opinion. But your analogy with predictions from 1970 is flawed.

Btw, 32 piece EGTBs are of no help here. They'll just show that a lost position is a lost position and that all moves from a lost position lead to equally lost positions.

Sorry. GMs lose won and drawn games ALL the time. Their propensity for making mistakes will not decrease over the coming years, while the computers skills will continue to climb.

Only your understanding of the analogy is flawed. In 1970 computers couldn't convert easily won positions to wins. Not so today. To believe there is some max handicap beyond which a GM will never lose suggests there is some max Elo difference (between GM and best computers) that can't be exceeded. Do you have ANY empirical evidence to support such a claim? I've not seen any. I don't believe a human will be able to win ANY games should 32 piece EGTBs ever exist, assuming the ultimate game result is a draw. I don't believe they will be able to draw a single game against such a player, even though theory says the game is drawn. You think a GM can play tactically perfect and make ZERO mistakes, even though they can't do that today?

I think that is a stretch. I won't begin to guess when this might happen, but I believe it is a certainty that it will happen.

[kbhearn]

Sorry. GMs lose won and drawn games ALL the time. Their propensity for making mistakes will not decrease over the coming years, while the computers skills will continue to climb.

The point is once you're at knight odds, it's the skill of the side with the material advantage that is primarily being tested - not the odds giver. The game is beyond-hope lost and extreme measures need to be taken to muddy the waters.

The way the computer is currently winning odds matches is to:
1) stabilise the position
2) accumulate advantages til nearly equalised
3) crush the human on a tactical blunder

With an extra piece, step 1 is frankly just not possible, it's too much mobile power you're missing. The side with a material advantage is going to be able to find somewhere on the board to just overpower the odds giver if it just tries to maximise resistance.

To win when giving piece odds assuming your opponent is not going to spontaneously hang a whole piece you have to resort to coffeehouse chess - something top engines are not currently designed to do and potentially not something that would work against a top GM even if it was done well (almost certainly a program could be designed along those veins to beat a 2000 rating human though which i would expect to be able to beat a normal engine when receiving knight odds).

[APassionForCriminalJustic]

Sorry. GMs lose won and drawn games ALL the time. Their propensity for making mistakes will not decrease over the coming years, while the computers skills will continue to climb.

The point is once you're at knight odds, it's the skill of the side with the material advantage that is primarily being tested - not the odds giver. The game is beyond-hope lost and extreme measures need to be taken to muddy the waters.

The way the computer is currently winning odds matches is to:
1) stabilise the position
2) accumulate advantages til nearly equalised
3) crush the human on a tactical blunder

With an extra piece, step 1 is frankly just not possible, it's too much mobile power you're missing. The side with a material advantage is going to be able to find somewhere on the board to just overpower the odds giver if it just tries to maximise resistance.

To win when giving piece odds assuming your opponent is not going to spontaneously hang a whole piece you have to resort to coffeehouse chess - something top engines are not currently designed to do and potentially not something that would work against a top GM even if it was done well (almost certainly a program could be designed along those veins to beat a 2000 rating human though which i would expect to be able to beat a normal engine when receiving knight odds).

Well naturally knight odds is lost without question. I think the idea with Bob's point is that as engines continue to improve they will become more and more difficult to defeat. Humans always make mistakes in chess; there will always be ways to exploit that even if down a full knight. Of course with say a 45 15 minute time control both Komodo and Stockfish are surely not strong enough yet to defeat Naka with knight odds, but who is to say that within five to 10 years they could not? This entire debate will simply need to wait to be proven for either side of the argument. I think that it is pretty funny how this discussion is about as to whether or not engines will eventually defeat grandmasters in knight odds matches. We can clearly see that even Naka cannot win with pawn odds, exchange odds, and tempi odds which in and of itself is huge. More importantly, it already proves that engines completely dominate human play. Winning with knight odds means practically nothing for GMs because it is not real chess. Real chess is not about giving one's opponent a completely won position intentionally. A huge part of why engines are so strong is due to their ability to stay out of trouble positionally and materialistically.

[MikeB]

Just minutes before the games yesterday, in the Chess.com chat, Hikaru responded to members speculating about how long it will be before a chess engine can give piece odds to a GM.

He was concise. He said it will never happen. Hikaru believes that piece odds will now and forever favor the GM.

Any dissenters?

Factor in the human element , it's possible. If between hardware and software , top engines gain another 400-600 ELO - more probable. I may not be here to see it , but I believe it is an eventuality. Before I even saw this post I was playing some odds games with SF. Happy to report I can win with Q odds 😎 I'm just average club player a few hundred ELO below an Expert.
(2000 USCF).

Edit: Also first time I ever tried playing with odds and after just a few games , I believe that is best way to play super gm engines as every mistake is punished but you still have a shot at winning. Much better than just playing a dumb downed engine.

[Jhoravi]

Pure computational strength improvement alone doesn't help engines in Knight Odds against a GM in Standard Time control. When a GM is a piece up, it's easy to force liquidation because of the way engine thinks.

For example: The odd-giver-engine sees it can improve its score by snatching a pawn that starts with Queen trade. The engine normally choose it because it improves its score by +1 ...but the result of the queen trade makes the game very simple for the GM into a winning endgame.

If the engine avoids the offered liquidation it will go into a big positional disadvantage often cramped position.

For example: the GM offers rook trade on the f-file. If the engine avoids it by side stepping its rook, the GM is free to double his on that file or even include the queen to triple the battery!

The way I understand is that current engines think the same way in loosing and winning positions. The reason is that it's pointless to code special evaluation for loosing position because it's always lost against other engines no matter how you code it. But IMO it's useful against humans because of our special ability to make mistakes
So instead of accumulation of small advantages like it normally does, make the engine prefer a weaker move but the GM has say 10 possible replies: One good move and Nine blunders.

[syzygy]

I'll say it again as well. A 1000+ Elo advantage does not allow you to find a winning or drawing move in a position that is lost. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

You're looking at one side of it only.

That is why there was another paragraph.

Your opponent's 1000+Elo disadvantage may lead him to miss winning moves in a position that is won, or worse yet, blunder into a losing line because of a tactical blow hidden beyond his/its horizon (which may be a decisive component of that disadvantage).

But the "1000+ Elo disadvantage" is pretty much irrelevant here.
An imperfect player may make mistakes, true. But I doubt that Carlsen, in good health and at a reasonable time control, would play knight odds imperfectly.

There is a big difference between
(i) playing perfect chess from the conventional opening position, and
(ii) playing perfect chess from an opening with knight odds.

Humans and even today's top engines are not consistent at (i), but that does not mean they cannot do (ii) consistently. The "1000+ Elo disadvantage" that exists when playing conventional chess may completely disappear when playing knight odds openings.

[syzygy]

You think a GM can play tactically perfect and make ZERO mistakes, even though they can't do that today?

In an easily won position a top GM should certainly be able to play perfectly. I believe that knight odds is sufficient for a position to be "easily won" in this sense.

As I said above, you cannot compare perfect play from the normal start position with perfect play from an easily won position. As Adam noted, knight odds is not real chess. It is a different game. Elo differences in normal chess do not carry over to a different game.

As Kevin put it, knight odds primarily tests the skill of the side with the material advantage. Giving the disadvantaged side 1000x as much time will not help one bit if the side having the advantage is able to win the game against any play.

Btw, Nakamura actually seems to allow for the occasional human blunder on the GM's side, as he only argued that knight odds will always favor the GM.

[hgm]

Sounds like a challenge to me.

How that challenge has changed over the years:

1970: no computer will be able to beat an IM (David Levy) within 10 years (was actually stretched to maybe 15 years).

1980 or so: No computer will be able to beat a GM. Until Deep Thought.

1980 or so: No computer will ever be able to beat the current world champion (a GM obviously) and backed up by the Fredkin Foundation prize. Again, along came deep thought in 1997.

2016: No computer will ever be able to beat a GM if he is given knight odds.

2025: No computer will ever be able to beat a GM if he is given queen odds.



etc...

Somewhere it stops. A lost position is a position game. I am able to beat Komodo and Stockfish today, in KRK, and will be able to repeat that performance against any future computer, no matter how advanced. Even I should be able to beat a perfect player with the aid of Queen odds.

[duncan]

In an easily won position a top GM should certainly be able to play perfectly. I believe that knight odds is sufficient for a position to be "easily won" in this sense.

if a computer playing a top gm at knight odds can get the score down from 3 to 2 before the super gm can get it up from 3 to 4, the computer will win. currently a computer cannot do that. how do you know it will never be able to do that. ?