> the best players would work with the computer rather than against it
He was certainly talking about "advanced chess"[1], where computers are used to make move suggestions but the human player actually selects the move to play. This combination of human+engine is consistently stronger than the strongest chess engines on their own. This fact also demonstrates that chess engines do not simply recommend "the best move".
Since chess is not mathematically solved, it is actually meaningless to speak of "the best move", unqualified. Certain positions are solved, such that in those positions an objectively best move does provably exist, but the vast majority of the game is still mysterious.
> This combination of human+engine is consistently stronger than the strongest chess engines on their own.
This was true when computers where approach/just met the strength of the best humans.
I'm not aware anyone has done it seriously recently and at this point the computers are so insanely strong relative to a human I think the human would just be along for the ride.
The best chess engines in the world operate at a ~3500 rating level. For context, Magnus Carlsen's peak rating was 2882 (i.e. the highest rating ever achieved by a human).
Combinations of human+engine operate at a ~3800 rating level.
I take your point, and it is a good one, but you've drawn too strong a conclusion. We haven't yet reached the point where the human adds nothing to the game.
> Combinations of human+engine operate at a ~3800 rating level.
They...really don't? There aren't competitive matches between human/computer teams at classical time controls.
There are correspondence games, which is presumably what you're referring to, which are officially played by humans but with unlimited access to computers. But those are played at a time control of multiple days per move. It's true that there still seems to be some human skill involved in leading the computer, balancing the outputs of different engines, finding moves which your opponent's engine may misevaluate. A beginner with a powerful computer won't win the ICCF World Championship. But firstly this is a very niche activity compared to the one Magnus Carlsen competes at, and secondly I don't see any evidence that an unassisted engine scores only 15% against top correspondence players, which would be necessary for a 300-point disparity. At the very least I'd expect it to draw almost all its games as White.
You can't compare ELO ratings from different populations. They are like different units.
It used to be the case that human+computer combo was better than a computer alone but it's most likely not the case anymore. Even if it is the difference is miniscule. It seems you're a bit behind recent developments in computer chess. It's worth catching up, modern engines have way superior understanding (in collapsing to human GMs) of positional chess and traditionally hard openings like King's Indian.
Against a perfectly rational opponent, sure. Is it impossible for a sub-optimal move to throw a human player off their game, confuse, or otherwise emotionally-manipulate them in a way that makes it more effective than the "solved" move would be?
Of course it is possible to exploit the psychology of the opponent. Bluffing does exist in chess, and it relies on your opponent's inability to realize that you've made a sub-optimal move. For example, at the highest levels, grandmasters often attempt to increase the amount of complications in a position, which is a way of making the claim that "I can calculate more moves, more quickly, than you"; if that isn't true, then it is a bluff, which doesn't mean it won't work.
But in a solved position, the best move is irrefutable. Perfect play by both opponents in a solved game always leads to a draw (e.g. tic-tac-toe, checkers). In chess, the best move in a solved position always also anticipates every possible response by the opponent. This is the entire point of opening theory, and is why chess players speak of "punishing" their opponents; if I play an ideal move in a solved position, and you play a less-than-ideal move in response, I have already gained an advantage.
> Perfect play by both opponents in a solved game always leads to a draw
That depends on the game. The classical example of a game that isn’t is Hex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_(board_game)), where the player playing first will win under perfect play (yes, it isn’t solved in general, but the board may be small enough to have been solved.)
For chess, the question whether it is a draw is an open problem (I think way fewer people would be surprised if it were proven to be a draw than when it would be proven to be winning for either player, but there’s no proof for that)
When you talk of fully solved positions, that doesn't really include openings, does it? There are no opening moves that can guarantee a victory, so there are no solved openings. Truly solved moves are all in the late game, where it becomes possible to evaluate all possible moves and know for sure what is the best course of action.
I also think that even in truly solved positions, there are cases where the known best case is a draw or even defeat, but that assumes perfect play from your opponent. If you suspect your opponent can be lured into making mistakes, sub-optimal moves on your part could lead to a victory where in perfect play the outcome would be defeat or a draw.
To take an extreme case, the various 'check mate in 3 moves' openings do work against some players, though they are very bad moves against remotely decent opponents.
I play an ideal move in a solved position, and you play a less-than-ideal move in response, I have already gained an advantage.
That assumes the less-than-ideal move stays within your preparation. If, on the other hand, you dismissed that move during preparation because of its sub optimal evaluation then I have succeeded in getting you out of prep and into a middle game with a small disadvantage but potentially a lot of play. If I can then steer the game down a very sharp line then your small advantage means a lot less due to the dynamics of the position.
> Perfect play by both opponents in a solved game always leads to a draw
That assumes that both players are equal. In many games there is a benefit for one of the players. In such a game the effect of perfect play by one player is to win Inna's fee turns as possible, while for the other player the perfect play only prolongs the game. For instance in "connect four" the starting player should begin in center to enforce win.
This is a very simplistic view.
You can rate moves not only by result with objective play but also by how hard it is to play against using objective measure (for example move A is better than move B is to draw against A you need a top engine with 20 seconds per move while against move B only 2 seconds are needed).
Saying all moves are the same is like saying all mazes are equally hard.
That sounds optimistic given the advent of the neural nets, which seem to roughly match human positional judgement. Any assumptions from pre-2016 seem suspect.
He was certainly talking about "advanced chess"[1], where computers are used to make move suggestions but the human player actually selects the move to play. This combination of human+engine is consistently stronger than the strongest chess engines on their own. This fact also demonstrates that chess engines do not simply recommend "the best move".
Since chess is not mathematically solved, it is actually meaningless to speak of "the best move", unqualified. Certain positions are solved, such that in those positions an objectively best move does provably exist, but the vast majority of the game is still mysterious.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess