If Magnus Carlsen, for example, faced Stockfish with the time control 1move/day, how well would Magnus do against Stockfish? It seems with so much time per move, tactical oversight disappears.

  • Any such match is unfair to the human since computers have opening books and endgame table bases they get to use as reference. No human is allowed to bring reference materials into the match. If the human was extremely focused and it was only calculation vs calculation I think the human (magnus carlsen) would win. If we bring reference materials into the game but only the computer could use them, like how they normally set up human vs computer matches, the human would lose. If they both had access to reference materials, but the human couldn't use an engine, I'll say magnus barely wins. Aug 23, 2018 at 22:54
  • This is assuming the computer isn't calculating the entire day, then it might just win anyways. Let's limit it's calculation ability to 30 minutes and only have the resources of a normal computer Aug 23, 2018 at 22:55
  • tactical oversight does not disappear because chess is not solved. Sep 24, 2018 at 13:41
  • @Hockeyfan19 Regarding reference materials, that's only one way to see it. Playing devil's advocate, the other way to see it would be that humans have access during a match to all the openings and endgames that they can store in their own memory; so do computers, they just have much more memory. Sep 24, 2018 at 14:24
  • It would be closer, but if grandmasters are allowed to think longer so would engines. So things would still favour the engines. I'm assuming grandmasters aren't allowed to move pieces on a physical board here. Sep 28, 2019 at 23:50

2 Answers 2


short answer: the computer would still win

long answer: a human player has much more time to think, well. but a chess-computerprogram would also have much more time to calculate much more variants. (and every good "classical" chess-computerprogram would use this time to evaluate as many variants as deep as possible). so the skill-difference would become linear bigger whilst you give them more time to think (assuming the players can use this time really prolific productively). the limits will be reached for a human when he wants to think deeper about more variants. for computers the limits a much broader because a computer would never be confused when it analyzes millions of positions.

  • hmm, interesting. So you think the skill difference would become bigger. I was under the impression that without tactical oversight, human's positional superiority would make the match up more even. Aug 20, 2018 at 16:49
  • 1
    This answer seems to assume that the human master would have to play this game like a normal standard game of chess. But if it's 1 move/day I think it would be safe to assume that this can be treated as correspondence chess, in which case the human would be perfectly allowed to move the pieces around on the board and thoroughly analyze a position before making a final decision. That the skill difference would increase linearly is an assumption that I don't see how to justify.
    – Scounged
    Sep 24, 2018 at 9:49

Since the GM would also use an engine then he should win as he can add his own judgement to what the computer suggests.

I still say Hans Berliner used an IBM 360 to help him win the world correspondence championship.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.