Single Comment

The main difference between computers and GMs is that the latter search
selectively, and have very efficient unconscious heuristics for what to
select and what to ignore (prune). Computers have no insight what t prune,
and most attempts to make them do so have weakened their play. But now
hardware is so fast that they can afford to search everything, and this
bypasses the problem.

Also for the evaluation, Human pattern-recognition abilities are much
superior to computer evaluation functions. But it turns out extra search
depth can substitute for evaluation. It has been shown that even an
evaluation that is a totally random number unrelated to the position,
combined with a fairly deep search, will lead to reasonable play. (This
because the best of a large number of randoms is in general larger than
the best of a small number. So the search seeks out those nodes that have
many moves, and that usually are the positions where the most valuable
pieces are still on the board. So it will try to preserve those pieces.)

Making the branching ratio of a game larger merely means the search depth
gets lower. If this helps the Human or the computer entirely depends on if
the fraction of PLAUSIBLE moves, that even a Humancannot avoid considering,
increases less than proportional. Otherwise the search depth of the Human
might suffer even more than that of the computer. So it is not as simple
as you make it appear below.