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.
>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.