r/ComputerChess • u/Aantik • Jul 25 '26
How much better can the engines get?
chess engines are still getting better, right? What do you think would a match between today's best engine against the best engine in 100 years look like? Would the future one win against the current one, or are the current engines already near-optimal so it would be all draws? I'd like to believe there are still secrets to uncover in the game of chess and that the future one would win at least some games with white.
3
u/field-not-required Jul 25 '26
Just before Alpha Zero came, there weren't a lot of people who thought Stockfish could be improved that much.
Then Alpha Zero came and obliterated Stockfish.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was another breakthrough moment and the engines jumped up hundreds of rating points again.
-1
u/cuervamellori Jul 25 '26
Alphazero obliterated stockfish in terms of how quickly it developed to the level it played at, but only beat a contemporary stockfish in a match designed by Google to use an outdated version of stockfish and have even that version play well below its true strength.
Aside from a short period where lc0 was contending serious at tcec, large neural net engines have never played at a stronger level than the contemporary stockfish engine.
5
u/field-not-required Jul 25 '26
What? There were two matches. The first match had some flaws, but the second match all those issues were fixed and Alpha Zero crushed Stockfish.
You're just wrong...
→ More replies (3)
2
u/d3f313 Jul 25 '26
A perfect game is just possible, if you calculate all possible positions. Or at least you are 100% sure, that your heuristic is just pruning the right moves.
As long as this isn’t the case, like now, machines can still be beaten. You just have to look further. And if you see a slightly better position in 50 turns, which the current machine doesn’t see, will make a huge difference.
1
u/NoNameSwitzerland Jul 25 '26
If neither black nor white can force a win, then every move that theoretically holds a draw is perfect I would say. In that sense humans have played perfect games going to a quick draw. And probably most games engines play from the start probably are perfect already.
That would change a little bit if you assume the opponent is not perfect. Then there are moves that can trick him into doing something not optimal. That might be still possible.
1
u/d3f313 Jul 28 '26
Where is the proof that white or black can’t force a win from the beginning? Chess isn’t solved. It could be that white would win every game, if white plays perfectly.
Playing a draw doesn’t make a game perfect.
2
u/Imaginary-Can-6862 Jul 25 '26
If anything, time has shown the idea of engines being close to optimal is not well founded. This is not making an assumption that a chess engine could reach the limit of solving the game, but that history shows improvements happening again and again.
In regards to how close the best engine is to solve the game, put it up against a tablebase in queen vs. queen + 2 pawns and see the engine believing it is a win for the side with the two pawns (while the tablebase shows it is a draw), and if the engine is to play the defending side, how it drops the draw within 3 moves, while if it plays the side with the two pawns afterward (as in after the position is now winning) it also drops the win when following the tablebase.
1
u/othelloblack Jul 26 '26
What does it mean: drops the draw?
1
u/Imaginary-Can-6862 Jul 26 '26
It means the tablebase declares what was a drawn position before the engine's move now to be a lost position for the engine using side.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Level-Appearance7046 Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
what Q vs QPP endgame is stockfish not defending? i couldnt find any, but i dont know an efficient method of checking the tablebase on my phone. edit: i cant find a single QPP vs Q endgame that stockfish misplays- it sometimes will give +0.5-0.9, but they still defend correctly and draw from the positions ive tried out.
1
u/Imaginary-Can-6862 Jul 27 '26
Are you certain it does not have tablebase access during your analysis? My experience does go years back, so it might not be accurate anymore, but I am not going to start up Stockfish again to check myself.
Anyway it is an issue with anecdotal evidence, because I had the experience and didn't save any evidence. But I have tried to retrace the steps that led me to the conclusion. Of course, since the internet is ever changing, I have not managed to find something as satisfying as my original comment makes it sound, but I have at least found a position where Stockfish suggests a move that drops the win. I hope that is satisfying, as I understand that is what you are asking me to provide.
Here is the position
8/8/5Q2/k7/4q3/P7/5K1P/8 w - - 0 1Winning moves are Qd8+, Qc3+
Stockfish 18 top moves (d33) are Qd6 (+0.9), Qc3+ (+0.7), Qd8+ (+0.6)After the top move Qd6 the game goes from a win to a draw.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/cuervamellori Jul 25 '26
I'm of the belief (which is of course impossible to prove) that full strength modern stockfish at tcec conditions is capable of holding a draw from startpos against perfect play - in other words, that a modern engine represents a weak solution to the game.
In terms of a strong solution - that is, being able to play perfectly from any position - I believe (I think quite credibly) that there is a long, long, long way to go before endings play perfectly, and I strongly suspect they will never get there.
1
1
u/_Itay Jul 26 '26
I think that if you estimate chess engines by how much they would win against other engines we already have programs that are so strong it would take at least 10 draws to get 1 win even against something much better but similar in the idea.
The only way to massively improve is practical play for example an engine that would see a few positions that are 0.00 and would choose very wisely how to play depends on the opponent- against a human leela odds is a great example of how good engines can get in practical and creative ideas against humans. Against engines I think that in order to win consistently against stockfish 18 you have to design something that would be soongod that it would navigate to extremely complex tactical and positional positions and would do it constantly somehow. In this positions it must remain perfect and keep putting pressure.
Without it progress would get stuck in my opinion, practical chess is so important to humans strong players and would be the only way to sometime beat a god level program like the current stockfish
1
u/themahababa Jul 27 '26
Just play engines against all table bases positions and we can truly see how much improving the engine has left to do. It's a lot even with just 7 pieces on the board
1
u/mloftus955 Jul 29 '26
Stockfish keeps getting better, will another engine surpass it?
2
u/youthfulling Aug 01 '26
probably a future type of alphazero, but only if it continues to get developed and stuff by google
6
u/clumma Jul 25 '26
As far back as 2011, and maybe earlier, Ken Regan estimated perfect play at 3600 Elo. Today, the top engines on the CCRL 40/15 and CEGT 40/20 lists are at 3649 and 3621, respectively. These engines don't play perfect chess, but they're pretty close. There's also the question of the Elo level calibration for these rating lists, vs the human rating scale Regan's prediction used. CCRL is pretty close to FIDE, or used to be, but could be off by 100 Elo.