I would have thought that, since I mentioned the ICCF as the most notable organization in computer-assisted chess, you would have looked into it before trying to contradict my claims. Evidently you did not.
The ICCF organizes matches, maintains rating lists, grants titles including grandmaster, and organizes a world championship for computer-assisted chess games. Check them out [1] and stop making claims about a style of chess that you are obviously not familiar with.
If you want to reference an instance of player+computer games or tournaments where players+engines beat the strongest engines link to that rather than ICCF's homepage (who do allow computer assistence). Nothing on their homepage remotely proves your claim, and a quick search doesn't show anywhere they claim so, which is to be expected since you are simply wrong.
All that really happens in modern ICCF championships after the opening is babysitting engines and taking their top move(s). The human part is mainly picking and running the engine(s).
> Nothing on their homepage remotely proves your claim, and a quick search doesn't show anywhere they claim so
Because it's obvious to the community the website serves. ICCF having banner on their homepage saying "human + computer > computer" would make about as much sense as USA Track & Field having a banner on their homepage saying "Did you know running on your feet is faster than running on your hands?"
> which is to be expected since you are simply wrong.
This is a shocking level of arrogance for someone whose knowledge of the computer-assisted chess scene was limited to a Wikipedia stub a few hours ago.
There is a whole field of "anti-computer strategy" in computer-assisted chess. Humans study the weaknesses of engines to figure out how to exploit them in their opponents' play (and avoid them in their own play). Here [1] is an article discussing the general idea. Here [2] is a post by an ICCF player discussing why human+computer beats computer and giving an example of one of his own games. Here [3] is a a traditional chess GM discussing what the human player brings to the board in a computer-assisted chess game and warning against blindly trusting the computer. Here [4] is an ICCF world champion talking about how the human player steers the engine by feeding it ideas and avoiding positions where engines are known to have problems. Here [5] is another ICCF world champion talking about how his approach is to come up with ideas himself and then see whether the computer refutes them, rather than looking at what the computer suggests in a position.
Is that enough for you, or are you going to stubbornly continue to argue from your position of ignorance?
The first, and only recent (though without references and poorly written) link specifically says:
>Anti-computer playing is now irrelevant against engines as they can beat any human by the tactical strenght of standard engines or by the deeper evaluations of new neural network ones.
The second is a reddit comment which only implies they can maybe improved on a low-depth old version (lichess') version of Stockfish. Particularly unconvincing as an engine could also make progress even if it thinks it cant as more moves happen and it can see further, and as they tried multiple things, and then went back effectively just having their engine explore more paths deeper.
The third one is from 2008, when yes you could improve on strong engines consistently.
The fourth is from 2016, just before the 2017 breakpoint and possibly the last time you could improve on them.
The fifth one is from 2015. ditto.
There is a reason that there aren't links of say a team winning against the TCEC winner or anything solid proving your point.
There was no "breakpoint" in 2017. Engines still don't understand conceptual insights that humans spot instantly: positions where it's impossible for either side to make progress even though one side has a large material advantage, fortresses, etc. AlphaZero was claimed to understand fortresses based on some (possibly cherry picked) games but they wouldn't give anyone unrestricted access to it and lc0 has not replicated that understanding. It's still easy to come up with positions that stump TCEC winners, where an experienced human will instantly understand that the position is a dead draw but the engine thinks one side has a large advantage. This kind of weakness is exactly what human players exploit.
In the meantime, I'm still waiting for solid proof that running on your feet is faster than running on your hands. Why isn't this information anywhere on USA Track & Field?????
>In the meantime, I'm still waiting for solid proof that running on your feet is faster than running on your hands.
World record for 20m running on hands is 4.78s[0]. You can find plenty of <3s 0-20m from foot races[1]. That's how easy it is to prove claims with references when the claims are correct.
The ICCF organizes matches, maintains rating lists, grants titles including grandmaster, and organizes a world championship for computer-assisted chess games. Check them out [1] and stop making claims about a style of chess that you are obviously not familiar with.
[1] https://www.iccf.com/