user4488: I know that the old good question about engines vs humans has been asked multiple times, e. g. here.
But what about random chess (aka Fischer chess or chess960)? Can humanity feel confortable about struggling machines in this game?
Do you know of plays or championships that throws any light about the question?

user15223: The engine.

It’s Chess960 time at the TCEC! (https://tcec-chess.com) The more I watch these games, the more I feel that the gap between humans and engines is even higher in Chess960 than in normal chess. I loved the opening phase of this game between two of the less famous engines on show. I’m not sure I would have thought of any of Black’s moves!

(Emphasis mine)

user17630: The machine, hands down. 
These days the machine is so incomparably stronger than a player, that even if a player comes up with a better long-term strategy, they will still lose to inevitably missing tactics.  Even if they don't outright drop material, they will overlook threats and walk into a situation where they need to concede positional advantage to not lose that material.
It's good to understand the role of Engines in human opening preparation.  Players would play through various lines against a computer looking for a good position, and using the engine to spot and avoid tactical problems for themselves, while laying tactical problems for the opponent.  Thus when they get to the board, if the line played out matches the studies of one player more than the other, they will instantly know which moves to play and the other is in danger of falling prey to the tactics uncovered by the machine.
This is why Fischer invented Random, to get away from excessive analysis.  It is impossible for a player to memorize 960 opening schemes.  Yet a computer is capable of memorizing, playing itself thousands of matches AFK.  But even if you throw that opening book out (and with the new generation following Alpha Zero, this doesn't even make sense) and elite players win the strategy of the opening, yet machines will crush them in the execution.

user4362: You have to understand, that a top ten player is superior to an engine in the opening, because he used engines to analyze openings for many years, and because engines usually don't have an opening book on the level of the preparation of a top player.
In chess 960 you basically take away the opening book for both players and at the very top this actually benefits the engine.
So I think there can be no doubt, that engines would be similarly superior in chess960 as in normal chess. But the only Human-Engine match I know of was still won by the human player: Peter Svidler vs Baron, 1,5:0,5 in the year of 2005.
Of course the big jump in engine strength only came with Rybka in the very same year 2005.

4488: <p>I know that the old good question about engines vs humans has been asked multiple times, e. g. <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1997/are-the-best-engines-better-than-the-best-humans">here</a>.</p>

<p>But what about random chess (aka Fischer chess or chess960)? Can humanity feel confortable about struggling machines in this game?</p>

<p>Do you know of plays or championships that throws any light about the question?</p>
 15223: <p><a href="https://matthewsadler.me.uk/engine-chess/chess960-superhumans/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The engine</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It’s Chess960 time at the TCEC! (<a href="https://tcec-chess.com" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://tcec-chess.com</a>) <strong>The more I watch these games, the more I feel that the gap between humans and engines is even higher in Chess960 than in normal chess.</strong> I loved the opening phase of this game between two of the less famous engines on show. I’m not sure I would have thought of any of Black’s moves!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(Emphasis mine)</p>
 17630: <p>The machine, hands down. </p>

<p>These days the machine is so incomparably stronger than a player, that even if a player comes up with a better long-term strategy, they will still lose to inevitably missing tactics.  Even if they don't outright drop material, they will overlook threats and walk into a situation where they need to concede positional advantage to not lose that material.</p>

<p>It's good to understand the role of Engines in human opening preparation.  Players would play through various lines against a computer looking for a good position, and using the engine to spot and avoid tactical problems for themselves, while laying tactical problems for the opponent.  Thus when they get to the board, if the line played out matches the studies of one player more than the other, they will instantly know which moves to play and the other is in danger of falling prey to the tactics uncovered by the machine.</p>

<p>This is why Fischer invented Random, to get away from excessive analysis.  It is impossible for a player to memorize 960 opening schemes.  Yet a computer is capable of memorizing, playing itself thousands of matches AFK.  But even if you throw that opening book out (and with the new generation following Alpha Zero, this doesn't even make sense) and elite players win the strategy of the opening, yet machines will crush them in the execution.</p>
 4362: <p>You have to understand, that a top ten player is superior to an engine in the opening, because he used engines to analyze openings for many years, and because engines usually don't have an opening book on the level of the preparation of a top player.</p>

<p>In chess 960 you basically take away the opening book for both players and at the very top this actually benefits the engine.</p>

<p>So I think there can be no doubt, that engines would be similarly superior in chess960 as in normal chess. But the only Human-Engine match I know of was still won by the human player: Peter Svidler vs Baron, 1,5:0,5 in the year of 2005.
Of course the big jump in engine strength only came with Rybka in the very same year 2005.</p>
