Are there any people who can beat chess engines like Rybka or Houdini?

Let’s say both engine and the person who plays against the engine has 1 day to think about the next move. Can human win the match under this condition?

Does the chess engine get a full day too?

Sounds like it, given the phrasing in the OP. I wonder what kind of estimated rating a chess engine like that would get given the ability to think 24 hours for each move. I’m guessing nobody could stand a chance at anything better than a draw with those parameters, but I’m curious to hear what chess experts and programmers think.

Giving the chess program a full day would make it unstoppable, IMO. Regardless of how good your human expert is. The program doesn’t need to stop for meals or sleep, for one thing, so even if you just compare “thinking time”, it’s already 8 hours ahead.

In postal chess, humans get (on average) a couple of days to analyse against each other. This can lead to some in-depth analysis, especially in the openings and tactical positions.
But (as per the quote above), no human can focus on top chess 24 hours a day. Computers can.

So this time limit gives the machine a bigger advantage. :eek:

On a side note, most top tournaments these days go out live on the Internet , with analysis by a computer program (of course not shown to the players.)

As a player with an international rating, it is terrifying to me to watch the assessment of the position. :eek:
For example, often White is shown for the first 10-20 moves as having an advantage of around 0.3 (about a third of a pawn.)
Then the possible tactics loom - and suddenly one mistaken move :smack: means one player is now ahead by say 2.5 (2.5 pawns i.e. almost a whole piece.)
it’s hard to come back from that.

When us humans were playing and analysing the games, we might say something like “Somewhere around here, Black made a mistake.”
Now we can see exactly where we go wrong.

Losing=Extremely likely
Drawing=Extremely unlikely
Winning=Not possible unless the program malfunctions

Computers think extremely fast. It is amazing. I own Fritz 13 Chess Analyzer, and I don’t remember exactly, but I do recall that it was literally astonishing how fast it was thinking. About one minute of it thinking could equal (half) an hour of yours. It is able to make very large-distance calculations as well.

Basically, with perfect play by both sides, the result is a draw.

ETA: Take a look at YouTube videos of Fritz if you don’t own it. It really is amazing not only how it thinks, but to even be able to see how it thinks. Plus remember, that the computer never gets tired and can go on and on infinitely (theoretically).

This isn’t correct. It would mean chess were completely analyzed and it clearly isn’t. It’s still possible perfect play would always be a win for white – or for black though most experts think white has an advantage so it would be a surprise indeed if it could be proved perfect play lead to a win for black.

If you didn’t mean it precisely, then we’ll label this a nitpick.

Just have the human do the Amazing Kreskin’s set-up, and schedule one game against Rybka, playing white, and one game against Houdini, playing black. Chances are that the human will win one of them.

Are we allowed to poison the computer’s hamsters?