> Indeed, if you start from a closed position where strategy dominates and tactics are of relatively little use, top human players can still trounce computers
I haven't been following computer chess as much as I used to be I suspect this is actually untrue. Computer speed has been increasing as always but there has also been massive gains in chess program strength (e.g. compared to old programs when running on the same hardware). For example, Rybka 4 would absolutely crush programs from 10 years ago.
Those combined gains make computer chess programs so strong that I doubt even top players can hold them off even with the position looks quiet. Rybka can defeat GMs even when they have pawn plus first move odds[1]. In one match Rybka had a tiny opening book so the GM had every opportunity to steer the game in a strategic direction.
Which is why we will always win some contests, if they don't turn to trying their hand at strategy. Clockspeeds will always be too low for some problems.
where the computer has a lot of trouble finding the best move. Clearly programs still do not understand at the level that was hoped for in the 60's. Furthermore top human players with computer assistance can still exploit the weaknesses engines have in closed positions.
I haven't been following computer chess as much as I used to be I suspect this is actually untrue. Computer speed has been increasing as always but there has also been massive gains in chess program strength (e.g. compared to old programs when running on the same hardware). For example, Rybka 4 would absolutely crush programs from 10 years ago.
Those combined gains make computer chess programs so strong that I doubt even top players can hold them off even with the position looks quiet. Rybka can defeat GMs even when they have pawn plus first move odds[1]. In one match Rybka had a tiny opening book so the GM had every opportunity to steer the game in a strategic direction.
1. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rybka#Odds_matches_versus_grand...;