I have just came up with a new chess variant. The variant works like this. So, the player starts with a match with a computer (not-so-powerful one) If the player wins the match, he gets to use the computer as his advisor. And then, the player, with the new advisor goes up the ladder and challenge a more powerful computer. And so on and so forth.

What do you guys think about this variant? Will this give the human player an advantage? Do you think that the World Chess Champion can win the Best Chess Program (Stockfish) using this system?

I have got this idea from a chess match of GM Daniel Naroditsky+Rybka vs Stockfish match. IMHO, the computer has already won the human-computer chess rivalry. But if human players can subdue weaker chess computer and then use them against stronger computer, it would be another way of saying that human can still beat computer.

  • 4
    Can this really be called a chess variant? It seems to be just a training scheme for regular chess. Aug 10, 2014 at 9:56
  • 2
    Why have the human at all in this setup..
    – SAS
    Jan 23, 2020 at 12:42

2 Answers 2


Principally I like your idea. I really like it. I could even imagine to implement something like that just for fun sake. However, there are some problems:

  1. At a certain stage, an average player with a strength of about 1400 will just end up copying his engines moves in an extremely tactical position, which he doesn't understand.

  2. If there is an ELO difference between the engines of only about 50 points (what's pretty common, especially in the higher levels), one could easily win by luck (since a higher ELO doesn't necessarily mean a 100% win chance) or even by just playing as white. This issue however can be fixed by giving opponents with about 200 ELO more, so one's not going to win by his engine itself.

  3. Humans usually rather play with other humans, since they're more predictable. An average machine sees almost every trap in one or two plies, while humans may overlook it. "Playing for tricks" is essential, especially in quicker time controls.

  4. One might struggle to proceed further at a certain level. It's unterstandable, that it becomes boring to play (and lose) to the same engine over and over again.

Sorry for my bad english, I'd appreciate any suggestion. (:


I call it silly. I do not want a computer I beat helping me. It gives the human no advantage at all. I would want the computer I cannot beat helping me against yet another computer.

  • 1
    You beat a engine once is not equal to the engine being completely unhelpful as an advisers. After all the top players have relatively " weaker" seconds.
    – AKP2002
    Apr 30, 2020 at 12:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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