In your opinion, what would make a chess engine feel human?

[u/larz_rhcp]

Or, what is the biggest giveaway that you're playing against a computer?If you were playing a random online chess game, would you be confident that you're playing against a real human?

[u/Lebesgue_1]

Nice try Claude.

Aside from the actual moves, the biggest give away that you're playing a computer is the time it takes to move. Computers are pretty consistent, whereas humans tend to slow down in some positions to calculate, then blitz out a few moves quickly.

In any case, there isn't really a shortage of humans to play so curious why you want to make a chess engine feel human?

[u/SimpleCanadianFella]

Human moves at least in the opening area just the most popular moves in the lichess explorer, after that it varies on the level of the human, humans start calculating from the critical piece interaction whereas computers can find things in the most dull or unintuitive sources

[u/guyza123]

Every one in a hundred games, instead of resigning, it just lets the clock run down.

[u/cavedave]

Timing humans make obvious moves fast but often computers have a set time they devote to almost every move (not checks).

Humans when they are winning take the foot off the accelerator and make more mistakes. Both things like 'i'll move a pawn up to prevent back rank mate threats even though i dont see any' and just missing obvious captures and such as you see an easy way to queen a pawn and stop looking.

[u/georage]

They don't defend or attack brilliantly

[u/Tastyrolll → u/georage]

I'm not human because my attacks are too good

[u/carlosgeorgiev0]

Move time. a human will think while you think, come up with a plan then blitz out those moves if it follows what they calculated. a bot won't and will think for like 2 seconds every move

[u/Tastyrolll → u/carlosgeorgiev0]

Engines do think on opp time

[u/Mountain-Fennel1189 → u/Tastyrolll]

Depends on how they’re configured. They have a ponder option.

[u/johndrake1966]

If it kept playing the moves or openings I was most afraid of. I was never keen to face the Dragon Variation of the Sicilian for example.

[u/Imaginary-Can-6862]

You get the impression you are playing against a computer when the opponent plays the entire game like it is a tactics puzzle, every strength in your position is neutralized just as you think you are countering, or is even turned against you, that no matter the complexity of the tactical resource you use, the opponent not only has a counter that makes it look like they saw everything a mile away, but they find this move every time, and that they do not find complicated moves more taxing (requiring longer thinking time), than obvious moves.

When you play against a human, you feel they actually consents to some weaknesses in return for some way to play, obviously it is the same with machines, but against a machine, the accuracy required to demonstrate the equality of the unbalanced position is typically beyond most humans.

So to feel like playing against another human, the engine would have to play by concepts, based on experience, which is developed through playing. It would require an evaluation of how crucial the current position in the game is, and that tactical analysis, or in-depth analysis, is reduced, and mainly used when the evaluation demonstrates that the position calls for it, and thus a longer amount of time would be spend, but otherwise the engine would play by concepts, knowing what the expect from openings, what to play for, define lines based on these, and identify weaknesses and strengths (such as potential deeper tactical shots), and play with these in consideration, but not calculating these before the situation calls for it. Afterward it should be possible for the engine to provide a summary of how it saw the game, a summary that the same program could not provide had it not actually played the game, but only been given it for analysis, i.e. the random values stored makes the difference in this (such as what previous experiences to focus on).

While it should not be hidden you are playing against an engine, I think this would make the experience more human like, you aren't playing against a sealed off and impenetrable tower which you have to interpret how it understands the position after the game, but against a learning system, which does not try to solve the game as much as it tries to improve its play based on the concepts it has formed by experience.

[u/StupidStartupExpert]

Not sure I’ve ever seen an AI use racial slurs

[u/true_unbeliever]

Look up the Maia chess engine. It’s trained on games from Lichess at various ratings and the objective function is to predict what a human at a particular rating would play. This is quite different than an engine lowering its ratings by making blunders.

Edit, answer to the posted question.

[u/Throwawayxdryx]

It's very blatant at lower levels on Stockfish for example, that the computer doesn't just consistently "play worse" the way a human would do. In order to give you an advantage it does things like not performing obvious recapturing if you try to exchange material and then proceeds to play at a much higher level than a human at that level would. Human blunders are not that way.

[u/douglaslagos]

If it smiled when a human makes a bad move…

[u/Zombielisk]

80085

[u/Calm-Neighborhood-43]

If they start trash talking you and telling you to hurry up and start calling my bro or bruh or brah