Engine with most human-like playing style

[McKoder]

Some say it is Hiarcs. Some say it is Pro Deo.

But my question is, what does it mean "human-like playing style"? Does it mean the engine makes many mistakes? If no mistakes then what is "human" about it?

Can you look at a move and say "wow, what a human-like move!" or do you need a set of moves? What about the set of moves makes it "human-like"? If a set of moves is the best in a particular position, then is it "non-human-like" to play those moves? Should an engine not play those moves, even though they are the best, in order to be "human-like"?

To me "human-like" is just marketing propaganda thought up by some clever engine makers.

[McKoder]

Conversely, which human has the most engine-like playing style?

[fern]

Letting aside preposterous claims about that of some engines, it seems to me that human-like refes to the kind or style of game a good player play, that is, according to some plan or direction and giving more importance to position and attacking advantages than to materiel...
There are some engines that do gives some more weight to position and attacking chances. By example, old, good, CSTAL and now, Hiarcs.
Of course, most of times human-like only means a game full of mistakes and hanging pieces....
My particular version of human-like is more or les like that...

My bst
fernando

[McKoder]

Ultimately what matters is did the engine win the game or not, isn't it? So to me the engine with the most human-like playing style is Rybka. Smart humans should take a look at Rybka, and see what they can do to change their playing style to be more Rybka-like.

Seems to me that instead of praising engines for being human-like, we should be praising humans for being more engine-like, if that's the trait that ultimately helps you win the game.

[mclane]

chess system tal

[Spock]

I guess you would also have to say "which human" ?

I'm no expert, but different world champions in the past have probably had very different styles and approaches.

[Marc MP]

Ultimately what matters is did the engine win the game or not, isn't it? So to me the engine with the most human-like playing style is Rybka. Smart humans should take a look at Rybka, and see what they can do to change their playing style to be more Rybka-like.

Seems to me that instead of praising engines for being human-like, we should be praising humans for being more engine-like, if that's the trait that ultimately helps you win the game.

I read, not so long ago, a post by Vasik Rajlich saying that Rybka's positional understanding was about the same as the one of a 2000 ELO player would be.

If you look at closed positions, say from the King Indian, you'll find many positions where Rybka (as many other engine) doesn't have a clue about what to play. In many opposite wing castling position, I notice that Rybka (as many other engine again), rarely think about throwing its pawns at the opponent king; it doesn't seems to understand this concept very well. There are tons of similar examples.

If Kramnik would be allowed to consult an engine like SlowChess 2.1, (to verify the tactics), he would win a match against Rybka at a slow time control. Best correspondence chess players are clearly better than any chess software right now. If engines are stronger than humans over the board, it is because of their tactical abilities, not their positional comprehension.

[Tony Thomas]

At my level, a human like engine is an engine that plays moves that I can understand. I think this disuccion stems from the discussion at Rybka forum and it could be another stunt to attack Hiarcs. Hiarcs probably was the human like program until version 10 or so, but with the newer versions it seem to have gone in the path of all the other engines chasing after Rybka. There are other human like engines that you mess with if you want, like Delphi and Homer, pick on them all you want for the free service the authors provide.

[Harvey Williamson]

I guess you would also have to say "which human" ?

I'm no expert, but different world champions in the past have probably had very different styles and approaches.

yes that is a good way to look at it.

I am sure authors have humans in mind that they would like their engines to play like.

[Alkelele]

Ultimately what matters is did the engine win the game or not, isn't it? So to me the engine with the most human-like playing style is Rybka. Smart humans should take a look at Rybka, and see what they can do to change their playing style to be more Rybka-like.

Seems to me that instead of praising engines for being human-like, we should be praising humans for being more engine-like, if that's the trait that ultimately helps you win the game.

I read, not so long ago, a post by Vasik Rajlich saying that Rybka's positional understanding was about the same as the one of a 2000 ELO player would be.

I'm not completely sure, but I think that Vas said something slightly different: That Rybka's static evaluation (="positional understanding") is at the level of a 2000 Elo player. He also said that Rybka's search algorithm is at the level of a 1700 Elo player. But this does not necessarily mean that Rybka's (positional) play is only at a 2000 Elo level. What happens is that the high number of positions searched and evaluated makes Rybka's positional decisions much, much stronger, even when those positions were chosen relatively ineffectively and evaluated without high precision.

Another way to explain my point: The 2000 Elo estimate is Rybka's evaluation quality at depth 1. However, at depth 15, it's a completely different story.

If you look at closed positions, say from the King Indian, you'll find many positions where Rybka (as many other engine) doesn't have a clue about what to play. In many opposite wing castling position, I notice that Rybka (as many other engine again), rarely think about throwing its pawns at the opponent king; it doesn't seems to understand this concept very well. There are tons of similar examples.

If Kramnik would be allowed to consult an engine like SlowChess 2.1, (to verify the tactics), he would win a match against Rybka at a slow time control. Best correspondence chess players are clearly better than any chess software right now. If engines are stronger than humans over the board, it is because of their tactical abilities, not their positional comprehension.

I have sincere doubts about Kramnik being able to beat a pure Rybka in that scenario. First, as explained above, Rybka's positional play is at a much higher level than 2000. Secondly, results in the Freestyle events do not indicate that GMs can easily outplay pure Rybkas just by having their analysis verified tactically.