After some very unpleasant games I finally rack up a victory in 1+0 against Stockfish level 8 with 25s left on the clock. More difficult than Hyperbullet because the 50-move rule is on Stockfishs side: lichess.org/O1hbz9eBvkuh
If you can upgrade your brain to use some billion Hertz to calculate through tons of zeros and ones , yep, you might even be able to beat an engine in totally usual games. But unfortunately in real life, if you don't use some tricks and win with the 150 move rule or similar in closed positions, you most likely won't be able to keep up with a machine that is calculating some million, sometimes even billion positions in a second.
Nevertheless, engines are technically not unbeatable. There are competitions for engines, and actually, the games are not always drawn, there are some wins / losses.
But, there is a problem. Chess is deterministic.
We are fortunate that chess has a gigantic scale of possible positions ( I think the approximation was about 10^120) and not even our modern Supercomputers would be able to calculate chess to it's very end in the next trillion years. So until we don't have some quantum computers, you still may try to beat an engine and - with some luck - succeed.
Nevertheless, engines are technically not unbeatable. There are competitions for engines, and actually, the games are not always drawn, there are some wins / losses.
But, there is a problem. Chess is deterministic.
We are fortunate that chess has a gigantic scale of possible positions ( I think the approximation was about 10^120) and not even our modern Supercomputers would be able to calculate chess to it's very end in the next trillion years. So until we don't have some quantum computers, you still may try to beat an engine and - with some luck - succeed.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.