[nimih]

That's a good point about non-determinism, although I wonder if there are known convergence/stability results in the ML literature that allow you to effectively ignore that detail (i.e. it seems plausible that you could get something like "human^n chess always stabilizes at some fixed amount of training time/computational power"). You can also just fix the randomization seed, but that's obviously a less satisfying result.

> The other thing that would compound this is that no current chess engine solves the game fully. There would be even more positions that have multiple “optimal” solutions if the engine only looks ahead to bounded x.

I'm not sure this is an obstacle; we're explicitly excluding the computer's preferred move, rather than the necessarily optimal move, after all. You could easily play human chess with the engine from (e.g.) Battle Chess, which honestly is sort of an interesting idea in its own right.