user16118: The last public ranking of chess centaurs was in 2014, and only compares centaurs to each other. As of 2018, what would be the ELO rating of the best centaurs compared to the best humans and chess engines?
This is similar to this question, but two differences:

It is specifically about if centaurs beat computers, which is a subset of this question
The top answer is about a GM with a computer who does not have any training as a centaur, while we know that good centaurs have very different skills than good humans do.


user4388: In this 2015 article Magnus Carlsen agrees with the interviewer's claim that the best computers surpass human playing ability:

Interviewer: Both chess - and more recently the Asian game of Go - are now played better by computers than by humans, even by the very best like you. Does that take away the magic of brain games like chess?


Carlsen: Yes, to some extent it takes a bit of the mysticism away. But as for chess, we've known for a long time that computers are better, so the computer never has been an opponent. It's a tool to help me analyze and to help me improve at chess.

However, there are rare times when a human will play a move over the board that the engines being used by analysts in real time do not find.  For example, in this video analysis of Kramnik v Leko 2004 WCC Game 8, the commentator's engine fails to find Leko's brilliant move 25 ... Qd3.
[FEN ""]
[Event "2004 World Championship Match Game 8"]
[White "Vladimir Kramnik"]
[Black "Peter Leko"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6 12. d4 Bd6 13. Re1 Qh4 14. g3 Qh3 15. Re4 g5 16. Qf1 Qh5 17. Nd2 Bf5 18. f3 Nf6 19. Re1 Rae8 20. Rxe8 Rxe8 21. a4 Qg6 22. axb5 Bd3 23. Qf2 Re2 24. Qxe2 Bxe2 25. bxa6 Qd3 26. Kf2 Bxf3 27. Nxf3 Ne4+ 28. Ke1 Nxc3 29. bxc3 Qxc3+ 30. Kf2 Qxa1 31. a7 h6 32. h4 g4

This fact suggests that perhaps a world-class human player could occasionally find moves that improve the play of one of the best computers.  But it seems that for the most part, the human would go against the recommendation of the computer at great risk.  A centaur match today would probably be quite boring.

user825: Chess centaurs is not correspondence chess because centaur matches are played under the classical time controls. Unfortunately, centaurs is dead because the best strategy is just follow the engine moves.
In classical time controls, there's generally no advantage for human assistance. Humans are too slow, too clumsy etc ... we need more time.
This is 2018, centaurs matches are absolutely meaningless. They are like computer matches with dumb human intervention. Computer engines play stronger than human+computer unless the human player has sufficient time to digest the positions.
The answer to your question is the same ELO as the engine itself.

16118: <p>The last public ranking of chess centaurs was in <a href="http://www.infinitychess.com/Page/Public/Article/DefaultArticle.aspx?id=83" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2014</a>, and only compares centaurs to each other. As of 2018, what would be the ELO rating of the best centaurs compared to the best humans and chess engines?</p>

<p>This is similar to <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/15772/how-do-the-best-centaurs-compare-to-the-best-computers">this</a> question, but two differences:</p>

<ul>
<li>It is specifically about if centaurs beat computers, which is a subset of this question</li>
<li>The top answer is about a GM with a computer who does <em>not</em> have any training as a centaur, while we know that good centaurs have very different skills than good humans do.</li>
</ul>
 4388: <p>In <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/world-chess-champion-magnus-carlsen-the-computer-never-has-been-an-opponent/a-19186058" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this 2015 article</a> Magnus Carlsen agrees with the interviewer's claim that the best computers surpass human playing ability:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Interviewer: Both chess - and more recently the Asian game of Go - are now played better by computers than by humans, even by the very best like you. Does that take away the magic of brain games like chess?</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Carlsen: Yes, to some extent it takes a bit of the mysticism away. <strong>But as for chess, we've known for a long time that computers are better, so the computer never has been an opponent</strong>. It's a tool to help me analyze and to help me improve at chess.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, there are rare times when a human will play a move over the board that the engines being used by analysts in real time do not find.  For example, in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGnpewUKP88" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this video analysis</a> of <a href="https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1309482" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kramnik v Leko 2004 WCC Game 8</a>, the commentator's engine fails to find Leko's brilliant move 25 ... Qd3.</p>
<pre><code>[FEN &quot;&quot;]
[Event &quot;2004 World Championship Match Game 8&quot;]
[White &quot;Vladimir Kramnik&quot;]
[Black &quot;Peter Leko&quot;]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6 12. d4 Bd6 13. Re1 Qh4 14. g3 Qh3 15. Re4 g5 16. Qf1 Qh5 17. Nd2 Bf5 18. f3 Nf6 19. Re1 Rae8 20. Rxe8 Rxe8 21. a4 Qg6 22. axb5 Bd3 23. Qf2 Re2 24. Qxe2 Bxe2 25. bxa6 Qd3 26. Kf2 Bxf3 27. Nxf3 Ne4+ 28. Ke1 Nxc3 29. bxc3 Qxc3+ 30. Kf2 Qxa1 31. a7 h6 32. h4 g4
</code></pre>
<p>This fact suggests that perhaps a world-class human player could occasionally find moves that improve the play of one of the best computers.  But it seems that for the most part, the human would go against the recommendation of the computer at great risk.  A centaur match today would probably be quite boring.</p>
 825: <p>Chess centaurs is not correspondence chess because centaur matches are played under the classical time controls. Unfortunately, centaurs is dead because the best strategy is just follow the engine moves.</p>

<p>In classical time controls, there's generally no advantage for human assistance. Humans are too slow, too clumsy etc ... we need more time.</p>

<p>This is 2018, centaurs matches are absolutely meaningless. They are like computer matches with dumb human intervention. Computer engines play stronger than human+computer unless the human player has sufficient time to digest the positions.</p>

<p>The answer to your question is the <strong>same ELO as the engine itself</strong>.</p>
