I saw this rating score chart recently:
Is it true that cyborg chess players are (that much) better than the best chess programs by themselves?
Chess Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for serious players and enthusiasts of chess. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
Yes, it is true that "cyborgs" are better than the best chess engines. That's why the best correspondence chess players still beat engines. (Sort of. By far the most common result of such games from the opening position is a draw.)
See source (part 2 can be found from the same link), which is an interview with a former correspondence chess champion.
Today chess engines are much stronger than the best humans and many people wonder about the role of humans in correspondence chess. What can you do that the engines cannot do?
It is indeed impossible to achieve any significant result in today’s correspondence chess without engines and databases. But we humans play, not the engines, and the input of humans mainly affects two areas: a) the choice of a suitable opening, and b) steering the engine toward (or away) from certain types of position.
If you want to be successful in top correspondence chess you can only play a certain set of openings because you simply cannot afford one single sub-optimal move – if you do, you will sooner or later regret it. That’s as certain as death and taxes.
How well you guide your engines depends on your general chess knowledge. The better your chess knowledge (the significance of pawn structures, good bishop, bad bishop, etc.) the better you will do here – today’s engines are very strong but they still misjudge positions. If you have enough time and patience and composure you can feed the computer with more good ideas than your opponent – exactly the process described by former World CC Champion GM Ron Langeveld in an interview on the ICCF website.
At this point in time in my opinion the human factor in a computer + human vs computer game might still be playing a difference, although I'm not aware of any experiments in this field done recently.
Given the speed of improvement of computer chess compared to the human one, I think that in this scenario the human's help will asimptotically tend to get close to 0.